Preserving Authenticity in Virtual Heritage

Abstract

This chapter examines why we wish to preserve heritage objects and practices via virtual heritage, and why the issue of authenticity is so important here but so seldom addressed. If we could give criteria to select and to create useful and even authentic-oriented virtual heritage projects, what would they be? Or are there methods and solutions out there waiting to be discovered?

Immersive Learning for Lost Architectural Heritage: Interweaving the Past and Present, Physical and Digital in the Monastery of Madre de Deus

“…Additionally, some criticism has emerged about international guidelines such as the London Charter and Seville Principles for having exhibited an excessive preoccupation with recreating the original as the primary determinant of cultural authenticity [40]. Instead, researchers have suggested that any definition of authenticity is itself based on evolving, often highly subjective criteria depending on different individual or collective opinions, cultural contexts, societal changes, and differing value systems that are impossible to define in a universal way [40][41][42]. Authenticity for many researchers, therefore, is not only about faithful representations of the past but also a much more dynamic process including (1) how these pasts are constructed, (2) the development of a virtual heritage project itself, and (3) the living experiences of those who are intended to find meaning in it [41].…”

“…Instead, researchers have suggested that any definition of authenticity is itself based on evolving, often highly subjective criteria depending on different individual or collective opinions, cultural contexts, societal changes, and differing value systems that are impossible to define in a universal way [40][41][42]. Authenticity for many researchers, therefore, is not only about faithful representations of the past but also a much more dynamic process including (1) how these pasts are constructed, (2) the development of a virtual heritage project itself, and (3) the living experiences of those who are intended to find meaning in it [41]. This understanding of authenticity shares UNESCO's reformulation of criteria for listing objects and sites as world heritage that was advanced in the Nara Conference of 1994 [43].…”

“…There is a diversity of opinions about what it constitutes, and the criteria of scientific value judgments are increasingly prone to debate. As contemporary researchers continue to decipher and tell the past, it is important to acknowledge not only their own historical perspective biases but also the potential contradictory cultural contexts in which historic research is embedded since judgements and criteria of authenticity differ greatly across cultural perspectives [40][41][42].…”

“…For this, questionnaires, observations, and interviews provide the most popular empirical options to evaluate the learning outcomes and engagement of virtual heritage [92]. These methods may also serve as an important step in gauging the public's reception of research authenticity [41].…”

Novel Bayesian Inference-Based Approach for the Uncertainty Characterization of Zhang’s Camera Calibration Method

“…Photogrammetry mainly involves the precise measurement of three-dimensional objects and terrain features from two-dimensional photos [ 1 ]. Topographical mapping, architecture, engineering, manufacturing, quality control, police investigation, defense, agriculture, geology, film and games industries are some of the areas where photogrammetry is used [ 2 ].…”