Modeling an object allows the viewer to look at specific detail on the object, whereas viewing it in an exhibition obviously prevents you from doing so. While modeling, one can view intricate details of the object that they might have overlooked in a museum/ typical setting. This is really neat to be able to see because one can feel a more personal and connected experience to the object they’re viewing. At a museum, however, they’re just one of many viewing an object from afar. Additionally, these little details might shed some insight into the history of the object itself. To be able to view tiny cracks, nicks and engravings might allow viewers to understand more about the object itself, the people that used it, and the larger cultural and historical context of the object’s era. One can learn a lot about these details in a way that one wouldn’t be able to see and experience at a museum.
Modeling is definitely more interactive. Additionally, it takes more time to take pictures of the object, take in its details, and clean it up, so one would have a more intimate relationship with the object. I think this requires a greater level of depth in detail when describing the piece to a larger audience. When communicating about art and history, I would like to instill the same type of closeness and proximity to the object that I had while modeling, which can only be communicated through a detailed description. This process definitely inspired a sense of curiosity in me; while we were modeling our object from the Perlman Teaching Museum, we wondered who might’ve purchased these objects and where they were from. It definitely inspired us to ask questions that we would’ve never even thought to ask before!
4 thoughts on “Museum Project Experience”
Comments are closed.
I agree that seeing the object gives you a slightly greater sense of its history than a 3d model, especially because it can be challenging to understand the size of the object when viewing it without context. I like your point that a detailed description is really important when it comes to displaying these objects—they have so much history that can’t be captured just by looking at them.
I like your comment about trying to instill the same type of closeness that you achieved while making the 3d model in other forms of communication about art and history. I think it is easy when sharing information, especially in an academic setting, to assume a position that is somewhat removed and reserved but the intimacy with a topic or object is what I think sparks a lot of the curiosity that makes people passionate about learning and engaging with history.
I agree with you that the modeling process provide many chances to engage with the object and observe details. I like your idea that it would be great if the public could also establish the intimacy, but I wonder how that could be achieved. The question of the donor and source of those objects are great and I think we could post that to omeka.
I like how you mention that getting the closer look and seeing the details of the object helps fill in the historical context of the object. 3D modeling helps us get that look. I also think it may spark more questions on why some of the some cracks or holes may have formed.