This week’s reflection revolves around my experiences with photogrammetry and museum exhibitions. Before this week, I had not previously interacted with any digital museum databases, so the introduction to their extensiveness and usefulness was a valuable learning experience to walk away from. Our class is also navigating the process of photogrammetry ourselves, with small groups walking through the process in its entirety.
How does attempting to model an object compare to simply viewing one in an exhibition?
Like many students, I have had many experiences visiting museums throughout my life. Visualizing historical artifacts and relics can be a wonderful and enriching life event. However, museums can be limiting in that their presentation of objects generally includes restricting physical interaction with them. The things may be protected behind glass or several feet of distance, guarded by rope to prevent people from interacting physically with the object. Providing a digital model of objects through a museum’s website allows a broader audience to view these objects at a close range without fear of damaging the thing. This technology allows further study of delicate or valuable objects and appreciation from a wider audience.
Does the process of photogrammetry encourage close looking and attention to details you might otherwise have ignored?
Capturing images of a delicate artifact forced my group and me to consider new ways of perceiving objects. We spent additional time thinking about how to best capture the thing and what elements deserved more care. The process allowed us to spend more time with our object and appreciate the process other groups and organizations face when going through the photogrammetry process.
Does engaging with objects in this way make you more curious about this (and/or other) things, as well as the stories they can tell?
Interacting with this ancient object allowed me to contemplate the idea of sharing important things through photogrammetry. The idea that more than ancient artifacts hold value to individuals is accurate, so it is possible to share meaningful objects through 3D modeling software for the world to see in similar formats museums do. Software like this would open possibilities to tell people’s stories and reach a broad audience with their objects.
How does moving from passive observer to active modeler change your thinking on communicating about art and history to various publics?
There seems to be a delicate and appreciative process of gathering the images for a subsequent digital model of an object since the model will reflect the photographer’s perspective of it. That is why I believe that experiencing the process of sharing art personally changed my perspective by allowing me to want to present the art in its best form. Because I typically would be perceiving the art, it wasn’t easy to personalize the idea of presenting the art. However, this project has allowed me to modify this preconception and add value to how intricate the process of presenting works of art can be.
5 thoughts on “Museum Project Reflection”
Comments are closed.
It is a great point that presenting art is very different from perceiving art. Viewing the museum exhibitions requires interpretation, that is, to make sense of the artifact from various perspectives. However, by thinking about the artificial construction of the 3D model by taking tens of photographs as input, I believe that the 3D modeling presentation does not require such a mental process.
Your point about personalization resonates with me, as I find it hard to fully appreciate the art when taking pictures of it for photogrammetry. It is easier to fully appreciate the work if one is focused on its history and reality without being blinded by technology. The process definitely helps us understand all the people involved in the digitization process. I digitized my mom’s cassette tapes of her college vocal performances and it allowed me to more deeply understand and appreciate the process of digitization.
I enjoyed reading your answers to the questions posed. I agree that 3d modeling is an excellent way to ensure more engagement with museum objects, especially from a close-up view. Generally, I think digitalizing museum objects is a good way to allow people to learn about the culture of some places where they are unable to go. I’m curious to know the names of the museums where you were able to see relics. Which civilization did they come from?
I keep seeing one recurring theme throughout these posts: we are now the ones tasked with sharing stories. Our ability to present art as we want it, in the quality that we want, gives us as much power as those working for big institutions. This in itself is amazing, but even more impressive is our ability to make artifacts that were once confined to a glass box in a gallery available for anyone with a computer to see up close and personal.
I completely agree that 3D modeling museum items allow them to be viewed by a broader audience closely without the risk of breaking them. But I believe the best part of 3D virtual exhibitions is that it makes it possible to see pieces from the Louvre and the Met in the comfort of your own couch, for free. This is a valuable resource for schools and universities, and even for people who just want to learn more about art/ancient artifacts.