Attempting to make a model of an object instead of simply viewing one in an exhibition enhances our understanding of the object. It forces you to look at it from all angles and make sure that you are accurately capturing them. In photogrammetry, texture is super important.
Being able to model texture is what differentiates a 3d model from a picture. While both show the object, 3d models are able to be zoomed in on and inspected from many angles. Because of this, it’s a lot easier to inspect the surface of the object. When exploring the Virtual Hampson Museum’s Head Pot, it was super interesting to be able to zoom in and look at all it’s angles. In the 3d model you can see how deep the groves go over the eyes. You can look at the ear cartilage holes from both sides and see that they do go all the way through the ceramic. These nuances would be left out if the object was only on display and not able to be acessed through 3d imagery.
Moving from a passive to active modeler makes me understand how important the context surrounding an object is. It’s one thing to look at the image but if you are going to model it’s important to capture the details and be able to tell a full story. While creating the model of the well I am filled with questions. Where exactly was my object (a well) found? Who made it? What does it look like from all sides? What does this say about the culture that it came from? I realize that even if I was to put this on a website I’d want to give as much context for it as I can. I’d like to try and emulate the Smithsonian website. They do an amazing job of providing background information on their virtual objects.
As the project progresses, I’m excited to continue to learn more about the object and to continue developing my Digital Humanities skills.
7 thoughts on “Reflective Blog Post #6”
Comments are closed.
I like how mentioned that viewers are able to see parts of objects in 3D models that they wouldn’t see in real life if it were on display. It often seems like objects “are better in real life” or that the experience is better, and while that sentiment does have some weight, I think it’s important that we have access to both virtual and real life models.
A question I’ve been thinking about it is: as technology for photogrammetry improves, do museums have a responsibility to make their collections more accessible? How can they balance sharing their wealth of knowledge while also generating a profit. If photogrammetry could get even better, would a subscription based sharing of objects be possible? Would there be a market for it?
A subscription-based sharing of objects is an enticing idea and is somehow already implemented, although not profitable. The Smithsonian Learning Lab is an example. Nevertheless, it will be pretty difficult to ensure this is profitable because most museums are nonprofits funded by the government, school institutions, donations, etc. Although some museums have forms of generating revenue, like admission fees and cafe purchases, they still spend more money than they make. According to Independent Travel Cats (https://independenttravelcats.com/museum-donations-free-museums/), the average cost per visitor to an American art museum is $55 while the revenue per visitor is just $8. With these data, I worry whether a subscription-based platform will be profitable.
I like the emphasis on the value of modeling texture. I really found that seeing the texture and shape of objects in a three dimensional form caused me to think more about them. Another thing I found interesting was that creating the model led you to want to learn more about the object. I wonder if this is more true for modeling because of the way it is represented through recreation then, for example, closely examining it.
What I like most in your essay is you gave concrete examples of how a 3D model provides way more details than a display of the actual object: “In the 3d model you can see how deep the groves go over the eyes. You can look at the ear cartilage holes from both sides and see that they do go all the way through the ceramic.” This inspires me to look at the 3D models that I already saw but this time I will try to extract more details.
I really like your point that you can see different angles of objects on display in museums through 3D models of them, and that some of those angles would not be possible to see in real life. However, I still feel like 3D modeling does not capture the real experience. Even though the polygon count of models is really high it does not capture each small detail of the artwork. What is more, I feel like the atmosphere of museums makes appreciating art better/more enjoyable. Do you agree?
I totally agree that technology has the power to engage an audience. I think balancing technology and critical thinking is really important, especially because we’re transitioning to a more technologically advanced society.