Graphics and Archaeology: Interpreting the Past

Snowbird, Utah
20-23 May 2000

 

Panel:

Showing Off: Presenting the Results

Presenters:

  • Duncan Brown
  • Lon Addison
  • Anne Solomon
  • Paulo Bernardes
  • Kevin Cain
  • Rebecca Christel

Presentation Resources:

Summary:

  • Scribe's note - this was a difficult discussion to transcribe. Elements below are in chronological order, but no position presentation is called out because this format did not last through the entire session.

Duncan started off the discussion asking for a definition of audiences. He broke it down to:

  • informed audience - prior expertise
  • people who need to be informed

The key is the democratizing the understanding of the past.

Rebecca looked at audiences, too. "Visual representations give those not involved in the project a way to comprehend what's being done as well as what the site looked like when it was 'alive'." These audiences included funding boards, TV documentaries, docu-dramas, "eco-tours", and games. She went on to ask "why do we need to present our results to an audience?" Clearly funding (to get started), sustainability (continued funding), marketable products (archaeological tools [where to dig next?], games, edutainment), and as an aid to understanding concepts (the archaeological context of the environment and how it interacts with the real world.

Kevin looked at some of the possibilities and pitfalls of computer graphics and historical reconstruction. After giving some of his background context, he looked at various genres:

  • feature film / video game production - highly produced, but hardly accurate
  • museum work - often correct, but not always engaging
  • CGI field work - very accurate, but technically demanding and untested

Is film quality too much to shoot for in other territories?

Lon contrasted the low-end of graphics versus the high-end. Democratization - how do you get it out to the masses? Duncan responded that we need to engage our audience, but not patronize them. This raised the question of whether or not the audience could/should participate in interpretation of the data. Also, consider the implication of Apple's thrust to push digital movies?

Ruth said that they've found that engaging students with a combination of computer work and practical work is the most effective approach - there was a higher level of engagement. Lon asked if we even needed computer technology? Ruth thought that it transported them to another real successfully. Duncan noted that that could be done with a successful storyteller, too. There is a problem of presenting images as fact. Holding an ancient artifact versus a visual presentation - there is less scope for misunderstanding.

Rebecca noted that CGI is just another form of story telling - each one is vulnerable to its pitfalls of storytelling. Lon wondered when are traditional tools equally or more effective than [seductive] technologies. For example, the Field Museum is rolling out an $8M dinosaur, Sue. Should we be worried that people think that something that costs this much should be exciting?

It was noted that the Hayden Museum bought Reality Monsters - they will be the ones obsolete in a few years, while "Sue" will last 50 years! TV documentaries don't need to be flashy 3D presentations - they should be about the story, not just the visual actors. Lon looked at Digitalo's VRND Notre Dame, Berkeley's Massa Web/Projections (making it an event for the public, especially for the public who may not be connected to the Internet), ARCH Foundation Salzburg projections, and the Projection Kiosk at Ename Center (an augmented reality projection onto the foundations of the site). Lon would like to see people more engaged by interactive participation; there is enormous potential for interest.

Is it better to have people experience things virtually or in real life, where virtual visits could protect the real artifact from degradation. Ruth thought it depends upon who it was neat for? "It's about the thrill." This spawned a rash of comments:

  • education versus engagement - how do we help local people to understand the significance of the ruins in their area?
  • the sad truth is the popular masses want to be entertained
    • movies versus museums
    • entertainment en masse
    • the majority of the mass want to be diverted
  • are you doing research for your audience or for the inquiry itself?
    • you need to be sophisticated as your audience
    • low-end CG for your analysis
    • high-end CG for your selling/engagement
  • the goal is to educate the populace to have a context before they see the real thing - it can be equally entertaining in having a context
  • museums are places to be informed - cinemas are for entertainment
  • edutainment?
  • when one wants to be entertained - it means making yourself receptive to change, to being engaged

A comment came out about artistic reconstructions. When it was done with conventional art, it was more acceptable. Computer graphics realism can be perceived as misleading - a sort of "inter-texturality".

Marc brought up Carl Sagan - so many made arguments against his astronomy, yet he popularized science and had to live in that shadow. Paul noted a perspective from Indiana Jones - "you call this archaeology?" It is important to identify the relevant archaeological details to the audience.

The final comment was a call to define entertainment? There are different things that we call entertainment. The question is what is worth my time? If I know it's worth my time, then I'll go to your museum.

To this there is never an easy answer. Duncan clearly saw the need to continue to have this cross-discipline discussion.

Conclusions / Issues:

  • Are certain techniques [of presentation] appropriate for the general public?
    • helping them to understand what archaeology is really about?
    • political versus commercial motives?
  • How many archaeologists even knew about this weekend?
    • perhaps we're overlooking the entire archaeological community?
  • People are interested in the process, especially at how we arrive at our interpretations
    • this analogous to the DVD movies that have parallel commentary - high interest in this format
  • We've lost contact with our popular audience
    • Titanic - people connected to the study - tragedies attract the engagement of many interested people
  • Can the audience be an equal partner in the archeaological interpretation of data - is this possible?
  • Is it better to have people experience things virtually or in real life?
    • virtual visits would protect sites from degradation
  • The audience that should be addressed is archaeologists before the general public

 

[ Previous ] [ Index ] [ Next ]