Poaching Museum Collections using Digital 3D Technologies
Abstract
This paper investigates the creative engagement with digital 3D models of museum artefacts and gives insight into new uses of museum collections enabled by digital scanning, editing and 3D printing technologies. Digital 3D models of museum artefacts are malleable and increasingly easy to use. Additionally, freely available 3D software has made 3D scanning, editing and manufacturing possible for non-specialists. These technologies allow users to create new artworks through the creation and transformation of digital replicas of museum artefacts. Examples of creative works, taken from two case studies that involve the creative use of digital reproductions of museum artefacts are presented in this paper. These projects are illustrative of a larger trend: the digital ‘poaching’ of heritage artefacts. This paper examines how digital 3D technologies can foster creative forms of museum engagement, democratise access to museum collections and engage users with personal forms of museum experience.References
Annis, S. (1986). The museum as a staging ground for symbolic action. Museum International, 38(3), 168-171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0033.1986.tb00637.x
Cameron, F. & Kenderdine, S. (Eds.). (2007). Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: a critical discourse. Massachusetts and London: MIT Press.
Certeau, M. de., & Rendall, S. (2002). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Davis, E. (2004). TechGnosis: myth, magic + mysticism in the age of information (Updated ed. ed.). London: Serpent's Tail.
Eco, U. (1990). Travels in Hyper Reality (W. Weaver, Trans.). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Fiske, J. (1998). Understanding popular culture. London: Routledge.
Gonzalez, D. (2015). Museum making: Creating with emerging technologies in art museums. Museums and the Web. Retrieved 11.11.2015, from http://mw2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/museum-making-creating-with-emerging-technologies-in-art-museums/
Goodman, N. (1969). Languages of Art. London: Oxford University Press.
Groys, B. (2008). Art Power. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Holmes, O. W. (1859). The Stereoscope and the Stereograph. The Atlantic Monthy, June, 3.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, London and New York: Routledge.
Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: a practical introduction. London: Routledge.
Keightley, E. & Pickering, M. (2012). The mnemonic imagination. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kosnik, A. de. (2012). Fandom as Free Labor. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: the Internet as playground and factory. London: Routledge.
Leighton, D. (2007). In the frame: investigating the use of mobile phone photography in museums. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 308-319. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.320
Lovejoy, M. (2004). Digital Currents. London: Routledge.
Marwick, A. (2013). Memes. Contexts, 12(4), 12-13. doi: 10.1177/1536504213511210
McCullough, M. (1996). Abstracting Craft: the practised digital hand. Massachusets: MIT Press.
Nightingale, V. (2007). The camera phone and online image sharing. Continuum, 21(2), 289-301.
Parry, R., Poole, N., & Pratty, J. (2010). Semantic Dissonance: do we need (and do we understand) the semantic web? In R. Parry (Ed.), Museums in a Digital Age. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Reeve, F. Cartwright, M. & Edwards, R. (Eds.). (2002). Supporting Lifelong Learning, Volume 2: Organizing learning. London, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sabiescu, A. Woolley, M. Cummings, C. & Prins, J. (2015). Online Maker Communities: Craft and Engagement with Cultural Heritage. Retrieved 11.11.2015, from https://culturalheritagecommunities.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/chcomm_2-0.pdf
Newell, J. Lythberg, B. & Salmond, A. (2012). Old objects, new media: Historical collections, digitization and affect. Journal of Material Culture, 17(3), 287-306.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: The Penguin Press.
Smith, A. (2003). Authenticity and Affect:When Is a Watch Not a Watch? Library Trends, 52(1), 172-182.
Soper, K. (2003). Humans, Animals, Machines. New Formations, 49(1), 99-109.
Thompson, K.M. (2008). The US information infrastructure and libraries: a case study in democracy. Library Review, 57(2), 96-106. doi: doi:10.1108/00242530810853982
Walsh, P. (2007). Rise and Fall of the Post-Photographic Museum: Technology and the Transformation of Art. In F. Cameron & S. Kenderdine (Eds.), Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse (pp. 19-34). Massachusetts/ London: MIT Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246. doi: 10.1177/135050840072002
Authors who publish in the CITAR Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
Copyrights to illustrations published in the journal remain with their current copyright holders.
It is the author's responsibility to obtain permission to quote from copyright sources.
Any fees required to obtain illustrations or to secure copyright permissions are the responsibility of authors.
