Rather than simply ramble on here, I’ve created a Tapestry presentation in which I ramble on about digital mediums and the ways we tell stories.
Rather than simply ramble on here, I’ve created a Tapestry presentation in which I ramble on about digital mediums and the ways we tell stories.
I am all for interactivity in museums. I would (personally) argue that being able to engage with the subject matter is by far more interesting than simply reading about it. For example, let’s take a trip down memory lane, to the Canadian Museum of Nature circa 1998. There was a fossil-excavation exhibit where you could use some replica tools to search for dinosaur bones in a big pit of sand. There was an active beehive in the building where you could see the inner-workings of a hive and how the bees acted within. These two “exhibits” always fascinated me as a child because you could go beyond that initial cold textual interface of plaques and charts and actually get a feel for the stuff. Contrast this instance of the museum to today, what do we find? Grand skeletons and things that are visually stunning, but much of the interactivity has been lost. The dinosaurs, which are everyone’s favorite (right?), have been formalized in order to project that “world-class” feel that the new iteration of the museum is attempting to exude. The bees are gone, replaced by images and the occasional dead maquette. Where is the interactivity? Now mind you I understand that this anecdote focuses on something, perhaps, beyond the realm of public history but the problems are the same: how does an institution like a museum balance interactivity and engagement with the expression of information in such a way as to not detract from the exhibits in either peoples’ interest or their understanding?
*Enter AR stage left*
I think there is a lot of promise in the incorporation of augmented reality and museum exhibits. Let’s take the example of the ROM’s dinosaur exhibit as seen here. This idea is great. Imagine the fun younger people would have being able to see the dinosaurs move, being able to see what they look like with flesh! Heck, I want to go see this now and I’m apparently an adult! My only issue with this approach is the gimmicky nature of it. I imagine that the visual component is rather interesting the first time you see it but the use of AR here is not breaking any boundaries. Anyone who has seen Jurassic Park knows that you can show video of moving dinosaurs on a TV or projected screen, the use of tablet computers (I think) is more of a change in medium rather than some inspiring new approach to content. This being said I still think that many people would be drawn in by this fun new trick, but ultimately there is a need for something more profound and engaging, something that allows the public to get involved in the “public” history.
*Enter QRator stage right*
Here we go! This is engaging. Take the versatility of the tablet computer/super-phone and the fact that they are relatively widespread among museum patrons and what do you have? An opportunity to invite the public into each exhibit, allowing them to get involved in some way. Asking questions and making comments about exhibits may seem pretty mundane, and perhaps it reminds us of the folly of the ROM’s AR attempt in that commenting has been available for a while through other means (paper?). I would argue, alternatively, that this is not a matter of simply leaving comments, but of allowing patrons to experience each other’s opinions and thoughts selectively and in relative real-time. This may be a small start, but I think it is in the right direction.
The problem I am seeing here is that we seem to be hitting a wall in creativity. We are thinking of different ways to utilize this new technology, but these ideas are not new. For the most part they are more complex reiterations of old methods. TV or Tablet? Paper or Smartphone? Those creating and developing public exhibitions using new technology are perhaps bound by traditional ways of thinking, experiencing trepidation over what the public will and will not accept as innovative in historical expressions. We think interactive but not imaginative, interesting but not innovative. Ultimately it may be up to the up-and-coming historians and curators to think of engaging new ways of presenting history though new media. Who could be germinating the next big idea in our brainboxes? Probably not me, but maybe you!
TLDR: Like using a Star Trek joke in your header, recent AR experiments are interesting but not innovative.
I am definitely one of those people who enjoys playing video games that have an historic theme or which are tentatively based in some historical period. Having overheard some of my friends’ discussions on the subject I began to think of how problematic these games can be for historians. To the average person games like Call of Duty appear as “historical” games, because they are largely (Infinity Ward’s “Modern Warfare debacle notwithstanding) set in our own observable past: primarily the Second World War and the Cold War. Likewise games like Company of Heroes, Day of Defeat, Age of Empires, Empire Earth, and the entire Total War series feature an interpreted historical setting as well. I have found that many people dislike the association between taking place in the past and being historical. Arguably these games do not really deal with history as academia understands it, but rather utilize the popularity of some of the more famous topics of historical study as a springboard from which to propel their game’s story. Call of Duty, for example, can exist entirely without the historical context. Replace Axis soldiers with aliens and the fields of Central Europe with some distant alien landscape and the game’s fundamental elements are unscathed. Same can be true for most of the games I have listed. These are not works of history but rather creative projects which use history as a means of enhancing the story-telling. There is a fear that these games distort the casual understanding of historical events. Call of Duty (I understand that I’m beginning to sound like a broken record but give me a chance) depicts the Second World War in very black-and-white terms, Allies good, Axis bad. There is not expression of the horrors of war, no levels that force the player to sit in a cold tent, no mini-games to stave off frostbite and shell-shock. Players simply advance and kill. Shoot people until you reach the next ledge, only then will you be secure in the fact that your saved game is slightly closer to your current position. What right do these games (which have easily surpassed film and television in sales and [maybe?] audience) have to misrepresent such important events?
I’ve painted for you a pretty cantankerous picture of video games and history, and honestly I often have this worry about games myself but recently I have begun to think about the positives of such mediums. What about those people who question the legitimacy of these games? What about those few who play Call of Duty and want to learn more about what’s going on in-game? I ask this because I’ve been there. I remember playing Age of Empires and wondering what the heck actually happened that inspired such a game. Realistically I first became interested in learning some of the relevant histories because I was an exceptionally un-creative child and wanted ideas for campaign editing. I remember taking out books on ancient Carthage, Rome, and, later, Medieval England. These books provided me with the information necessary to create interesting levels and campaigns with the in-game level editor. Wouldn’t you know it if the stuff wasn’t pretty interesting. These books were designed for someone my age (about 8-12) and were a stepping stone to some deeper learning later on.
So what am I rambling on about here? Basically I am not too worried about the misuse of history in video games. Sure Age of Empires isn’t historically accurate, and of course Call of Duty is a gross misrepresentation of the war, but perhaps some of the people who enjoy these titles as entertainment will take it upon themselves to look further into the bits that interested them. Maybe, just maybe they will continue down the path that this curiosity paves for them.
If I could tell my 12 year-old self that I would be ranting about my experiences on Age of Empires to ones of tens of people on the internet I’m sure he would be impressed.
Here’s looking at you [me] kid!
In preparation for today’s post I, along with some of my classmates, adventured to the “Learning Lab” in our university’s library to visit our new 3D printers. I should start off by expanding on what exactly the “Learning Lab” is. The Learning Lab is a section of our university’s library that is focused on providing new, technologically-integrated means to approach studies. Basically it is a repository of neat gadgets that the average person couldn’t hope to afford to posses on their own. In addition to the 3D printers I will shortly discuss, the Lab also has several large, high-def TVs and game consoles as well as reading treadmills and assorted other gizmos to tinker with. The premise, as far as I understand, is to allow students the opportunity to use new technology in their studies without having to cover the costs of keeping up-to-date on the hardware.
The 3D printer is an example of a new piece of technology that most students could not afford. Coming in at around $2 000 a unit 3D printers are just beginning to appear as consumer products, but we are still a few years away from seeing a 3D printer in every home. So while I don’t think I can rationalize printing my own custom board game pieces yet, I can see a use for these machines as historical tools.
While I fully support the use of augmented reality in the presentation of historical objects and places, I think that there is definitely something gained from the tactile interaction with a physical object, something largely lacking in completely virtual recreations. 3D printers could, in theory, provide a useful supplement to virtual renderings. Imagine having the virtual image of an ancient coin. You could look at it from all angles thanks to the 3D rendering on your smart device, see the colour and shading of it and where the metal had been pressed, but you may not truly get a feel for its size or shape. Include a relatively inexpensive 3D printed replica of the coin and you have bridged the gap between representation and the real object. Obviously there are limitations to this process. A printed coin would not weigh the same nor be made of the same material and thusly would have a different texture, but the sizing could be extrapolated appropriately and so could the shape as well. This artificial totem could be incorporated into the virtual experience, enriching the overall process of identifying and learning about historical objects.
TLDR: Our school has a cool 3D printer and I can’t wait to put it to use engaging with history!
A warm welcome to my fellow classmates and the 2.5 other people who may, through the eons of time, eventually unearth and read these words. This will be the first of (I hope) many posts, some of which will discuss my experiences working with my colleagues of HIST 5702 X, others will reflect on my own research, others still may simply relate to interesting topics I have come across in the daily goings on of an awkward grad student. Before getting into the nitty-gritty of my involvement with digital history, perhaps a short foray into my own interests as an historian.
As a historian I am interested in how people in the past understood their own place in time, specifically how they viewed themselves and their society in relation to their past and their future. I am also interested in the medium in which this temporal perception is expressed. These expressions can range from works of fiction to works of art. My own studies revolve around the latter. My early interest in this subject, however, stems from something a little more contemporary.
Age of Empires! The amount of time I have sunk into playing this game as a child (and still often do) is staggering. This was my first real experience with interactive, “digital” history. I can, with a fair degree of certainty, say that Age of Empires and Indiana Jones are what first peaked my interest in history. Growing up these were the sorts of games I played. Some of the big ones were Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Company of Heroes: games where you could rewrite history as you saw fit were my prime choice. I was, like I imagine many other people were, interested in the realities of these events. I remember playing a particularly interesting mission in Age of Empires: Hannibal’s crossing the alps. I found it fascinating and craved more on the subject. Reading every book I found I quickly realized that many of these games had scenario editors wherein I could create my own campaigns. This tool, combined with the many books I had found at the library allowed me to attempt, with varying degrees of success, to recreate the histories I found on text in the game. This would be my first real stab at historical production/recreation.
HIST 5702 will not be my first encounter with digital history as a scholarly approach. Having previously taken two of Dr. Graham’s courses I have already come in contact with the rich and ever-expanding world of the digital humanities. My positive experience in these courses is largely the reason for my enrollment in the current instance of digital history. Hearkening back to my days as an avid Age of Empires player I continue to be interested in mediums which present history via an alternative to text. Additionally, having a general lack of experience with the public historical approach to history, I am interested to see how new mediums are used and the processes that go into the creation of historical work outside the familiar realm of papers and presentations.
My own use of technology in my work is fairly in-depth. I am an avid user of Dropbox and Google Drive, as well as Instapaper, and Presi . I am very intrigued by the possibilities presented by Zotero, to which I have just been introduced. I think that this up coming semester will provide a lot of challenges to my default way of thinking about historical projects, however I am certain that the new tools I will receive and the means to use them will ultimately prove to be immeasurably beneficial to myself and the way I practice history.
TLDR: I’m very excited to be involved in this project and am looking forward to enriching my own understanding of the historical practice as well as learning from my classmates in the application of public history. Also, “Age of Empires.”