Bringing Heritage Sites to Life for Visitors: Towards A Conceptual Framework for Immersive Experience

Abstract

This article aims to explore the ways in which heritage sites can be brought to life for visitors through immersive experience, and attempts to build a conceptual framework. It is based on a multidisciplinary project carried out by scholars of different backgrounds, which means that it relied more on knowledge and expertise sharing, rather than statistical data, even though a further research on consumer behaviour is planned. In heritage sites, the tangible aspects enable first-hand experience with the phenomena, providing a strong sense of reality. On the other hand, intangible aspects, which can be felt and evoked through the medium of heritage, are equally important. The sense of place is generated by those feelings and the meaning as a product of interpretation obtained by first-hand experiences as well as any kind of medium. Getting sense of place is based on physical features making the place special or unique, stories and memories abiding connection to the place, as well as the spirituality or spectral aspects also called as hauntings. The essence of heritage interpretation lies in bringing the meaning to the surface as a result of cultural interfaces and engagements with our environment. The conceptual framework is threefold tackling with phenomenological, narrative and semantic levels of exploration, storytelling and meaning making. This article helps to elucidate the nascent field of immersive heritage exploring the experience (physical vs. virtual), the narratives (content vs. context) and the meaning (interpretation vs. action). In doing so, it suggests the ways in which immersive heritage can build up meaningful relationships in understanding and valuing heritage sites while enriching our experience through the absent presence between the physical and imaginary worlds.

Keywords

• Immersive experience,heritage tourism,absent presence,sense of place,storytelling,meaning making

Supporting Institution

British Academy - Newton Fund (Newton Mobility Grants)

Project Number

NMGR1180505

Thanks

This research is undertaken as a part of the project (NMGR1180505 - A Tale of Two Cities: Investigating the Use of Virtual Reality to Connect Consumers to Culture) funded by British Academy for Newton Mobility Grants 2018-19 RD1 (Newton Fund).

References

1. Askin, R. (2009). Mneme, anamnesis and mimesis: The function of narrative in Paul Ricoeur’s theory of memory. FIAR: Forum for Inter-American Research, 2(1). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://interamerica.de/current-issue/askin/#more-193
2. Atkin, A. (2006). There's no place like "here" and no time like "now". American Philosophical Quarterly, 43(3), 271-280.
3. Bal, M. (2009). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
4. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82.
5. Barcelo, J. A. (2009). Computational Intelligence in Archaeology. New York: The IGI Group.
6. Barthes, R. (1976). The Pleasure of the Text (R. Milter, Trans.). New York: Hilland Wang.
7. Barthes, R., & Duisit, L. (1975). An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 237-272.
8. Beckmann, J. (Ed.) (1998). The Virtual Dimension: Architecture, Representation and Crash Culture (pp. 145–155). New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

9. Belsey, C. (2002). Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/actrade/9780192801807.001.0001
10. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
12. Brogni, B., Avizzano, C., Evangelista, C., & Bergamasco, M. (1999). Technological approach for cultural heritage: Augmented reality. In: RO-MAN ’99: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interaction, pp. 206–212.
13. Bryman, A. (1995). Disney and His Worlds. London: Routledge.
14. Bucher, J. (2017). Storytelling for Virtual Reality: Methods and Principles. New York and Oxon: Routledge.
15. Byrne, W. (2019, August 6). What is digital storytelling and what has it got to do with cultural heritage?, Europeana Pro. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://pro.europeana.eu/post/what-is-digital-storytelling-and-what-has-it-got-to-do-with-cultural-heritage
16. Ciolfi, L. (2015). Embodiment and Place Experience in Heritage Technology Design. In M. Henning (Ed.), The International Handbook of Museum Studies: Museum Media (pp. 419–446). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
17. Crang, M. (2001). Rhythms of the city: Temporalised space and motion. In N. Thrift & J. May (Eds.), Timespace: geographies of temporality (pp. 187-207). London: Routledge.
18. Cret, P. P. (1941). The Ecol des Beux-Arts and architectural education. Journal of the American Society of Architectural Historians, 1(2), 3-15.
19. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.
20. Csordas, T. J. (1993). Somatic modes of attention. Cultural Anthropology, 8, 135-156. doi:10.1525/can.1993.8.2.02a00010
21. Dastur, F. (2006). Derrida and the question of presence. Research in Phenomenology, 36, 45-62.
22. Davis, C. (2005). Hauntology, spectres and phantoms. French Studies, 59(3), 373-379.
23. Deleuze, G. (1990). Plato and the Simulacrum. The Logic of Sense (M. Lester, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
24. Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs (D. B. Allison, Trans.). Evanston: Nortwestern University Press.
25. Derrida, J. (1994). Specters of Marx (P. Kamuf, Trans.). New York and London: Routledge.
26. Derrida, J. (1997). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27. Domínguez, E. (2017). Going beyond the classic news narrative convention: The background to and challenges of immersion in journalism. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 4(10). doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2017.00010.
28. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29. Dubbelman, T. (2011). Playing the hero: How games take the concept of storytelling from representation to presentation. Journal of Media Practice, 12(2), 157-172.
30. Edensor, T. (2012). Vital urban materiality and its multiple absences: The building stone of central Manchester. Cultural Geographies, 20(4), 447–465.
31. Fahmi, W. S. (2008). Glocal Heterotopias: Neo-. Flaneur's Narratives within transit spaces. In P.M. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism and Mobilities: Local-Global Connection (pp. 33-64). Oxfordshire: CAB International Publishing.
32. Farman, J. (2014). Storytelling with mobile media: Exploring the intersection of site-specificity, content, and materiality. In G. Goggin & L. Hjorth (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Mobile Media (pp. 528-537). New York and Oxon: Routledge.
33. Fisher, M. (2012). What is hauntology? Film Quarterly, 66(1), 16-24.
34. Flynn, B. (2008). Augmented visualisation: Designing experience for an interpretative cultural heritage. In 12th International Conference on Information Visualisation, pp. 447-452.
35. Gallix, A. (2011, June 17). Hauntology: A not so critical manifestation. The Guardian. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jun/17/hauntology-critical
36. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Constructionism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37. Gergen, K. J. (2002). The Challenge of Absent Presence. In J. E. Katz & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 227-241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489471.018.
38. Gerrig, R.J. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.
39. Gillings, M. (2000). Plans, elevations and virtual worlds: The development of techniques for the routine construction of hyperreal simulations. In J.A. Barceló, M. Forte, D.H. Sanders (Eds.), Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series 843.
40. Gordon, A. (1997). Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. London: University of Minnesota Press.
41. Goulding, C., Saren, M., & Pressey, A. (2018). ‘Presence’ and ‘absence’ in themed heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 71, 25-38.
42. Gregoric, P. (2007). Aristotle on the common sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Hannoum, A. (2005). Paul Ricoeur on Memory. Theory Culture & Society, 22(6), 123–137.
44. Hopkins, J. N. (2016). The Genesis of Roman Architecture. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.
45. Hurst, A. (2017). Post-Structuralism. Literary and Critical Theory. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0008. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0008.xml#firstMatch
46. Husserl, E. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und Phänomenologischen Philosophie (Erstes Buch). The Hague: Niemeyer.
47. ICOMOS (2008). The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. 16th General Assembly of ICOMOS, Québec (Canada). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.icomos.org/charters/interpretation_e.pdf
48. Interpret Europe (2017). Engaging citizens with Europe’s cultural heritage: How to make best use of the interpretive approach. Witzenhausen: Interpret Europe.
49. Jaén, S. O., & Landa, J. A. G. (1996). Narratology: An Introduction. New York: Longman.
50. Jahn, M. (2005). Narratology: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative. English Department, University of Cologne. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.htm
51. Jang, S-A., Baik, K., & Ko. H. (2016). Muru in Wonderland: An Immersive Video Tour with Gameful Character Interaction for Children. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 173-176.
52. Kidd, J. (2018). “Immersive” heritage encounters. The Museum Review, 3(1). Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://articles.themuseumreview.org/tmr_vol3no1_kidd
53. Lee, Y. S. (2001). Tourist gaze: Universal concept. Tourism Culture & Communication, 3(2), 93-99.
54. Lehnes, P. (2016). It’s philosophy, Tim, but we love the World. In P. Lehnes & J. Carter (Eds.), Digging Deeper: Exploring the Philosophical Roots of Heritage Interpretation. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://www.interpretingheritage.eu/sites/default/files/InHerit_Ebook_1.pdf
55. Liritzis, I., Al-Otaibi, F.M., Volonakis, P., & Drivaliari, A. (2015). Digital technologies and trends in cultural heritage. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 15(3), 313-332.
56. MacDonald, W. L. (1986). The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal. New Haven: Yale University Press.
57. Machidon, O. M., Duguleana, M., & Carrozzino, M. (2018). Virtual humans in cultural heritage ICT applications: A review. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 33, 249–260.
58. McAdams, D.P. (1993). The Stories We Live by. New York: The Guilford Press.
59. Meier, L., Frers, L., & Sigvardsdotter, E. (2013). The importance of absence in the present: Practices of remembrance and the contestation of absences. Cultural Geographies, 20(4), 423–430.
60. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.
61. Perry, S., Katifori, A., Karvounis, M., Economou, M., Young, H., Tost, L. P., & Roussou, M. (2017). D3.1 – User Requirements & Scenarios – Alpha. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://emotiveproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EMOTIVE_D3.1_UserReqs-ScenariosA_v1.0.pdf
62. Pittock, M. (2018). The Scottish Heritage Partnership: Immersive Experiences. Policy Report. University of Glasgow. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_640683_smxx.pdf
63. Pittock, M. (2019, February 6). Tourist attractions are being transformed by immersive experiences – some lessons from Scotland. The Conversation. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://theconversation.com/tourist-attractions-are-being-transformed-by-immersive-experiences-some-lessons-from-scotland-110860
64. Rahaman, H. (2018). Digital heritage interpretation: A conceptual framework. Digital Creativity, 29, 208-234.
65. Rahaman, H., & Tan, B. K. (2009). Interactive space: Searching for a dual physical-virtual world. In T-W. Chang, E. Champion, S-F. Chien & S-C. Chiou (Eds.), 14th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architecture Design Research in Asia (pp. 669-678). Yunlin, Taiwan.
66. Ratté, C. (2001). New research on the urban development of Aphrodisias in late antiquity. Journal of Roman Archaeology -Supplementary Series, 45, 116-147.
67. Rojek, C. (1993). Ways of Escape. Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel. London: Macmillan.
68. Rome Reborn (n.d.). About us. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.romereborn.org/content/aboutcontact
69. Rose, M., & Wylie, J. (2006). Animating landscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 475–479.
70. Roussou, M., Ripanti, F., & Servi, K. (2017). Engaging visitors of archaeological sites through “EMOTIVE” storytelling experiences: A pilot at the ancient agora of Athens. Journal of Archeologia E Calcolatori, 28(2), 405–420.
71. Schwind, V., Knierim, P., Haas, N., & Henze, N. (2019). Using Presence Questionnaires in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300590
72. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 737–757.
73. Smith, L. (2012). Discourses of heritage: Implications for archaeological community practice. Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos [En ligne], Questions du temps présent, mis en ligne le 05 Octobre 2012, consulté le 15 Juin 2019. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from http://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/64148
74. Spivak, G. C. (1997). Translator's Preface, Of Grammatology. By Jacques Derrida (pp. ix – xxxvi). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
75. Terkenli, T. S. (2002). Landscapes of tourism: Towards a global cultural economy of space? Tourism Geographies, 4(3), 227–254.
76. Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
77. Todorov, T. (1969). Grammaire du Décaméron. The Hague: Mouton.
78. Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
79. Vit-Suzan, I. (2016). Architectural Heritage Revisited: A Holistic Engagement of its Tangible and Intangible Constituents. London: Routledge.
80. Wheatley, D., & Gillings, M. (2000). Vision Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. In G. Lock (Ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies (pp.1-27). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
81. Wright, G. R. H. (1999). Classical landscape with ruins - a Turkish setting. Anatolica, 25, 1-19.
82. Young, S. J. (2017). Poleis in Asia Minor: The Observer Through Time (from the 2nd Century B.C. to 3rd Century A.D.). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.