Kültürel Belleğin Dijitalleşmesi: Sanal Gerçeklik (VR) Tabanlı Müzecilikte İletişim Modelleri

Öz

Bu makale, kültürel belleğin dijitalleşme sürecini sanal gerçeklik (VR) teknolojileriyle bütünleştiren sanal müzelerdeki yeni iletişim modellerini incelemektedir. Kültürel mirasın korunması ve erişilebilirliğinin artırılmasında dijital teknolojilerin önemi giderek artmaktadır. Sanal gerçeklik, ziyaretçilere zenginleştirilmiş deneyimler sunarak kültürel unsurların daha etkili bir şekilde aktarılmasını sağlamaktadır. Araştırmanın amacı, VR teknolojilerinin sanal müzelerde kullanıcı deneyimini nasıl yeniden şekillendirdiğini ve kültürel belleğin sürdürülebilirliğine nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktır. Araştırmada döküman incelemesi ile iletişim sosyolojisindeki yorumlayıcı metot kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda, uluslararası görünürlüğe sahip sanal müze platformlarından belirlenen 16 müze, erişilebilirlik, etkileşim düzeyi, içerik zenginliği, tasarım ve kültürel hassasiyet gibi ölçütlere göre analiz edilmiştir. Bu müzeler analiz edilerek mevcut iletişim modelleri değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada, VR teknolojilerinin ziyaretçilerde daha güçlü duygusal bağlar oluşturduğu ve kültürel bilgiyi daha kalıcı hale getirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra, VR uygulamalarının tarihsel bağlamları daha etkileyici bir biçimde sunduğu ve kullanıcı katılımını artırdığı gözlemlenmiştir. Sanal gerçeklik tabanlı sanal müzeler [360° web tabanlı sanal tur/ VR Panoramik Deneyimler], kültürel belleğin sürdürülebilirliğinde önemli bir rol oynamakta ve yeni iletişim modelleriyle toplumsal hafızanın dijital dönüşümüne katkı sağlamaktadır. Çalışma, bu alanda gelecekteki araştırmalara yön verebilecek bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Makalede, sanal müze deneyimleri ve sanal tur teknolojilerinin müzelerde kullanıcı etkileşimini nasıl dönüştürdüğü ele alınmış; bu bağlamda geliştirilen model aracılığıyla iletişimsel etkileri incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İletişim sosyolojisi
• Kültürel belleğin dijitalleşmesi
• Sanal müzeler
• Karma gerçeklik
• Sanal gerçeklik
• Artırılmış gerçeklik

Etik Beyan

TÜM ETİK KURALLARA UYULMUŞTUR.

Digitization of Cultural Memory: Communication Models in Virtual Reality (VR)-Based Museology

Öz

This article examines the new communication models in virtual museums that integrate the process of digitalizing cultural memory with virtual reality (VR) technologies. The importance of digital technologies in preserving cultural heritage and enhancing its accessibility has been steadily increasing. Virtual reality provides enriched experiential environments, enabling cultural elements to be conveyed more effectively to visitors. The aim of the study is to reveal how VR technologies reshape user experience in virtual museums and how they contribute to the sustainability of cultural memory. The research employs document analysis and an interpretive approach within the framework of communication sociology. In this context, 16 museums selected from internationally recognized virtual museum platforms were analyzed based on criteria such as accessibility, level of interaction, content richness, design quality, and cultural sensitivity. These museums were evaluated to identify their existing communication models. The study found that VR technologies create stronger emotional connections among visitors and make cultural knowledge more enduring. Furthermore, VR applications were observed to present historical contexts in a more compelling manner and to enhance user engagement. Virtual reality–based virtual museums [360° web‑based virtual tours / VR panoramic experiences] play a significant role in the sustainability of cultural memory and contribute to the digital transformation of collective memory through new communication models. The study offers a framework that may guide future research in this field. The article discusses how virtual museum experiences and virtual tour technologies transform user interaction within museums and examines their communicative impacts through the model developed for this purpose.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sociology of communication
• Digitization of cultural memory
• Virtual museums
• Mixed reality
• Virtual reality
• Augmented Reality

Kaynakça

1. Alican, Ö. (2017). Artırılmış gerçeklik ile bir mobil uygulama: Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi örneği [Sanatta Yeterlik Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
2. Applin, S. A., ve Fischer, M. (2011, February). A cultural perspective on mixed, dual and blended reality. IUI-Workshop on Location Awareness for Mixed and Dual Reality (LAMDaʼ11) içinde (ss. 1-4). California: Palo Alto. https://posr.org/w/images/f/f6/Applin_Fischer_ACulturalPerspectiveOnMixedDualAndBlendedReality_LAMDa_2011a.pdf
3. Assmann, J., & Czaplicka, J. (1995). Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique, (65), 125–133.
4. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
5. Banzi, A. (2023). Emotions: The first connection to our cultural heritage. A. Banzi (Ed.), The brain-friendly museum: Using psychology and neuroscience to improve the visitor experience içinde (ss. 6–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003304531
6. Basu, P., ve Modest, W. (2014). Museums, heritage and international development: A critical conversation. Museums, heritage and international development içinde (ss. 1-32). London: Routledge.
7. Batabyal, D. Sinha, R. Mukherjee, S. K. ve Rawal, Y. S. (2023). Exploring Culture and Heritage Through Experience Tourism. New York: IGI Global.
8. Becker, I. Böhmer, O Gröne, R. ve Günter, B. (2024). Virtual Museums - A Plea Around the Clock, Around the World. Berlin: de Gruyter.

9. Behdad, A. (2010). Orientalism matters. MFS Modern Fiction Studies, 56(4), 709-728. doi: 10.1353/mfs.2010.a407130
10. Benjamin, W. (1936). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations içinde (ss. 217–252). New York: Schocken Books.
11. Bennett, T. (2018). Introduction: Museums, power, knowledge. Museum Worlds, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3167/armw.2018.060102
12. Bentley, M. (2006). Introduction: Approaches to modernity: Western historiography since the enlightenment. Companion to Historiography içinde (ss. 395-506). Routledge.
13. Bergsdóttir, A. (2016). Museums and feminist matters: Considerations of a feminist museology. NORA-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 24(2), 126-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2016.1182945
14. Bettig, R. V. (2002). The Frankfurt School and the Political Economy of Communications. J. T. Nealon & C. Irr (Eds.), Rethinking the Frankfurt School: Alternative Legacies of Cultural Critique içinde (ss. 81–94). State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.18255256.8
15. Bifulco, F. ve Tregua, M. (2022). Handbook of Research on Museum Management in the Digital Era. New York: IGI Global.
16. Boley, B. B., ve Green, G. T. (2016). Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: the ‘potential’for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. Journal of Ecotourism, 15(1): 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2015.1094080
17. Breske, A. (2018). Politics of repatriation: Formalizing indigenous repatriation policy. International Journal of Cultural Property, 25(3), 347-373. doi:10.1017/S0940739118000206
18. Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford University Press, USA.
19. Chambers, I., De Angelis, A., Ianniciello, C., ve Orabona, M. (2016). The postcolonial museum: The arts of memory and the pressures of history. London: Routledge.
20. Champion, E. (2015). Defining cultural agents for virtual heritage environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 24(3), 179–186.
21. Chen, L. (2024). A Study on Public Cognition of Industrial Heritage Based on Emotion Analysis Algorithm. International Journal of Multiphysics, 18(3), 840-851. https://www.themultiphysicsjournal.com/index.php/ijm/article/view/1351
22. Chronis, A. (2012). Tourists as story-builders: Narrative construction at a heritage museum. Journal of Travel ve Tourism Marketing, 29(5), 444-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.691395
23. Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. J. (2007). Designing hybrid places: Merging interaction design, ubiquitous technologies and geographies of the museum space. CoDesign, 3(3), 159–180.
24. Clavir, M. (2002). Preserving what is valued: Museums, conservation, and First Nations. Tırınto: Ubc Press.
25. Coşkun, C. (2021). Sanat müzelerinde artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 103-123. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/augsfd/issue/67696/1014070
26. Crane, S. A. (2006). The conundrum of ephemerality: Time, memory, and museums. A companion to museum studies içinde (ss. 98-110). Blackwell Publishing.
27. De Paolis, L. T. ve Mongelli, A. (2014). Augmented and Virtual Reality: First International Conference. New York: Springer.
28. Demirel İli, N. & Hazarhun, E. (2021). Sürdürülebilirlik çerçevesinde kültürel miras ve dijitalleşme. III. Uluslararası Sürdürülebilir Turizm Kongresi, 12-14 Kasım 2021, Bingöl, ss. 586-600.
29. Dieck, M. C. ve Jung, T. (2019). Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: The Power of AR and VR for Business. New York: Springer International Publishing.
30. Dorfman, E. (2017). The future of natural history museums. New York: Routledge.
31. Doulamis, A. Fink, E. ve Martins, J. (2018). Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, New York: Springer International Publishing.
32. Duttlinger, C. (2008). Imaginary encounters: Walter Benjamin and the aura of photography. Poetics Today, 29(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2007-018
33. Elliott, R., ve Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology, 1(7), 147-159. https://www.nideffer.net/classes/GCT_RPI_S14/readings/interpretive.pdf
34. Epp, C. D. ve Akcayir, G. (2020). Designing, Deploying, and Evaluating Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education. New York: IGI Global.
35. Findlen, P. (1989). The Museum: Its classical etymology and renaissance genealogy. Journal of the History of Collections. 1(1), 59–78. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~bgoldfarb/cogn150s12/reading/FINDLEN-the-Museum.pdf
36. Fominska, I., Di Tore, S., Nappi, M., Iovane, G., Sibilio, M., & Gelo, A. (2024). Approaches to identifying emotions and affections during the museum learning experience in the context of the Future Internet. Future Internet, 16(11), 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16110417
37. Fragomeni, G. ve Chen, J. Y. C. (2024). Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. New York: Springer International Publishing.
38. Franks, P. C. Bell, L. A. Trueman, R. B. ve Hirsh, S. (2016). Teaching and Learning in Virtual Environments: Archives, Museums, and Libraries. London: Libraries Unlimited.
39. Gadjeva, N. (2023). Japanese Digital Cultural Promotion: Online Experience of Kyoto. Kyoto: Routledge Contemporary Japan.
40. Geroimenko, V. (2018). Augmented Reality Art: From an Emerging Technology to a Novel Creative Medium. New York: Springer International Publishing.
41. Geroimenko, V. (2021). Augmented Reality in Tourism, Museums and Heritage. New York: Springer International Publishing.
42. Google. (2024, 15 Aralık). Yorumlar. Google Kullanıcı Deneyimleri. https://www.google.com/.
43. Greenhill, E. H. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
44. Hartmann, R. (2013). The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam: A museum and literary landscape goes virtual reality. Journalism and Mass Communication, 3(10), 625-644. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154828290
45. Harwood, T. G. ve Garry, T. (2003). An overview of content analysis. The marketing review, 3(4), 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934703771910080
46. Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit [Being and Time]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
47. Hein, H. S. (2007). Redressing the museum in feminist theory. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770701264846
48. Hossaini, A. ve Blankenberg, N. (2017). Manual of Digital Museum Planning. Maryland: Rowman ve Littlefield Publishers.
49. Kundu, R. (1999). Museum discourse: Negotiating the fragments. Marilyn Zurmuehlen Working Papers in Art Education, 15(1), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.17077/2326-7070.1424
50. Kunt, S. (2023). Dijitalleşme Çağında Kültürel Mirası Yeniden Yorumlamak. Kültürel Miras Araştırmaları, 4(2), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.59127/kulmira.1364908
51. Larina, E. D. (2022). Globalization and digitalization of political institutions. Vek İnformatsii Tom 6. 2(19), 1-11. https://ojs.age-info.com/index.php/ai/article/download/181/182/551
52. Legêne, S. (2008). Flatirons and the Folds of History. On Archives, Cultural heritage and Colonial Legacies. In Traveling Heritages. New Perspectives on Collecting, opreserving and Sharing Women’s History. (ss. 47-64). Amsterdam University Press.
53. Li, A. ve Chen, Y. (2014). Museums in the context of globalization. Museologica Brunensia, 3(4), 8-12. https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/sites/default/files/pdf/131414.pdf
54. Loureiro, S. M. C. (2020). Managerial Challenges and Social Impacts of Virtual and Augmented Reality. New York: IGI Global.
55. Luo, L., ve Feng, Y. (2024). Digital Archives and Sustainability: Strategies for Preserving Cultural Heritage in Virtual Museums. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences. 22 (2), 11819-11831. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.2.00841
56. MacDonald, R. L., Couldry, N., ve Dickens, L. (2015). Digitization and materiality: researching community memory practice today. The Sociological Review, 63(1), 102-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12215
57. Macdonald, S. J. (2012). Museums, national, postnational and transcultural identities. Museum studies: An anthology of contexts, (ss. 273-286). John Wiley ve Sons.
58. Mason, R. (2006). Cultural theory and museum studies. A companion to museum studies içinde (ss. 17-32). Blackwell Publishing.
59. MeeCham, P. ve Stylianou, E. (2012). Interactive technologies in the art museum. Designs for Learning, 5(1-2), 94-129. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/16547608/2012/00000005/f0020001/art00006
60. Melucci, A. (2013). The process of collective identity. Social movements and culture içinde (ss. 41-63). London: Routledge.
61. Mendoza, D. Y. (2010). Commodity, sign, and spectacle: Retracing Baudrillard’s hyperreality. Kritike, 4(2), 45-59. https://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_8/mendoza_december2010.pdf
62. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.
63. Milroy, A. K., ve Rozefelds, A. C. (2015). Democratizing the collection: Paradigm shifts in and through museum culture. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture, 4(2-3), 115-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/ajpc.4.2-3.115_1
64. Molden, B. (2016). Resistant pasts versus mnemonic hegemony: On the power relations of collective memory. Memory Studies, 9(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698015596014
65. Moser, S. (2010). The devil is in the detail: Museum displays and the creation of knowledge. Museum Anthropology, 33(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01072.x
66. Mutis, I., ve Ambekar, A. (2020). Challenges and enablers of augmented reality technology for in situ walkthrough applications. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, (25), 55-71 https://www.itcon.org/papers/2020_03-ITcon-Mutis.pdf
67. Nieroba, E., ve Geisler, R. (2024). Museums and climate change discourse: The selected case studies analysis. Museum Management and Curatorship, 1-21.
68. Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations, (26), 7–24.
69. Oliveira, L. (2022). Handbook of Research on Digital Communications, Internet of Things, and the Future of Cultural Tourism. New York: IGI Global.
70. Oruç, P. ve Redmond-Cooper, R. (2025). Digitising Cultural Heritage: Clashes with Copyright Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
71. Pillai, A. S. ve Guazzaroni, G. (2019). Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education, Art, and Museums. Hershey: IGI Global.
72. Pioli, M. (2024). Museums of the future: Digitalisation as a new form of communication. Corso di Laurea magistrale In Economia e Gestione dei Beni e delle Arti e delle attività culturali. Üniversita Ca’Foscari Venezia.
73. Ricoeur, P. (2004). Memory, History, Forgetting (K. Blamey & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
74. Sacher, D. (2017). A Generative Approach to Virtual Museums Using a New Metadata Format: A Curators’, Visitors’ and Software Engineers’ Perspective. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.
75. Sartori, A. (2016). Towards an intellectual history of digitization: Myths, dystopias, and discursive shifts in museum computing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(2), 428-440. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqv006
76. Shur-Ofry, M., ve Pessach, G. (2019). Robotic collective memory. Wash. UL Rev., 97, 975-1005. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6390&context=law_lawreview
77. Silverstone, R. (2005). The sociology of mediation and communication. The SAGE handbook of sociology içinde (ss. 188-207). Sage Publications.
78. Simpson, M. G. (2012). Making representations: Museums in the post-colonial era. London: Routledge.
79. Singh, A. ve Mohan, D. B. (2023). Immersive Realities: A Journey into Augmented and Virtual Worlds. Gujarat: Libertatem Media Private Limited.
80. Small, S. (2011). Slavery, colonialism and museums representations in Great Britain. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 9(4): 117-28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254695232_Slavery_Colonialism_and_Museums_Representations_in_Great_Britain_Old_and_New_Circuits_of_Migration#full-text
81. Speicher, M., Hall, B. D., ve Nebeling, M. (2019, May). What is mixed reality?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems içinde (ss. 1-15). Glasgow, Scotland: CHI Publication.
82. Tabuni, G., ve Singgalen, Y. A. (2024). Evaluating Digital Narratives in Heritage Tourism and Museum: Content Analysis, Toxicity Score, and Sentiment Classification Trough SVM and SMOTE. Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, 6(3), 1822-1851. doi: 10.51519/journalisi.v6i3.834
83. Thomas, D. R. D. (Ed.). (2010). Museums in postcolonial Europe. New York: Routledge.
84. Thomas, T. (2021). Emerging Technologies in Museums, New York: Kindle Edition.
85. Thurlow, C., ve Mroczek, K. (Eds.). (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford University Press.
86. Todino, M. D. (2023). Accessibility in museums: how to combine accessible spaces, technology, and “shared languages” to ensure the inclusion of all visitors. Giornale Italiano di Educazione alla Salute, Sport e Didattica Inclusiva-Italian Journal of Health Education, Sports and Inclusive Didactics, 7(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.32043/gsd.v7i3.975
87. Tripadvisor. (2024, 16 Aralık). Yorumlar. Tripadvisor Kullanıcı Deneyimleri. https://www.tripadvisor.com/.
88. Trout, J. (2011). Evolutionary Augmented Reality at the Natural History Museum. London: Research ve Development White Paper.
89. Vawda, S. (2019). Museums and the epistemology of injustice: From colonialism to decoloniality. Museum International, 71(1-2): 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2019.1638031
90. Wilson, P. F., Stott, J., Warnett, J. M., Attridge, A., Smith, M. P., ve Williams, M. A. (2017). Evaluation of touchable 3D‐printed replicas in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 60(4): 445-465. doi:10.1111/cura.12244
91. Wojciechowski, R., Walczak, K., White, M., ve Cellary, W. (2004, April). Building virtual and augmented reality museum exhibitions. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on 3D Web technology (ss. 135-144). DBLP: Conference Paper.
92. Zipes, J. (2018). Peri masalları ve yıkma sanatı (Z. Çiftçi Kanburoğlu, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
93. Zolberg, V. L. (2004). “An elite experience for everyone”: Art museums, the public, and cultural literacy. Museum culture içinde (ss. 69-85). London: Routledge.