I was recently reading an article from the Block Club Chicago which discusses the use of digital technologies by the Field Museum in Chicago to bring elements of their collection to a wider audience. This article comes from June of last year, when things with the pandemic were still relatively new and many museums weren't able to be open to visitors. During this time, The Field Museum partnered with Interspectral, a 3D-visulation software company, to release 3D models of the museum's mummies to the public through the company's software 'Inside Explorer'. The software is available through the application 'Steam' and the museum's content can be purchased as additional downloadable content for the software. The packages of downloadable content range from $4.65-$6.99 CDN and require the purchase of 'Inside Explorer' for $17.49 CDN in order to use it. While the museum is unlikely to be making enough profit from this downloadable content to subsidize the income they've lost from ticket sales during the pandemic, this could be seen as a relatively inexpensive and accessible way to get wider audiences interested in and engaged with museum content. Although the software has not received many reviews on Steam (with only three total), two out of the three reviews leave positive comments regarding the useability of content and price points. However, I think it is important to delve further into the purpose/intentions of this technology and whether or not it achieves its aims.
The somewhat obvious answer for the purpose/intentions of the software is to allow individuals to engage with museum materials in a different way and perhaps draw in different audiences, particularly in a time when people aren't able to make it to the museum to engage with this content in person. This seems to be supported by the statement of JP Brown, the Regenstein conservator of the museum: "[We] want to 'reach an entirely new audience and hopefully evoke interest for natural science, biology, and history among people who are usually not exposed to this kind of scientific content'" (Chilukuri 2020). But what does it mean to have individuals engage with museum materials and what aspects are we looking for them to engage with? From looking at the video and images used to promote the downloadable content (sampled above and below), there appears to be little contextualization of the scanned remains as those of a once-living individual. Rather, they appear to be objectified; scanned and modeled as a commodity for "virtual dissection". There appears to be no discussion as to why CT scans and X-rays are a beneficial and often-utilized technology for studying bioarchaeological remains, nor caution for the risks of destructive analyses of these materials.
While this simplified focus on "what's inside" fits well with the content of the software and may have been the educational focus for the museum, should this be considered a sufficient goal? Should we be prioritizing the evidence we find over information about the processes or people behind them? It could be argued that it is beneficial to present information in a contained way, so as not to overwhelm the audience with information. However, I would argue that museum materials that don't allow for an acknowledgement of the nuance, subjectivity, and lived experience behind these remains limit the ability of the audience to think critically about the content with which they are engaging, and in so doing, do a disservice to the public, the collection, and academic communities.
But, I'd like to hear the opinions of others. Do you see a benefit for technologies such as this in museum practices? Do you think that the current standard of these technologies is sufficient? And do you see a future for this technology in museums, particularly with the large-scale changes in educational industries following Covid-19?
References
Chilukuri, S. (2020, June 26). What's inside a mummy? Field museum will let you explore 3d models of mummies from your couch. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/26/whats-inside-a-mummy-field-museum-will-let-you-explore-3d-models-of-mummies-from-your-couch/
Interspectral. (n.d.). Inside Explorer: The Gilded Lady. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://store.steampowered.com/app/1338870/Inside_Explorer_The_Gilded_Lady/
2 comments:
Hi Teegan!
I think you raised excellent points within your post. I can definitely see a potential benefit with utilizing different mediums, especially in the confined restrictions we have during the pandemic. However, I agree that the current state sounds rather insufficient in my opinion. Context is what makes these scans more than just a video on a screen in front of the viewer. The disservice to the collection is what immediately struck me when reading your post. Specifically, how invasive these scans can be to the visualized subjects visualized. Stripping the context from scans could easily dehumanize these individuals to the viewers, especially to new audiences who are unfamiliar with this area of research. Also, if users are able to download these scans, does this mean they have permanent access/ownership once they're purchased the data from Steam? I am quite unfamiliar with the Steam platform, but the simple idea doesn't sit as easily with me.
While I don't believe the current standard is sufficient, I do see a new avenue opening for digital archaeology's exploration. However, it will require further contextualizing to make the efforts a worthwhile endeavor for all parties involved.
Hi Teegan!
I think games such as these, and other interactive mediums, are a good way of getting people involved in archaeological research. It's more engaging than simply reading about archaeological remains or looking at a photograph.
That being said, similarly to Lauren, I couldn't help but think about the ethical implications of this. Calling it "Inside Explorer" is accurate; we're literally looking INSIDE of human remains. But this name also indicates to me that there's a heavy application of the medical gaze and these are framed as archaeological remains, and not as a human who lived. I've not played this game but I would hope that there is at least some context within the game to remind people that this is a human and therefore should be treated with respect. Also that we mainly undertake these studies to understand more about that person's life or the world & culture they lived in, not to just "look inside" for the fun of it. Otherwise, I think just having human remains, even in a virtual context, available for people to interpret as they wish can cause real harm. At the very least, it continues to perpetuate the dehumanisation of human remains (which is a real problem on social media as per my first blog post indicates).
Post a Comment