As discussed in the previous section, the idea of replication is not new. However, with the more recent mass production of digital copies we need to problematise the gains and losses for cultural heritage. For example, objects can break the boundaries of museums (at a relatively low cost), also enabling the study of inaccessible or even damaged artefacts. At the same time, digital and/or physical replication (e.g. 3D models online or 3D printed artefacts) places emphasis on handling and multisensory experiences (Dudley 2012; Pye 2007) and falls within the recent Maker Movement that stresses the importance of making as a form of critical thinking and problem-solving (see Ignite Course: Introduction to Design Thinking & Maker Culture). At the same time, however, this replication brings about critical questions related to ownership, accessibility, authenticity, and transparency. 

Authenticity & Aura

The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object. (Benjamin 1936, np)

The notion of authenticity has haunted cultural heritage practices, especially conservation and management, taking a materialist perspective within the framework of objectivism. Many scholars, including Laurajane Smith, who developed the notion of Authorised Heritage Discourse, have challenged the idea of authenticity as an objective and measurable quality, arguing for its complexity and cultural construction (Jones 2010). In other words, arguing that objects' value is constructed within the network of relationships that shape them and is not inherent in their material fabric. This cultural constructivist approach indicates that authenticity is a powerful attribute of heritage biographies (objects, buildings, sites, landscapes etc.) that can be shaped by various social and cultural factors.

In his widely influential article, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin (1936) explored issues of the means of production and how they affect the objects’ authenticity, reception, and influence as mediums; for example, how photography and film began to act as surrogates for our interaction with the original. While he acknowledges that works of art have always been copied and or recreated in other physical media, the new mechanical means of reproduction represent a difference not just of method, but of kind: 

even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. (Benjamin, np.)

Benjamin termed this uniqueness of the original 'aura'. More contemporary authors, however, have challenged this unique authenticity. For example, Latour and Lowe (2011) argue that it is more critical to respond to the question 'is it well or badly reproduced' rather than 'is it an original or merely a copy'. In other words, replicas can also be authentic (or gain authenticity) depending on several factors, including effort, costs, and techniques, as well as the context (physical or cultural) of presentation/exhibition. It is important, therefore, not only to look at the original or the copy of the original but to pay attention to its whole trajectory (or career), since replicas, depending on their qualities, can help us both to better understand the original and define originality. Jeffrey (2015) builds on Latour and Lowe, arguing that due to the expertise, intentionality, and resources used to produce a 3D visualisation, the aura and authenticity of the original can migrate to the digital replica as well as can be further enhanced through the means and networks of production. Jones (2011) also argues that the unique network of relationships between people, places, and things is more critical than the objects themselves to define authenticity. Similarly, through different forms of skills and expertise; the interaction between materials, actors, and actions; and the emphasis on different forms of practice (Jones and Yarrow 2013, p. 7), authenticity can also be produced via the act of conservation. Adam Rabinowitz (2015), argues that although 3D models are often considered 'digital surrogates' that 'represent an analogue original as accurately and in as much detail as possible' (p. 29), they should never be considered authentic, especially since the tools used in their production become more and more black-boxed. Lastly, Ole Marius Hylland (2017), while acknowledges the challenge of defining authenticity in the digital realm she argues that digital surrogates can bring about a new type of authenticity, related to the accessibility of the object: 'An analogue original is valuable because it is authentic, while a digital copy is valuable because it is accessible...In a digitized cultural environment, access becomes both a core value and a central commodity to be given, had, shared, bought or rented.' (p. 80)

The Weirdness of the Digital World

Stuart Jeffrey argues that there is certain weirdness in the digital world (2015) as he compares the record of a real world object to this of a digital object/replica. A record of an archaeological artefact would consist of photographs, illustrations, measurements, descriptive accounts etc, which could be accessed via a document archive or the finds index, and could be potentially read and analysed; the actual object could also be examined. However, the digital equivalent of this record has at least five key traits that are not encountered in the physical world (pp. 145-146). Firstly, the digital object lacks physical substance as it does not have any texture, weight, smell or other properties that we would encounter in the physical object. It also lacks a specific location. It may be e.g. on Sketchfab, but where is Sketchfab? Is https://sketchfab.com/ its physical location? And where does this reside (e.g. in a company server in the USA)? The digital object can also be downloaded and stored in different locations (locally or in the cloud) and multiple copies can be produced and distributed; therefore, it is also infinitely reproducible. In addition, 3D models, contrary to the physical objects do not degrade. Once they have been digitised they are frozen in time thus preserving a particular moment of their existence. The physical object may be restored, altered, or damaged, but this is not the case for the digital surrogate. Lastly, it seems that ownership is redefined by means of licensing as digital models cannot be owned but only used under pre-agreed conditions (platform, time, quantity etc.). According to Jeffrey (p. 146), these traits 'create an apparently sanitised, distancing and disengaging artefact, and one that, for a certain conception of authenticity, would be the antithesis of an authentic object.'

To the above we should also highlight material, sensorial and spatiotemporal elements that are distorted in the digital models and reiterate that the response of a present-day user to a 3D model mediated via a computer monitor (or any other image generating device) and the translation of spatial experience into pixels cannot account for the synaesthetic, kinaesthetic, corporeal and affective experience that the makers and handlers of those objects and the dwellers of those spaces had in the past. As Nicholas Negroponte the founder of MIT's Media Lab famously argued, our connection to computers is sensory deprived and physically limited. For example, in the case of digital heritage objects, these are often presented isolated and out of their spatial and temporal contexts. Information about their biographies is often absent or limited to short descriptions and brief annotations. Also, real-world experience, for example by handling an object or looking at it in its original context (be it a museum or a site), cannot be replicated digitally, especially since the performance of and interaction with the object has been predefined by the modeler or conditioned by the platform or device. Also, the sense of scale is often missing, therefore making it difficult to understand the size of the digital object in relation to other physical or digital objects.

It should be emphasised, however, that digital technologies do not only dematerialise past realities. As Papadopoulos et al. (2019) have argued, the application of digital methods extend the sensorial affordances of the human body. They result in new material artefacts which exist in the real world and which can be engaged and entangled with humans and with other sentient and non-sentient beings. They are not replicas of the ‘authentic’ object, nor digital surrogates, but rather creative renderings of their own, that cite performatively the initial departure point (be it an artefact, a building, or a site). Together with it, they partake of a sensorial assemblage which also includes the researcher and her memories, desires and aspirations, the site and the context in general, and the previous assumptions and interpretations. They also help structure, and are structured by, a distinct, relational sensorial field within which sensorial and affective experiences, knowledge and memories are generated.

Intellectual Transparency

The last area that we need to briefly touch upon, is the intellectual transparency of the digital objects we produce and of the processes we follow for their production. Although these issues are not new and have been discussed in the past, e.g. in the context of microfilming paper-based records, and more recently, in the context of 3D reconstructions (see 1.2.3. Analogue to Digital: Remaking Material Culture), mass digitisation and pressures to institutions to make their collections available, make this discussion timely. 

The digitisation process itself is not straightforward, involving many decisions that affect the object’s longevity, how users will understand the object, its origins, and uses, how the digital object might be reused in settings beyond the one it was created for, and how users will be allowed to interact with it. Choices and decisions made should be justified and communicated to the recipients/users of the digital objects so as to avoid assumptions of objectivity and ensure that visual data do not mislead the end users (Garstki 2018). Also, technological authority, i.e. the operator's influence over the final product, should also problematised and become available so as to make the digitisation process more transparent. Camera settings, lighting, software, hardware, skills etc. all affect the final product in their own unique and often black-boxed ways; thus, it is crucial to see 3D models not as objective translations of data. Small direct or indirect decisions can have large consequences in terms of user understanding and usability. Given that it is so easy to manipulate digital data, users should be certain that the digital object they are engaging with is what it purports to be. 


Exercise: Evaluating 3D Projects

Based on the theory discussed above, you are expected to respond to the questions below in relation to one of the suggested 3D projects:

3D Projects: CyArk, Virtual Dive Trails, and Rekrei

Projects

1. Virtual Dive Trails use new technologies such as photogrammetric recording and virtual reality, allowing viewers to see a clear 3D image of a wreck site. Not only do they bring maritime archaeology to life for the non-diver, but they're a lot easier to interpret than more traditional techniques. They can also aid archaeologists' work on land by allowing measurements to be taken and analysis to be carried out post-dive. The London is one of the more famous protected wreck sites. It is located in a highly tidal environment with extremely poor visibility on the edge of a shipping channel which means it's not easy, or attractive to dive.
Project accessible via: https://www.cloudtour.tv/london

2. CyArk is a non profit organization founded in 2003 to digitally record, archive and share the world's most significant cultural heritage. Since its founding, CyArk has documented over 200 sites on all seven continents. The sites span a huge gamut of human history ranging from modern building, such as the Sydney Opera House to archaeological sites ,such as Skara Brae, a 3000 BC Neolithic settlement in Scotland.
Project accessible via: https://www.cyark.org/explore/

3. Rekrei is a crowdsourced project to collect photographs of monuments, museums, and artefacts damaged by natural disasters or human intervention, and to use those data to create 3D representations and help to preserve our global, shared, human heritage.
Project accessible via: https://projectmosul.org/

Questions

•What is the project about?

•What does three-dimensionality offer to the cultural artefacts?

•How does three-dimensionality enhance conventional ways of looking at the data?

•What are the challenges that three-dimensionality poses?

•What are the missing elements in these 3D recreations?

•What other modalities of communication could these projects produce? Why?

•How could the 3D models be enhanced?

References

• Garstki, K. (2018). Virtual authority and the expanding role of 3D digital artefacts, In Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi F., Vassalo, V. (eds). Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions, pp. 75-81. McDonald Institute Conversations. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27029
  
• Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture, 114-137. Available at https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm.
• Hermon, S. and Niccolucci, F. (2018). Digital Authenticity and the London Charter. In Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi F., Vassalo, V. (eds). Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions, p.75-82. McDonald Institute Conversations. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27029
  
• Hylland, O. M. (2017). Even better than the real thing? Digital copies and digital museums in a digital cultural policy. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 9(1), 62-84. http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v9/a06/cu17v9a06.pdf
• Jeffrey, S. (2015). Challenging heritage visualisation: beauty, aura and democratisation. Open Archaeology 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0008
• Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves: Beyond the Deconstruction of Authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183510364074
• Latour, B. & Lowe, A. (2011). The Migration of the Aura, or How to Explore the Original through its Facsimiles. In Bartscherer, T. & Coover, R. (eds) Switching Codes: Thinking Through Digital Technology In The Humanities And The Arts, pp. 275–98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Papadopoulos, C., Hamilakis, Y., Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., & Díaz-Guardamino, M. (2019). Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 29(4), 625-652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271
  
• Rabinowitz, A., 2015. The work of archaeology in the age of digital surrogacy. In Olson, B. R. & Caraher, W. R. (eds), Visions of Substance: 3D imaging in Mediterranean archaeology, pp. 27–42. The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota. 

Further Reading

• Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi F., Vassalo, V. Eds (2018). Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions. McDonald Institute Conversations. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27029
• Dudley, S. (2012). Materiality Matters: Experiencing the displayed object. University of Michigan Working Papers in Museum Studies 8. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan.
• Hansen, M. (2008). Benjamin’s Aura. Critical Inquiry, 34(2), 336-375. https://doi.org/10.1086/529060
  
• Jones, S. and Yarrow, T. G. (2013). Crafting Authenticity: an Ethnography of Conservation Practice. Journal of Material Culture 18(1), 3–26.
• Pye, E. Ed. (2007). The Power of Touch: Handling objects in museums and heritage contexts. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press