How does attempting to model an object compare to simply viewing one in an exhibition?
I think one of the main barriers we have in museums (especially as kids), is we cannot pick up an object to look at it more closely. We generally can’t look very closely at something for that object’s safety, and that can present a barrier in learning and interest to their audience. I think that is a problem modeled objects is attempting to fix. Being able to play around with an object can be more immersive than staring at some ‘aloof’ object behind glass (although the intrigue of seeing something in person cannot be fully captured digitally, no matter how high its quality). It sounds like a stretch, but it made me think of the philosopher David Hume’s argument of sensory impressions. The main idea is no thought is as powerful or vivid, than actually experiencing that event. Where seeing something in person is more impactful than viewing it digitally.
Does the process of photogrammetry encourage close looking and attention to details you might otherwise have ignored?
Apart from the exorbitant amount of time that it required in class…it does require you to become more acquainted with an object than you would expect. Although I was not there during the extensive picture taking of our neolithic jar, I did have to wrestle all of those pictures into the Photogrammetry software. I expect the answer would be different for my two other classmates who actually took the photos, but I think Photogrammetry allows you to skim over many of the details and just make a model. It is worth noting that I expect this opinion to change as my group gets further into the process. So far, we have only just been able to get our images into ReCap, but I received an email today notifying us that our rendering was complete. Tomorrow, we will be able to take our model, clean it up, and turn in our final product.
Does engaging with objects in this way make you more curious about this (and/or other) things, as well as the stories they can tell?
It certainly does. I enjoyed getting caught up in the online resources available to us from places like the Smithsonian. For instance, I was extensively googling crab nebulas after messing with the models of various stars; I think that is a fair example of my curiosity being stirred from online exhibits. I keep coming back to the Smithsonian, but the Apollo and Armstrong collectives tell their inspiring stories. Looking at the spacesuit, the cockpit, and the hatches that made up the mission to the Moon, it just makes me think of how crazy we were to devise such a thing. Especially when everything looks like it is being held together by duck tape.
-Liam Keane 2/3
I definitely agree with the idea of models helping to spark interest in an object and allow for closer observation and learning. I was the one taking the pictures for my group and I would add that that activity too got me a lot closer and more interested in the artifact considering that I had to try and get as many angles as possible. There definitely is something about being able to manipulate something with your own hands that’s much more impactful than just looking at an object through glass, as you mentioned; perhaps it helps us relate the object to our own life or make more meaningful connections.
I agree with how being able to directly interact with an object can cause one to have a totally more nuanced view toward the object. Normally at a museum, I admit that I never really try my best to look at the display from all angle, only taking a brief view on it. It’s sad that my laptop refuses to properly run ReCap, since would also like to play around with the model.
I* would