Purpose and context

The objective of this discussion space is to arrive at the drafting of the position paper which serves as the starting point for the public discussion that will be held on the occasion of the brainstorming on May 14, 2015 at the University of Siena. The meeting takes place in the context of the work for the start-up of the Digital Cultural Heritage, Arts and Humanities School and must produce useful indications for the development of its strategies. In particular, it must highlight the priorities perceived by possible beneficiaries in terms of demand for digital skills in the cultural heritage, arts and humanities sector.

Topic of discussion

Identify functional technological applications both for the conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage and in general for the themes of regeneration of the museum system

Discussion mode

For the development of the discussion, we invite you to use the comments on this page. It is not mandatory, but it is desirable, to use a profile that shows your real name and above all your own photo. It helps to get to know each other. We also invite you to try to develop and deepen existing threads before opening new ones, as far as possible. As soon as the first sharing elements emerge, they will be consolidated in the text of this page below.


Summary of discussion [ongoing]

  • What are the questions to which the digital enhancement of cultural heritage should provide the answer?
    • Can digital technologies help overcome the temporary nature of exhibitions?
    • Can digital technologies help narrate more and better in a museum?
      • Overcoming spatial constraints
      • The digital rooms
      • The centrality of storytelling
  • “Both the scholar and the user must (I emphasize “must”) be men of their own time and the current time is that of digital technologies, which support research (satellite analysis of sites, syntactic and semantic research on sources, integrated cataloguing, etc. ) and the enjoyment of the result of the research, through museum technologies that go beyond the mere "presentation", but turn to the "narration" ... and therefore to the experience ... and therefore to the metabolization ... of the results obtained." [Alessandro Caporuscio]


About The Author

27 thoughts on “La valorizzazione digitale del bene culturale [Open Talk]”

  1. Culture, and cultural heritage as its tools, should be the basis of the experience and development of a people together and not in contrast with technology. This trivial truth which, in theory nobody objects, is always opposed in reality when someone boasts the superiority of abstract knowledge to technology seen as a mechanical tool.
    In my opinion, culture and technology are two inseparable faces of the coin of the world and of man.

    Technology has given us Gutenberg and the cheap book has spread Culture.

    Technology (still unknown) made Stardivari's violins possible … then Paganini wrote the Voleo del Calabrone.

    The modern techniques of conservation, protection and study of artistic masterpieces allow them to be maintained and made available to everyone in the coming century ... being able to travel thousands of kilometres.

    Digital techniques, in addition to being useful for studying, offer everyone the opportunity to see and enjoy those 0 KM masterpieces.

    Just to exemplify look at the Sistine Chapel (http://video.repubblica.it/dossier/conclave-2013/entra-nella-cappella-sistina-la-foto-navigabile/121394/119879) or Trevi Fountain (http://krpano.com/krpano.html?pano=panos/rom/trevibrunnen/pano.xml) it's like being on scaffolding one meter from paintings and statues.
    I believe that the right use of culture and technique takes us one step forward.

    1. Thanks for breaking the ice and opening the discussion on this point, Attilio.

      I think you have set the forefront of this discussion in pointing out that the consensus on the lack of dichotomy between culture and technology has yet to be internalized in many quarters. And it doesn't only apply in the direction you indicated because it is not infrequent to hear in technical environments that culture is of little use and is in any case unable to generate income. So it remains an expensive hobby that you can't always afford. A speech that also applies to museums, largely considered unproductive structures that live only thanks to public subsidies that could be better used in other areas, especially when they are intended for small and very small museums.

      This is one of the problems to solve which the Digital Cultural Heritage, Arts and Humanities School is being created: it is necessary to spread awareness that heritage, art and the humanities represent great value - including economic value - for contemporary society and that technologies - digital ones in particular – are a key enabler for realizing that value.

      Our participation as SGI in the DiCultHer School fortunately forces us to bring the discourse to a strategic plan. As thinkers we could just state principles and we would have done our job. But if we give life to an organization then we are giving ourselves a mission, values and goals that can be measured over time. This conversation of ours that begins today, continues in Siena and will end who knows where and when, must lead us first of all to equip ourselves with criteria that allow us to decide day by day: "No, this DiCultHer doesn't do it". This is the fundamental function of having a strategy: deciding what not to do. Or decide which technology - while beautiful in itself - we will not adopt as it does not serve to achieve our goals. DiCultHer was created, among other things, to help individual training centers define their own strategies on digital skills which it is a priority to include in training programs. Is it important to teach those involved in cultural heritage to use Excel or AutoCAD? The answer to this and a thousand similar questions obviously depends on the evaluation criteria, some general, others specific to the contexts to which the training offer must be addressed. We too, in our own small way, will have to decide which technological applications to present on May 14th and which not, given that time will be limited. Let's start discussing criteria.

      I start by asking a question, on which I will give my opinion later.

      In the Global Knowledge Society or Liquid Company or however you want to name and define the contemporary world, is it still relevant and successful to place the concept of cultural heritage and the functional dyad of its conservation and enhancement at the center of your strategy?

      From the formulation of the question it is clear that my answer is no, but I would like to explain the reasons after reading some other opinions. I am of the opinion that question is a key word, while answer is a lock word. Let's try to open and not close this conversation.

      Besides, now I wouldn't have time to write my answer anyway, so I'd better try to get someone else to work for me 🙂

    2. I answer myself, but with a question. If we agree with Attilio's classification in another post of culture as knowledge that is handed down, cultural heritage as evidence of knowledge, technology as an enabling and instrumental factor, because the attention of museums is mainly centered on the medium (cultural heritage) instead of on the content (knowledge)?

  2. The concepts of culture -in a general sense-, of cultural assets -as objects and instruments of culture- and of the value of cultural assets - that is, how they assume value in relation to the human being- are clear in the minds of all of us who can define ourselves as people civilians. Before trying to understand which are the tools that can facilitate the conservation and use of culture and cultural heritage, it is good to try to define them in a sufficiently circumscribed way because only in this way will we be able to choose the best tools, including valid digital ones.
    To exemplify the chemistry and the study of molds caused by human breathing helps us to preserve frescoes and paintings that only a limited number of people will then be able to see. In the same way, the development of non-invasive digital photography techniques make it possible for a wider diffusion.
    But this must not mean an indiscriminate diffusion of "everything" ... the selection must be made by honest scholars and everyone must be able to have the Mona Lisa in their living room.

    1. In the meantime, we can start by creating two boxes: technologies for conservation and technologies for storytelling. I purposely use the second term in place of valorisation.

    2. I believe that by creating differences (narration and valorisation) a non-useful "split of thought" is created. A "narrated" cultural asset is in itself "valued".
      To exemplify by taking it to the extreme: The Mona Lisa, closed in a well-protected warehouse and to which access is only for a few, is only a well-preserved table, not a cultural asset.

    3. I agree with you, but for this reason I prefer to use the term "narration" since I think they are completely overlapping in this context. In my opinion the emphasis should be shifted from the object to the people. This is why I would prefer to talk about culture, stories, "lore" and narration rather than "good" and "enhancement". Speaking of museums, if you look at the definition in the encyclopaedia, it speaks of the conservation of objects of artistic, historical, cultural and scientific value and their display to the public. I would like this dichotomy to be overcome by always thinking primarily of the final beneficiary. The conservative function of the object is a fundamental aspect, but it is merely instrumental. Too often it becomes fine and affects the forma mentis. How many museums have you visited – especially in the archaeological sector – which are nothing more than boring “three-dimensional catalogues” which add little or nothing to the visitor's cultural background?

      It seems like just playing with words, but using “storytelling” instead of “enhancement” makes a lot of sense to me in terms of a digital agenda for culture. And in politics, you know better than me, words are substance.

  3. In the previous comment, I asked the question about the definition of culture, its derivatives, i.e. cultural heritage and how to conserve and pass them on.
    For the concept of culture there are a thousand and one definitions, all partially correct and I have neither the ability nor the claim to find the right one that can summarize them all.
    For Culture, dusting off my old IT notions, we could try to apply the concepts of taxonomy and ontology to arrive at more precise definitions and classifications.
    In a simpler way, and I hope sufficiently correct and shareable, I would define culture as the set of knowledge and rules connected to the various sectors of human knowledge matured and updated over time.:
    Already this first attempt at a definition suggests that culture:
    – is differentiated according to the area of investigation, even if there may be interactions,
    – is closely connected to knowledge and perhaps coincides with it
    – is a value that is updated over time, i.e. what was true yesterday may not be true today.
    I try to clarify the three previous propositions better.
    There is no total culture because in the human sphere there is no one who knows everything from the origin of time to today.
    There are sectoral cultures which over the centuries have become increasingly specialized with the deepening of details. But hand in hand with the specialization and fragmentation of knowledge, techniques for linking knowledge have developed which have stimulated new research and discoveries.
    I think it is fair to underline that the artistic aspects and the technical aspects have always been two sides of the same coin.
    Knowledge of the human body and its functions has been stimulated by man's "need for well-being". Over the centuries, doctors who were based on the observation of external symptoms and from what could be understood by analyzing a corpse fought to improve knowledge. The studies and analyzes of the human body, as a side effect, have produced many sculptural and pictorial works of art. The developments of science have allowed us to study the vital functions in exercise ... and this has allowed us to discover many things.
    Not only in the "technical" field, culture, or knowledge, has made it possible to improve results regardless of what we can define as artistic value, that is something that excites us.

    Not only because they were born a few centuries apart, Giotto's frescoes have deteriorated much more than those of the Sistine Chapel because the background preparation techniques were much more primitive than those used by Michelangelo. The most evident result is that Giotto's frescoes needed a "reconstructive" maintenance while the Sistine Chapel returned to its splendor "simply by cleaning up the paintings".

    In the field of architecture this deep mingling of science and art is evident. In this sector the empirical intuitions of the builders have produced great masterpieces.
    For example, the weight of the roofing of a building affects the size of the monument and the size of the perimeter walls. The Pantheon in Rome is the perfect example of the intuition of a great builder: a single concrete casting whose composition and density varies with height. This technique, which today might seem almost trivial to us, is based on two factors: the reduction in weight as you go up decreases the static load and an ever-lesser weight requires less support capacity. This revised and improved technique was used until chemistry produced new materials and construction science learned to use design techniques and
    calculus that developed together with mathematics.
    The virtuous cycle of knowledge, art and technique continues to produce positive results.
    I began this note looking for a definition of culture and, at this point, I realize that I have practically answered the initial questions: what is culture, what are cultural heritage and how technology can promote them.
    Culture is the knowledge that has been handed down over the centuries, cultural assets are evidence of the development of knowledge and technique is the tool that has allowed the practical development of culture by encouraging the study and solution of the problems that gradually arose and helping to keep all intermediate steps.
    At this point it is right to ask how digital can act positively in these contexts ... the attempt to remarry in the next episode.

    1. One question: given your definition of the triad of culture, cultural heritage and technology, what do you think the mission of a museum should be?

  4. After some dialectical considerations on culture, cultural heritage and digital tools, today I think it is useful to make known a proposal for a European Call that 10 years ago.
    The title is “TEBE Temporary Exhibitions Become Endless” and a short abstract is “Every day in the world many temporary cultural exhibitions are organised. Unfortunately these exhibitions can only be seen by people who, in the limited period of their opening, can go to the place where they are organised.
    The project idea is to design and build a process capable of making fruition possible
    of the exhibition to a wider audience. In other words to convert the temporary event into an event of much greater duration.”.
    I believe that regardless of the failure of that proposal, this project can be a useful example of how digital tools can support the dissemination of culture.

    Project documentation is available to everyone in http://www.dropbox.com/sh/lw4ubpgi33s385k/AABx41elaNrQJxCHHv32XGHda?dl=0 (in case of further diffusion or use I would like to be informed).

  5. Alessandro Caporuscio

    "culture: The set of intellectual knowledge which, acquired through study, reading, experience, the influence of the environment and reworked in a subjective and autonomous way, becomes a constitutive element of the personality, contributing to enriching the spirit, developing or improve individual faculties, especially judgment.
    Complex of social, political and economic institutions, artistic and scientific activities, spiritual and religious manifestations that characterize the life of a given society in a given historical moment.

    I start from the definition of culture given by the Treccani encyclopaedia because it seems to me that the resolution of the dichotomy already resides in the definition…as often happens, the answer is in the question.

    Above all, one of the terms used to define the methods of formation of one's own "culture" seems illuminating to me, I am referring to "experience", culture (and I emphasize that it must be OWN culture) must certainly be formed through study ... but equally certainly by experiencing it , especially for audiences who, due to age or habit or aptitude, have no way of accessing other training channels.

    The first consideration that comes to me, therefore, is that one of the ways (perhaps the privileged one if we are talking about dissemination and democratization of culture) of training is that of "living it" ... and thus making it more one's own, with a view to considering it as the main tool to develop one's own analytical and judgment skills, independently and subjectively.

    the second consideration comes from the second definition, when the "Complex of social, political and economic institutions, .. etc" is mentioned, emphasizing how this definition is valid in a given society and in a given historical moment.
    Culture is therefore not an immutable totem, it is a living organism that lives in a time and in a society and as integrated into a chronosocial system it must take into account the constraints and, above all, the opportunities that this system offers.
    it is not possible to think of the 21st century archaeologist as a re-edition of Schliemann, armed only with paper texts and a pickaxe, just as the user of the excavations of Troy or Mycenae cannot be the young Goethe of the grand tour.
    Both the scholar and the user must (I emphasize "must") be men of their own time and the current time is that of digital technologies, which support research (satellite analysis of sites, syntactic and semantic research on sources, integrated cataloguing, etc.) and the enjoyment of the results of the research, through museum technologies that go beyond the mere "presentation", but address the "narration" ... and therefore the experience ... and therefore the metabolization ... of the results obtained.

    1. I agree with this approach: given that a conservative function of cultural assets and works of art is essential for the transmission of these testimonies of past culture to subsequent generations, it is necessary to reflect on whether it still makes sense to set the valorisation phase on a communication model centered on the concept of the Catalog and Didactics, when above all you want to work for the transmission of culture to subsequent generations. History and Education seem to me two keywords much more appropriate. The first two I would almost define as lock-words nowadays.

      However, speaking conceptually and in the third person about what one thinks is right for others has its limits. I would be interested in reading some contributions that begin with: “I would like a museum visit to work like this:…”

    2. Alessandro Caporuscio

      pass me the joke… it would be nice if at the entrance to a museum someone told us: “once upon a time…”, after all, the story is the most effective way to convey concepts, whether moral or historical. the great epic poems, as well as mythological and religious narratives, serve to fix concepts through mechanisms of historification.
      The ability to narrate is one of the few universal human characteristics and when a
      behavior, Gottschall argues, is present in all societies, science recognizes you as a product of evolution, in telling stories there must therefore be something useful for our species, something that enhances its social capabilities ... just as there is in 'listen to them.
      An attitude also studied by Michael Gazzaniga, one of the fathers of neuroscience,
      which defines it as the "interpreter" through which our brain applies precisely that technique of "storification", necessary for our mind to put order and make coherent what would not be, an interpreter that gives shape and meaning to reality.

      therefore, starting from the atrium of our museum, the first thing I expect upon entering is someone/something…an “instance”…that introduces me to the story I will witness…indeed…I will live.
      in the next post I'll try to be a little more concrete 😉

    3. It's already a good starting point.
      The same is true for me, but I would add one level: digital technologies allow us to overcome spatial constraints in many ways. In a physical setup, the space for labels and panels is necessarily limited. The use of monitors already helps in some way, but continues to be subject to the constraint of stationing the observer unless they are giant screens. But in that case the time constraint imposed by the time of the videos that are shown intervenes. The creation of local or ultra-local clouds through which only the stories and information pertinent to nearby observable objects can be accessed opens up infinite possibilities.
      Therefore, at the entrance to an exhibition I would be happy to find something that allows me to choose one of the possible stories that are told inside.
      It is imprudent to say it, but in essence we have to make what science fiction has already imagined come true: we have to invent the TARDIS!

    4. Alessandro Caporuscio

      in fact we are talking about a museum hypertext, a network of interconnected stories where the "pieces" on display are the nodes of the network and from each node it is possible to decide to follow one of the n stories and where the other n-1s can be recovered later, without losing coherence and integrity... the latter qualities which are also typical of the processing of information... therefore linked to digital technologies.
      I took the trouble to go and retrieve the normal forms of Boyce and Codd and I found these two definitions related to the decomposition of information:
      the decomposition must be without loss, which guarantees the reconstruction of the original information;
      must ensure dependency preservation, which ensures that the original integrity constraints are maintained.

      Stories then broken down into fragments ... held together by stories ... through narrative links, where the single piece can be functional to multiple stories assuming multiple roles.
      this obviously entails an exponential increase in complexity and it is precisely on this point that digital technologies can be of support in managing this apparent problem, of which, however, one has the thread in hand.
      therefore, in fact, the physical location of the pieces in the museum loses (or reduces) importance because the true fil rouge is not given by the rooms but by the stories ... and just as it takes away importance from the arrangement even if in the same physical place, it also does so (above all) if the place physical dematerializes ... even partially.
      a story that begins in front of the display case with a certain node-piece could continue through the narrative arc with a node-piece that is physically elsewhere. the digital museum hypertext has no spatial or media limits…it just has to obey the criteria of coherence so that the story can be interpreted at its best.

    5. True, the narration can be constructed as a hypertext, where the observables (which are not necessarily just the exhibited works) represent the nodes that connect. However, it is not the only choice. The narrative space can also be set up as a superimposition of linear paths (stories) that flow without necessarily intersecting. In that case I prefer to think more of the storyworld map model rather than hypertext. Also because the map is more linked to a visual concept that I prefer than textual communication.

      Then there is another element to consider, where I do not agree with your observation. From experience - limited, but still experience - the placement of the pieces remains absolutely critical because it marks the temporal evolution of the story in the mind of the observer through the progress in space. It is a concept expressed very well by Scott McLoud referring to comics and in my opinion it also applies to this context. The narration can be modeled as a sort of 3D graphic novel, where the shifts between the observables mark the logical sequence and the temporal evolution, with real acts and scenes in a way very close to the theatrical representation. This especially in the presence of an actor-guide which, in my opinion, is a critical element of success. Visiting an exhibition on your own by following a catalog or an audio guide is like watching a film on television for me. Following an actor-guide is like attending a live performance in the theatre.

    6. Alessandro Caporuscio

      I see your scott mcCloud and relaunch with the concept of "frame" applied to the narrative path, no longer a room ... but any space delimited physically and / or logically as a representative of an "instant that has a duration" (cit. Daniele Barbieri ) of the story, a moment of the story which is not necessarily an "instant", but a narrative-visual block (again Barbieri) which has collapsed to fulfill its narrative function and which our mind is able to interpret coherently ( again), as in the example below where the first scene is fictitious…in reality the dynamic is of separate and interpreted instants…”written”, i.e. constructed…by the reader.

      and here another boundless front opens up…that of cooperation between visitor and exhibition…not a passive spectator but an active element of the narration.

    7. In this way we arrive at two other ways to explore, not so much in theory where much has already been said, but in practice as they are ideas that have so far found rather marginal application.

      The first consequence of the reasoning is that the museum no longer necessarily needs physical rooms, but can be built anywhere by creating digital "rooms" in the sense you defined earlier. It is clear that the focus in this case is shifting from the conservation of objects to the conservation of stories of artistic, historical, cultural and scientific interest for a community, however it wants to be defined. The concept of conservation also changes a lot, because stories are preserved only if they are alive and to keep them alive they must be narrated. In narrating them they change and therefore the ability to manage this "liquid" mass becomes a primary requirement. We are now arriving at the second consequence: the interaction between visitor and exhibition changes both because in one the world of inner stories is (explainably) enriched, while the second should be enriched by acquiring new mutations of its stories that are generated in the visitors. Again the analogies with the theater come back and in this case I am thinking of the Fourth Wall. A wall whose digital graffiti must be collected and preserved.

    8. I enter a bit "straight leg" in the discussion.
      I think we are quite in agreement on the fact that "culture" is that set of facts, experiences and objects that have occurred, made and built by our ancestors over time.
      Clearly those facts, experiences and objects must be evaluated both in reference to the time in which they occurred and on the basis of what we know today. A "systemic error" made two thousand years ago does not diminish the value of that observation and also helps us understand how to try to avoid inevitable present and future misjudgments.
      All this from the point of view of the theory of knowledge and human development.
      How can this theory be expressed in current practice?
      I believe that the evolution of the concept of "museum" is the answer.
      The Museum is the place:
      - of the conservation of the "past".
      - the availability of knowledge of the "past"
      - the illustration of the "past" with all the tools possible today and tomorrow
      The three faces of the Museum will have to be supported by different specializations, without, however, conceptually or practically privileging any of them.
      If we agree with this general "definition", it seems to me that a sort of plan of how a museum is made has already been drawn: an "open" warehouse of works that can be easily "consulted on site" or remotely according to the purposes of the consultation.
      "Touching" a fifteenth-century folio edition of the "Divine Comedy" can also give a wonderful sensation, but it does not help the "culture". Chemically and physically examining the original text itself can be useful for improving its conservation or the evolution of printing processes. A scholar who wants to get to know the text well as it was written near the author's time can also do so by examining a digital copy of that text.
      Excuse the use of the "quotation mark", it is a bad habit of mine which is often useful in order not to stuff the text with long definitions ... and I'm sure we are discussing serious things, but with few "formalisms".

    9. If you didn't jump right into an argument, I'd think you've been replaced by an alien spore :-).

      We agree on the definition of museum, which is quite "classical". By the way, I had also reported it by replying to you in another thread before noticing this post of yours. I have already clarified there why I prefer a different type of language, but functionally then the categories seem like the same to me. Then let us remember that we are having this discussion to put meat on the fire for the meeting on May 14 in Siena and define a starting point. Hopefully other people will collect these ideas and expand them and then try to arrive at a shared synthesis. Here, rather than trying to give answers, it seems to me that we should try to bring out questions. And your comment in my opinion inspires two.

      The first is about who the museum's "customers" are and what value should be offered to them. Your words implicitly identify the scholars, who should be offered the opportunity to carry out their investigations. Then there are the generations of the future, who must be guaranteed the full usability of the work within the limits of humanly possible. Then there are those who I would generically define as the "consumers" of culture to summarize for simplicity - and, I admit, in a rather ugly way - all the various non-professional users: enthusiasts, school groups dragged along by the teachers, etc...
      This variable of the equation must always be kept in mind when thinking about the future of the museum.

      Then there is a second question which is even more critical and concerns the museum's mission and reference values: should it have a didactic or educational function?
      My perception is far from exhaustive, but the impression is that the first function clearly prevails in terms of number of museums, exhibitions and initiatives. Very often the visitor is conceived as someone who comes to learn a lesson, whereas I would like to see him conceived as a storyteller who comes looking for inspiration to enrich his inner world of stories. Inner world which is the main tool for interpreting reality and interacting with it.

    10. Alessandro Caporuscio

      in reality, the visitor to a museum starts from this concept…he has an inner world that leads him to seek enrichment. I don't go to an exhibition on the Etruscans if that world isn't already part of me.
      I would also get out of the noose of the museum as a place of training and/or education, these are aspects that are obviously present but which risk alienating those who don't already have a strong motivation of their own ... these aspects must instead be in the background and travel on a vehicle that has a stronger attraction, it shouldn't be "let's go see the Etruscan museum" but "let's go hear the story of that civilization".
      So what to offer to a visitor? not a lesson…surely, I think he should expect to be able to connect to the part of his inner world outside himself, to build inferences between what is inside and what is outside.
      I wouldn't go see a museum where things are kept about which I don't know…sorry “I feel”… nothing, just as I probably wouldn't go see something I've already heard everything about (unlikely but it's purely academic).
      I therefore have to establish a relationship with what I am going to witness…and the thing that comes closest to this empathy is precisely the narration…better if there are elements that make it spectacular…that make it vital.
      we all know very well that for the same content there are books that fascinate (and therefore leave a trace within themselves) and books that do not deposit anything in the reader. if we think of a museum as a book, it needs to be exciting... captivating... not just having beautiful illustrations or printed on beautiful paper.
      conservation and exposure are collateral benefits, induced by an even more prominent component which is narration.
      conceptually it is easy…it is more difficult to find, like any narrator, the best strategies that keep the reader captivated…that stimulate what Barthes called the “and then and then syndrome”…the desire to know how the story goes, to want to read a page again. if a museum does not arouse this desire, it has not achieved its purpose.

  6. Alessandra Donnini

    I'm not joining the comment thread, but addressing the final issue directly. In my opinion, exhibitions and museums should move to the place where the asset is also managed technologically or reproduce it. Showing not only the asset, but also the technological process developed for the discovery, placement, maintenance, parallel investigation tools, management. Where possible the good and the laboratory should be shown in support with real scientists 🙂 I give an example, I have long been fascinated and excited by the dancing satyr, which was also brought to Japan and physicists and engineers were bothered to design it for transport the gimbal-like structure that caused the satyr to float in the air during transport. Here is that transport structure in my opinion is the technological complement to the good and tells a bit of its modern history and it would be worth telling, perhaps by involving people in physics experiments.

  7. Alessandra Donnini

    I'm not joining the comment thread, but addressing the final issue directly. In my opinion, exhibitions and museums should move to the place where the asset is also managed technologically or reproduce it. Showing not only the asset, but also the technological process developed for the discovery, placement, maintenance, parallel investigation tools, management. Where possible the good and the laboratory should be shown in support with real scientists 🙂 I give an example, I have long been fascinated and excited by the dancing satyr, which was also brought to Japan and physicists and engineers were bothered to design it for transport the gimbal-like structure that caused the satyr to float in the air during transport. Here is that transport structure in my opinion is the technological complement to the good and tells a bit of its modern history and it would be worth telling, perhaps by involving people in physics experiments.

    1. Paolo Russo

      You find me in agreement, even if I see it in a broader way. The value of the "cultural asset" lies in the world of stories connected to it, which also includes all those concerning the technological aspects related to its conservation, transport and exhibition. But in addition to these there are all the stories about its discovery, in some cases about its theft and recovery, all those related to its use, to the historical, geographical context, or even the "stream of consciousness" generated in the visitors. All of this is an intangible cultural heritage that must be preserved and handed down as much as the material work that generates it. But preserving stories means telling them and therefore the concept of "museater" is dear to me, a museum that is conceived to "stage" all the stories related to the goods on display. The basic idea is that each visitor is a storyteller who must leave the museum having enriched his inner world with stories. Otherwise, the exhibition will have communicated nothing and will have been essentially useless.

  8. After about a month I rejoin the discussion starting from Alessandra's latest contribution "....the technological complement to the asset and tells a little of its modern history and it would be worth telling,...." which introduces another variable to the discourse: the value of the technique that allows cultural heritage to be handed down, that is, it allows to make sure that these assets can be … an asset for those who will come after.
    But this new variable takes us a little away from the initial outline which was to try to understand what culture is and therefore a cultural asset and how this asset contributes to "human improvement".
    We then entered a museum…it could be real or digital. If the museum is real, the sensations it could create are certainly different from those created by a digital museum … just as a real physical action is different from a film of the same action. However, if we want the cultural asset contained in that muzzle to create sensations and culture, then digital can help us because in addition to the "vision" it can provide a thousand other information connected to the object and that the object alone is not able to provide: if I look at a work of art, I can derive pleasure from it and elevate my soul; if I look at that work with a digital tool, I can also find cultural judgments and information that increase my knowledge and allow me to relate that work to everything related to the birth, life and legacy of that work. Opera.
    In conclusion, I think that we must always consider the intrinsic value of an asset and, in a general sense, the culture that the asset generates.

Leave a Comment