Summary of the Portico CoP meeting in Ghent, 2013

957 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
957
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
28
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Summary of the Portico CoP meeting in Ghent, 2013

  1. 1. ! CoP MEETINGS 3 & 4! Ghent, May 2013! !! inspiration &! innovation in! interpretation! ! ! connecting the future
 to the present practice 
 of heritage communication! ! wrap-up! & reader! ! !!!
  2. 2. First day (innovation of communicating heritage) ✦ Where and how to find new ways of engaging and inspiring heritage communication in order to enhance the quality of our communication? ✦ Should we look to other succesful heritage projects or should we look outside our field in order to innovate? ✦ Is gaming the state of the art example of heritage interpretation? ✦ How to approach this way of communicating and interacting? ✦ What is a really good example of network / platform you already use to inspire you and provide you with knowledge? ✦ Why does this work so well and how can we use this together?
  3. 3. Second day (connecting the future to the present practice) ✦ Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation? What do we need for that? ✦ What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near future, which questions will we have to answer within one or five years? How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on it easier? ✦ Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we adhere to the highest possible standard of research and criteria for quality, or can we combine high standard research with common sense and practical experience? What is the most useful result for innovation? ✦ In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying for our network? With whom do you want to share this future? Who should be involved and participate?
  4. 4. workshop (semi-open space) ✦ propose a question or theme that you want to discuss ✦ enhance the question / theme by adding knowledge, experience, questions ✦ we choose 4 propositions ✦ who wants to lead the discussion? ✦ use your 2 feet to join or leave a of the four discussions, or do some online crowdsourcing ✦ ask, propose, add, collect information, ask further, write down, draw ✦ results (plenary)
  5. 5. ✦ A Community of Practise helps us to enhance the quest for new insights and inspiration true / false ✦ (“To disclose our main treasures for a broad audience, we have to let visitors participate, involve them in the proces of interpreting and contextualizing heritage and engage as many people as possible”) Our visitors are the most inspiring source we have true / false ✦ Inspiration is over glorified. What we need is science, research and leadership true / false
  6. 6. ✦ In order to innovate we need to invite other experts, known and unknown to us, from within and outside the heritage field, to join our conversation true / false ✦ To be innovative is to be connected. We need to bridge structural holes between different sectors true / false ✦ keywords for innovation are intelligence creativity infrastructure human interest trust ...
  7. 7. ✦ In order to make our efforts sustainable on the long term, we need money and commitment from the government true / false ✦ Making heritage relevant means making it sustainable. We can make it relevant by using networks, semantics, open data, social media true / false ✦ The future is never sustainable. Technology changes fast. People don’t. We should invest in people / technology. why?
  8. 8. !SUMMARY
 The Community of Practice in Ghent was full of presentations, with a wide variety of examples. From means to inform hikers about the environment and the natural species richness in a nature reserve, to multimedia showing how things used to be, when Romans ruled, learning that ingenious constructions make it possible that an ancient Roman harbour gate is shown, while protecting it against the construction of a subway line underneath and supporting the beautifull museum above. We saw how aerial photography from archives can tell an almost emotional story and convince visitors how devastating WWI was for a large area in Belgium,for villages and villagers, leaving not much behind for archaeologists to find and study. By using Kinect technology visitors can surf their way through a 3D (virtual) reconstruction of an Etruscan sepulchral chamber. But we also understood that using signing, with well elaborated texts and images to guide visitors along historic city walls, will still reach many more people than smartphones will do nowadays. We pondered on issues such as ‘How are the public expectations towards heritage institutions evolving?’ Or ‘How heritage, leisure and tourism can enhance each other online, confronting the past with present events, news and trends. Does that mean innovation as process, or innovation as a way of life? We discovered how a game invite youngsters to look at the hidden history and treasures in their town, but is gamification really the future of heritage interpretation? We found out that minimal interaction still can lead to intense experience. And we were asked whether it is possible to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation by the right network (size), the right people (quality) and the right tools to develop and share visions of the future of heritage interpretation. !The questions for this meeting were: - Could you make a summary of your use of knowledge sources, such as fact sheets, brainstorms, best practices and communities to do research, gathering knowledge and discussing it with peers; both online and offline? What is the position of the CoP meeting in this?
 !- Where and how to find new ways of engaging and inspiring heritage communication in order to enhance the quality of our communication? Should we look to other succesful heritage projects or should we look outside our field in order to innovate? Is gaming the state of the art example of heritage interpretation? How to approach this way of communicating and interacting? !- What do you think is a really good example of network / platform you already use to inspire you and provide you with knowledge? Why does this work so well and how can we use this together? !- Budgets (and budget cuts) will influence our practice, work and organisation. Do we all agree on that or are there other, more important perspectives to ponder about? 
 !- Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation? What do we need for that?
 !- What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near future, which questions will we have to answer within one or five years? How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on it easier?
 !- Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we adhere to the highest possible standard of research and criteria for quality, or can we combine high standard
  9. 9. research with common sense and practical experience? What is the most useful result for innovation? !- In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying for our network? With whom do you want to share this future? Who should be involved and participate?! !Because we had so many interesting presentations there was not that much time for discussion during the meeting. And after a first day of presentations we got a great guided tour through a part of Ghent, especially in the (remains of the) inspiring St Bavo's Abbey. Then it was time for a delicious meal and we had plenty of time to continue to discuss with each other and talk about the projects being worked on. The second day we had about the same amount of interesting presentations and another inspiring tour in the 'Vooruit' building complex. !Main finding of this CoP could be that many ways and many means exist in informing about heritage. For us that is especially archaeology and historic sites. Whether we use photography or text, mobile devices, multimedia or gameplay, telling stories and connecting these stories to artefacts, visual remains, or archival information, is more important than the technical infrastructure. Yet we can't do without these networks and data. Engaging and connecting visitors, listening to their stories will not only contextualize the findings, but also lead to more and profound support from these visitors. Heritage interpretation is not just about information, it is about making heritage relevant, whenever, wherever. Not just skills or technique, but understanding and connecting. How this can be improved will remain as a subject for discussion and exchange of knowledge. And of course we would really like to hear from all attendees what their main findings were. Perhaps you could send us your two most important conclusions? Or your questions, since a good question can be a guide to new knowledge... !Last subject we discussed at the CoP was the inheritage.eu platform. Will it be usefull for exchanging knowledge and expertise? Will it help us to innovate? How? Are there enough fellow professionals who like to be involved and are willing to contribute? 
 Although the inheritage.eu network is emerging, there is no network whatsoever that will keep on growing or even exist just because it is there on the worldwide web. 
 We need an editorial direction and input from experts to make this platform relevant. When we discussed this in May, there were about 140 followers on twitter and since then, the amount of followers has more than doubled. Which means more than 1 followers each day... And there is still a lot to discuss and to discover. !If the Inheritage.eu network can help us to ask questions and try together to answer them, like we already do in the Portico project, that would really be a great succes for all of us! !As stated in the preliminary remarks for the CoP, we know the Portico project enables us to identify the main issues and discuss them with colleagues from different countries, each with their own practice and specific challenges. I would like to repeat what was written in these preliminary remarks. 
 A Community of Practise helps us to enhance the quest for new insights. Without innovation there will not be the suitable solutions for the great issues we are facing now and in the near future. Innovation in both proficiency and approach are extremely important for all experts in heritage, whether it is managing in situ find locations, or communicating meaning and exchanging relevance. Maybe we could go a step further and think about the transition we are experiencing. We are entering a more horizontal organized society. Many people have acces to media, unlimited knowledge and production tools, like 3D printers. Not everyone wants to be involved in archaeology, but archaeologists should engage with society and tell, show, let
  10. 10. people experience why it is relevant for them and their everydays life. Nowadays we are talking about the circular economy, but there are thousands years of knowledge about circular economy in our heritage. Still we are thinking in projects and subsidies, where we should think in a process and make our visitors part of this proces. !We tend to think that making heritage relevant means letting people become involved. Not just us, as experts, but also the stakeholders like (local) government, entrepreneurs, cultural institutions, schools, funds and foundations, tourists, residents... Let’s call it our audience. To disclose our main treasures for this broad audience, to let visitors participate in archeology on site, involve them in the proces of interpreting and contextualizing heritage and engage as many people as possible, we will have to innovate continuously, seek for the best and even better techniques, share knowledge and experience. That is the innovation part. The transition means we should alter our attitude towards heritage interpretation and communication. In addition we should be able to discuss the ethics, sustainability and responsibility with our audience or make it possible for our audiences to discuss this with us. !!!CONCLUSION and INVITATION We have to continue investigating new developments and trends in heritage interpretation for achaeology, historic cities and in situ sites and to discuss the possibilities of audience participation in the proces of communicating heritage and making it relevant for society. As society is changing rapidly and new technologies profoundly affect these changes, we have to exchange knowledge, experience en insights in a frequent way to keep up with all the possibilities and challenges. A combination of informal communities of practice, an online platform and social media can support or even enhance this exchange. !Therefore we invite everyone involved in the Portico project, and all our colleagues worldwide, to join our conversations and take part in making our heritage relevant for as many people as possible. !!
  11. 11. } new website - growing network {
  12. 12. temporary figurative mark, needed for Twitter, Facebook etc.
  13. 13. the former website full of great content, almost outdated
  14. 14. the former website what do we need?
  15. 15. the former website who do we meet?
  16. 16. the new network 1. the website - same content
  17. 17. the new network 1. website: cases categorized, tagged
  18. 18. the new network 1. website: level & mode as body of thought
  19. 19. the new network 1. website: submit a case, your case
  20. 20. the new network 1. website: part of a community
  21. 21. the new network 1. website: part of a community
  22. 22. the new network 1. website: part of a conversation
  23. 23. the new network 1. website: crosslinks
  24. 24. the new network 1. website: crossmedia
  25. 25. the new network 1. website: crowdsourced
  26. 26. the new network 2. social media: crowdsourced
  27. 27. the new network 2. social media: followers
  28. 28. the new network 2. social media: permanent beta
  29. 29. the new network 2. social media: meeting places
  30. 30. the new network 2. social media: starting conversations
  31. 31. the new network 3. measuring outreach + influence
  32. 32. the new network 3. influence & impact
  33. 33. the new network 3. follow and lead: exchange, learn
  34. 34. the new network 4. connect, combine networks
  35. 35. the new network 4. connect, combine online & offline our group photo could be here...
  36. 36. the new network 5. join us, invite others, there’s more to come!
  37. 37. the new network 6. next steps: joining other networks & platforms, building authority, forming partnerships
  38. 38. the new network 6. making the network selfsustaining and growing
  39. 39. the new network 6. next steps: forming an editorial board. What’s in it for you. Do you want to take part?
  40. 40. the new network 6. next steps: what would you suggest?
  41. 41. Thank you! ...
  42. 42. Inspiration and Innovation versus Quality Criteria for Interpretation Patrick Lehnes Abstract for the Portico CoP Meetings in Ghent – May 2013 Founded in 2010 Interpret Europe is a still young association of some 120 experts in heritage interpretation that aims to give this profession a voice at a European scale. Since 2013 the organisation is recognised as an advocacy network by the EU's Culture Programme. One of the reasons for founding Interpret Europe was the lack of a common understanding in the field of in situ heritage communication targeted to non-expert visitors. The quality of interpretive offerings varies to a large extend in Europe. In most European countries the approach and principles of heritage interpretation are still widely unknown even among heritage specialists. The history of Interpret Europe is linked to a transnational LEADER cooperation that strived to establish quality criteria as a means to foster professionalism in rural heritage interpretation. Experience then showed that even big museums and urban heritage interpretation could benefit from such quality criteria backed up by a leading European expert network. Even basic good practices that have been established already long ago in the USA are mostly not met in Europe. For this reason it seems to be crucial to establish commonly accepted quality criteria and to ensure that already existing know-how is more systematically applied in practice. What do inspiration and innovation mean in this context? Within the larger European picture, is innovation in heritage interpretation really top priority as long as already existing know-how and basic quality criteria are not yet met? From this background the paper will discuss the relationship between the need to establish general quality criteria and the role of inspiration and innovation in interpretation. It will look at how a structured collaboration of professionals can integrate both, advanced innovation defining new state-of-the-art and basic quality criteria, in order to further and foster professional interpretation in Europe. Patrick Lehnes has worked at Freiburg University and as free-lance consultant in Central Europe, the Mediterranean and the South Caucasus. He initiated the founding of Interpret Europe and is legal representative of this experts' association. He is convinced that, for an applied discipline such as heritage interpretation, the best academic research always fits with common sense and enlightens practical experience.
  43. 43. Inspiration and Innovation versus 
 Quality Criteria for Interpretation
 
 Patrick Lehnes Interpret Europe - European Association for Heritage Interpretation e.V. PORTICO CoP Workshop: Ghent May 2013
  44. 44. Interpret Europe 
 European Association for Heritage Interpretation 2010 ➢ Foundation in Slovenia ➢ 27 founding members 
 2013: ➢ 123 members from 30 countries ➢ acknowledged as advocacy network by the EU's Culture Programme
  45. 45. Interpret Europe's mission ➢ to fostering good practice and research in heritage interpretation throughout Europe 
 
 ! www.interpret-europe.net
  46. 46. Information ≠ Interpretation ➢ Dates ➢ Names ➢ Places ➢ Facts ➢ Descriptions ➢ Translations of technical terms ➢ Rules ➢ Carefully selected phenomena and information ➢ Greater context that reveals significance and new insights
 ➢ Provokes interest ➢ Relates to the visitor ➢ Follows a dramaturgy
  47. 47. Interpreters build bridges that give access to experience heritage Ordinary
  48. 48. Good interpretation ➢ relies on 
 inspiration 
 and creativity ➢ does not always need to employ innovation ➢ urgently needs 
 accepted 
 quality criteria
  49. 49. The wide spread fallacy 
 of decision makers ➢ Experts in the subject matter have the knowledge about the resource…
 …thus they are capable to explain it to the public
 ➢ That's not quite true
  50. 50. Poor results… ➢ …but nobody cares ➢ …as almost nobody evaluates ➢ …and the competitors are much cheaper!
 ➢ A pilot project demonstrating good practice is needed!
  51. 51. Belchenland 
 Discovery Trails 
 1999 - 2001
  52. 52. Visitors’ feedback at the 
 tourist information ➢ “It makes you wish to discover all of them”
 ➢ The breakthrough for interpretation?
  53. 53. Innovative best practice projects 
 - or the pilot project pitfall ➢ Enthusiasm in one valley… ➢ …but other local project teams didn’t notice the pilot project
 ➢ Some take on single innovative elements without understanding the whole
  54. 54. The pitfall
  55. 55. Transinterpret idea ➢ Avoid reinventing the wheel! ! ➢ Recommendations ➢ Coaching for local initiatives ➢ Quality Mark
  56. 56. ! Transnational co-operation ➢ Germany ➢ Italy ➢ Switzerland ➢ Greece
  57. 57. Transinterpret ➢ Evaluation of already existing know-how ➢ to distil concrete recommendations ➢ that can potentially serve as quality standards
  58. 58. Central database and 
 individual coaching Project coaching and checklists Feedback to enhance recommendations
  59. 59. Recommendations and standards
  60. 60. Recommendations and standards (2)
  61. 61. Transinterpret
 networking
 structure Partner area 4 (e.g. Appennino Genovese) Local projects 4A 4B 4C … Coaching Feedback Region (e.g. Greece) Partner area 1 Local projects 
 1A 1B 1C … Partner area 2 Local projects 
 2A 2B 2C … Partner area 3 Local projects 
 3A 3B 3C … Regional Advisory Centre Coaching Feedback Centre de Ressources / 
 Virtual Centre ➢Common Knowledge Base ➢Website ➢Training ➢Controlling… Actualised knowledge base Proposals for additional & optimised recommendations 
 Regional Advisory Centre Coaching Feedback Senior advisors
  62. 62. Quality criteria must allow for flexibility ➢ No project team is obliged to follow the criteria blindly… ➢ …as interpretation highlights particularities and special features, and different contexts… ➢ …as interpretation relies on creativity… ➢ …as they are not perfect… ➢ …but they have to be taken seriously into account
  63. 63. Evolutionary approach ➢ Assessment against quality criteria:
 > 75 % required for the quality label ➢ Visitor studies ➢ Stakeholder interviews Evaluation International 
 Workshops
  64. 64. Does it work? ➢ Belchen – Schauinsland
 ➢ Assessment checklists:
 Belchen 87 % 
 Schauinsland 56 %

  65. 65. Does it work? ➢ Belchen – Schauinsland
 ➢ Assessment checklists:
 Belchen 87 % 
 Schauinsland 56 %
 ➢ Visitor surveys
  66. 66. Traditional trail (Schauinsland) Pasture beech Mountain forest Plants Rocks 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 22% 23% 22% 10% 51% 58% 63% 79% How much did people read? Schauinsland trail (n=252) entire panel text nothing (or headline only)
  67. 67. Interpretive trail (Belchen) Plants Ravens Timber line Soil erosion Rift valley Alpine vista Alpine animals Glacier Nature protection 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 55% 58% 53% 55% 52% 71% 58% 57% 49% How much did people read on the Belchen trail? (n=536) entire panel text nothing (or headline only)
  68. 68. Quality criteria for the 
 network of professionals ➢ Lessons-learnt and innovation result in a constantly refined 'living system' ● Different cultures and mentalities ● Different target groups ● New forms of interpretation ➢ Common understanding…
 …or disagreement ➢ Tasks for research
  69. 69. Practical experience ➢ Coaching / Implementation of 
 more than 50 rural projects ➢ Some very successful, 
 some have obvious shortcomings ➢ Quality criteria backed up by two universities (or EU project) are not taken seriously
  70. 70. Thesis 1 ➢ Quality criteria cannot replace inspiration and creativity, ➢ but they can establish a minimum standard, help avoid shortcomings and thus enhance practice at a European scale
  71. 71. Thesis 2 ➢ Every piece of heritage interpretation 
 needs inspiration in order 
 to meet quality criteria
 in practice
  72. 72. Thesis 3 ➢ Innovation in interpretation 
 is a 'nice to have' ➢ but it must be based on systematically taking into account the quality criteria (or rather the consolidated body of knowledge and experience). ➢ Such projects might become true 
 lighthouse projects
  73. 73. Thesis 4 ➢ We need networking of leading heritage interpretation professionals ➢ in order to share and evaluate innovation that can lead to enhanced quality criteria.
  74. 74. To become widely 
 acknowledged and accepted Quality criteria in interpretation ➢ must be relevant for practice ➢ must ensure an added value ➢ must be backed up by 'the' profession, i.e. a trustworthy organisation of leading experts ➢ must not restrict innovation and inspiration ➢ but provide a framework context for inspiration and innovation www.interpret-europe.net
  75. 75. Conclusion ➢ From such a point of view internationally accepted quality criteria for interpretation 
 are of highest importance ➢ to enhance the performance of interpretation Europe wide 
 and add value for 
 heritage sites, 
 society and, ➢ decision 
 makers
  76. 76. Interpretation... ...is a service for visitors designed 
 to inspire them - by exciting their interest in a place's natural or cultural assets and - by revealing significant meanings and ideas.
  77. 77. Background ➢ Competition with other heritage communicators ● Graphic-designers, landscape planners ● Archeologists, biologists, foresters, geographers, ethnologist, historians,… ● Voluntary heritage enthusiasts ➢ 'Interpretation' unknown by most decision makers
  78. 78. Professional interpretation involves significant effort ➢ Sound and systematic planning ➢ Target group profile ➢ Deep analysis of the resource ➢ Multi stakeholder involvement ➢ Creativity and skills to develop an appealing story line....
  79. 79. The Chester Portico Project Telling the story of the City Walls and Towers Is gamification the future of heritage interpretation? David Masters This presentation will describe how the Chester Portico project has told the story of the City Walls and Towers. It will review the interpretive masterplanning process, and outline the resulting interpretation projects. The presentation will focus in particular on the development of new and innovative media, and the lessons learnt during the design and development process. The presentation will also discuss how some of the innovative elements were developed through research into new developments in heritage interpretation, and by drawing on experience in other fields. Some suggestions will also be made about the practicalities of networking and existing networks that can help to disseminate the Portico experience. Although gamification is a whole subject in itself, David is going to try and bring a presentation prepared by one of his colleagues called ‘Is gamification the future of heritage interpretation?’  about David David brings wide-ranging experience of interpretive planning, implementation, research and evaluation to Imagemakers, working for clients throughout the UK, Europe, Africa and South America. A specialist interpretive planner and copywriter, he has produced advisory and best practice guidelines for the Heritage Lottery Fund; delivered numerous workshops, lectures and seminars; and edited the award-winning Interpret Scotland journal. He is also Commissioning Editor of the Interpretation Journal, the ‘best practice’ publication of the Association of Heritage Interpretation (AHI). Imagemakers are a dedicated team of visitor experience and interpretation strategists, consultants and designers working throughout the heritage, cultural and tourism sectors. “We believe in the power of great storytelling and beautiful design to bring heritage alive for visitors.”
  80. 80. In#Flanders#Earth:#from#air#photo#to# museum#application Dr. Birger Stichelbaut, Department of Archaeology - Ghent University The centennial of the First World War (1914-1918) is rapidly approaching and the public interest in the heritage and landscape of this worldwide conflict is rising. One of the most prominent museums dealing with the First World War along the former Western Front is the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ypres. The renewed permanent exhibition of the museum opened last year in June 2012 and was designed by Tijdsbeeld & Pièce Montée. Visitors of the museum, especially the younger generation, do not have a personal link anymore with the war. This means that new ways have to be found to engage with the visitors, draw their attention and tell the story of this violent episode in history and what happened in the region almost hundred years ago. One of the focus points of the In Flanders Fields Museum is the landscape of the First World War. Now that the last living witnesses who experienced the horrors of the Great War passed away, this war landscape is becoming the real “last witness” of this conflict. Several displays in the museum’s new exhibition focus on this landscape aspect. One of them is “the In Flanders Earth” application. During the First World War, millions of aerial photographs were taken by all fighting countries. These were taken all over the different theatres of war (the Western Front in Belgium and France, Eastern Front, Gallipoli, Palestine, Isonzo Front, etc…), documenting a cultural landscape from which the relicts often remain visible as scars on the landscape. Most often however this landscape is preserved beneath the surface as archaeological heritage, invisible to the hundreds of thousands of annual visitors of the Ypres Salient (the frontlines around Ypres). Since 2005 the Department of Archaeology (Ghent University) explores the archaeological potential of these historical aerial photographs. They proved to be an excellent source for the mapping, inventory and analysis of the conflict archaeology of the First World War and its landscape. An on-going aerial survey project aims to map every single war features which is visible on 20.000 digitized historical aerial photographs. This results in a huge and unparalleled GIS dataset of already over 110.000 mapped war features (trenches, bunkers, barbed wire entanglement, barracks, ammunition dumps, airfields, …). The In Flanders Fields Museum became interested in expanding this research into a larger area and invested in this aerial photography project. The aerial photographs which were taken during the conflict provide an unparalleled record of both the progress of the war and the destruction of the landscape. Until recently these remarkable records of World War One have only been used a simple illustrations. This presentation explores how thousands of these images are now converted into a primary source on their own. Providing a unique bird’s eye view of the conflict landscape of World War One in a Google-Earth like application, called “In Flanders Earth”. This powerpoint will focus on the content and development of what we believe is an innovative museum application. In Flanders Earth provides a rarely explored vertical perspective on the Western Front. Thousands of historical aerial photographs are made
  81. 81. available in an interface inspired by Google-Earth. A modern day vertical aerial photograph provides the basis for the application. This layer is superimposed with thousands of historical aerial photographs which are geopositioned (georectified) in a Geographical Information System (GIS- software). Users of the application are encouraged to confront the present day landscape with the war landscape by browsing through the landscape of the Province of West- Flanders. The presentation will not only focus on the used methodology, but will also explore why the vertical perspective was chosen and it will highlight some of the content of the application. This collaborative project between Ghent University, the In Flanders Fields Museum and Tijdsbeeld & Pièce Montée is an example of how scientific research can – and should – have a public outreach. Instead of reaching limited numbers of other interested scientific researchers through publications, now hundreds of thousands of visitors can be reached each year. Hopefully changing their thoughts or perception of the Great War and its heritage in Belgium. University based (and funded) scientific research seldom acknowledges the importance of science communication and interacting with the general public. Yet, many scientific research projects in the fields of archaeology, history and also geography focus on unique aspect of heritage (i.e. 3d extraction, stereoscopy, visualisation, etc.) and could be adapted for heritage communication and museum purposes. A challenge for the future is in our in our opinion a change in mentality so that young researcher are encouraged to collaborate in these project and are acknowledged for this by universities. Fig. Interface of In Flanders Earth
  82. 82. Heritage 2020: new roads or back to basics? Fien Danniau The heritage sector finds itself in a phase of transition: the entry of digital media on a large scale and the professionalization of the sector leave their mark. Recently optimism, it seems, is put on hold: for who are we digitizing and modelling all this heritage for? Who will deliver the narratives as the gap between research and the heritage sector enlarges? Do we reach for goals or do we reach for five minutes of fame? Who is setting our pace? After a time of abundance and seemingly infinite opportunities the time seems right to get back to basics: what, why and for whom are we communicating heritage? Are the fundamentals of heritage communication really shifting? How are the public expectations towards heritage institutions evolving? In order to make this evaluation we need to dare reporting about and reflecting on our projects, the good and the bad. My contribution aims to bring a current lay of the field, with its challenges and opportunities, in order to define our goals for the future. Fien Danniau (1983) is master of History. From 2007 untill 2008 she worked as a staff member at Faro, Vlaams steunpunt voor cultureel erfgoed. Since 2009 she works as a scientific collaborator at the Institute for Public History at the History Department of Ghent University. In the context of several public history projects she attends to digital history and gives advise to the heritage sector concerning public history. She conceptualised inter alia www.UGentMemorie.be and www.Gent1913.be. Momentarlily she works on an ‘innovation in history education’ project concerning digital timelines, sets up the new Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities and prepares the bicentennial of Ghent University in 2017. Danniau, Mantels en Verbruggen, 'Towards a Renewed University History: UGentMemorie and the Merits of Public History, Academic Heritage and Digital History in Commemorating the University', Studium 5 (2012,3), 179-192. Danniau, ‘Digital public history?’, article submitted for the theme number on digital history of the BMGN Low Countries review (anticipated end of 2013). fien.danniau@ugent.be @fiendanniau www.linkedin.com/pub/fien-danniau/11/293/273 www.ipg.ugent.be, www.facebook.com/publieksgeschiedenis
  83. 83. Portico Project, Cop Wp2 A harbour gate in Roman Cologne PD Dr. Alfred Schäfer - Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln Kontakt Cologne: Dr. Marcus Trier, Direktor des Römisch-Germanischen Museums der Stadt Köln, email: marcus.trier@stadt-koeln.de PD Dr. Alfred Schäfer; Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln, email: Alfred.schaefer@stadt-koeln.de Roncalliplatz 4, 50667 Köln; Abstract in keywords for CoP Meeting Portico Project Scheduled for May 21 and 22 in Ghent Title: A harbour gate in Roman Cologne 1. Example of one investigation that demonstrate best practice: A Roman harbour gate in Cologne / Archaeology of the Roman harbour 1.1 The archaeological investigations of the “Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln” can be shown exemplarily on the basis of the excavations on the Kurt- Hackenberg-Platz not far from the choir of the city’s cathedral. At this place a Roman harbour gate was excavated during 2007/2008. It was one of the five gates that faced the Rhine along the city-wall of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (CCAA). 2. excavation, hand measurements, laser scanning, digital reconstruction, realtime ap- plication, Colonia/3D see http://www.colonia3d.de/ 2.1 The structural remains of the Roman harbour gate at Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz in Cologne were documented with detailed hand-drawings. On the basis of the hand
  84. 84. measurements, georeferenced plans and elevation-drawings were prepared that en- abled a three-dimensional reconstruction. During a further operation, the gatehouse was recorded as part of the 3D-visualisation of the Roman town: see International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Workshop 15, Wien 2010, 380-393; ebook http://www.stadtarchaeologie.at/?page_id=4268 3. managing in situ find location: from excavation to museum, a new underground build- ing for visitors 4. Contemporary innovation strategies / communication platforms and knowledge ecol- ogy, heritage communication and heritage network 4.1 exhibition Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln; see http://www.behance.net/gallery/Time-tunnel/5951059 4.2 KölnTourismus; see http://www.koelntourismus.de/sehenswertes-kultur/museen/staedtische-museen/roem isch-germanisches-museum.html 4.3 Archaeology of the Roman borderlines, see Current World Archaeology in print and “Der Limes” 2012, Heft 2, 20-23; http://www.deutsche-limeskommission.de/fileadmin/dlk/images/dlk/pdfs/Der_Limes_0 2_2012.pdf 4.4 The archaeology of the Roman harbour in Cologne as part for the harbour-project, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; see http://www.spp-haefen.de/de/die-projekte/der-rhein-als-europaeische-verkehrsachse/ 4.5 A world heritage site in progress: The harbour gate as part of the frontiers of the Ro- man Empire (extension), tentative lists of the Netherlands; see http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5636/ 4.6 Connecting different world heritage sites in the future: The Porta Nigra in Trier and the Roman Rhine front of Cologne; two projects linked, see http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/region/trier/Heute-in-der-Trierer-Zeitung-Die-G eheimnisse-des-schwarzen-Tors;art754,3502371 PD Dr. Alfred Schäfer Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln
  85. 85. 32 Issue 59CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY Cologne Revealing a Roman gateway to the Rhine Archaeologists in Cologne are completing the city’s biggest project of its kind ahead of construction for a new railway network. When finished, commuters will buy their tickets and board their trains just metres above the newly discovered remains of a Roman harbour on the former banks of the Rhine, as Alfred Schäfer and Marcus Trier explain. LEFT ABOVE In the shadow of Cologne’s magnificent cathedral, archaeologists have uncovered the city’s Roman gateway to the mighty River Rhine. BELOW Roman town wall on the Rhine side; the northern harbour gate and drain outlet beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz in Cologne. PHOTO:Römisch-GermanischesMuseumderStadtKöln COLOGNE BERLIN G E R M A N Y DUSSELDORF ESSEN FRANKFURT R I V E R R H I N E GERMANY
  86. 86. www.world-archaeology.com 33CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY F or the past ten years, archaeologists from the Römisch-Germanisches Museum have been digging an area of Cologne destined to become part of the new north-south city railway. The 4km-long route runs from the Central Station into the southern part of the city. Most of it lies 20m to 27m (65ft to 89ft) below the ground, safely well below archaeologically relevant levels, and therefore of little threat to ancient structures. However, where foundation piles for stations and service access points are required, the building work poses a very real danger to any archaeological remains. The construction of the North-South Urban railway is a mammoth project, and the associated archaeology represents the most extensive study into Cologne’s buried past to date. So far, the archaeologists, led by Alfred Schäfer and Marcus Trier, have investigated an area 30,000m² (3ha) – roughly the size of four football pitches – and about 13m (43ft) below ground. Most of the foundations for the modern development lie in a region that once formed the banks of the River Rhine, before it became silted up in the 2nd century AD. Beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz, in the shadow of the magnificent choir of the city’s cathedral – the largest Gothic church in Northern Europe – are the wonderfully preserved remains of a monumental gateway to this harbour. Excavation took place here in 2007/2008 and, with the results now collated, we are confident we will be able to get a clear idea of how this entrance to the city would have appeared to the local inhabitants since the end of the 1st century AD. Advancement through technology The gateway beneath Kurt-Hackenberg- Platz is one of five Roman gates that once looked out onto the Rhine along the river section of city-wall of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (CCAA) – so named after Agrippina, wife of the emperor Claudius, who was born here and who petitioned GERMANY ABOVE Reconstruction of the Roman colonia at Cologne. BELOW Digital terrain model of Roman Cologne as it was at the end of the 1st century AD. COLOGNE: A POTTED HISTORY One of Germany’s oldest cities, Cologne can trace its history back more than 2,000 years. In c.20/19 BC, a Germanic tribe called the Ubii were resettled on the left bank of the Rhine, where the Romans founded a town called Oppidum Ubiorum. This 'settlement of the Ubii’ was Romanised from its outset. This was the birthplace of Agrippina the Younger, who in AD 50 petitioned her husband, Emperor Claudius, to elevate the site to the status of a colonia. The settlement was renamed ColoniaClaudiaAra Agrippinensium, later shortened to Colonia– the root of the city’s modern name. In c.AD 84 the colonia was made the capital of the province of Germania Inferior, and in AD 260 it became the capital of the breakaway ‘Gallic Empire’ before the rebellious territories were retaken 14 years later. Throughout the 4th century the colonia was pillaged by the Franks, finally falling to them in the early 5th century AD. IMAGE:Colonia3D
  87. 87. 34 Issue 59CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY Revealing the gatehouse What did the harbour gate at Kurt- Hackenberg-Platz look like? We found evidence of a substructure at the base of the lowest river terrace on the inward looking face of the city wall that would support a rectangular gatehouse 7.4m (24ft) wide and 6.5m (21ft) deep. Through it would have run the northernmost decumanus – the so-called ‘Harbour Street’. This passageway through the gate measures 2.7m (9ft) between the red sandstone blocks. A manhole cover belonging to a maintenance shaft found during excavation indicates the level of the pavement within the gatehouse. Beneath it, the underground drain flowed along the axis of the street, under the gateway and into the river from an outlet in front of the town wall. The plan of the gatehouse, therefore, gives us a clue to its design, enough, at least, for a rough reconstruction, including the height of the tower’s roof – estimated to be about 13.5m (44ft) in high. The foundations of the Roman town wall were 3m (10ft) wide and 3.2m (10ft 6in) deep, and rested on the firm gravel of the river terrace. They were made up of opus caementicium and covered in greywacke. They lie in waterlogged soil at just about the level of groundwater, and, as a result, the anaerobic conditions have ensured that the foundations' wooden shuttering has survived in a remarkably fine state of preservation. Analysis by Cologne University’s The projecting sewer outlet is made up of ashlar blocks of tufa faced by limestone blocks, resting on a foundation of opus caementicium (Roman cement). The passageway through the ‘harbour gate’ runs over great slabs that cover the sewer. In the Late Roman period, the entrance was sealed with re-used worked stones, or spolia. Clearly, the Roman engineers who designed and built this gateway were exceptionally skilled; the red sandstone blocks in the wall above the slabs covering the sewer are an integral structural element of the tower’s gate jamb. Such high calibre workmanship would have required a considerable level of technical expertise. for the city’s colony status (see box on p.33). Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz was built as part of the regeneration project following the end of World War II. It lies on top of an old secondary channel of the Rhine, home to the port that belonged to the 1st century AD Roman town. The natural harbour basin was about 60-70m (197-230ft) wide and about 1km (0.7 miles) long. The land to the west rises to form an area of higher ground above the high water mark on the banks of the Rhine. It is here that the town was originally founded in the last 10 years BC; the Roman walls on the banks of the Rhine mark the borders around this section of the old city. The site was clearly chosen by the first settlers for its location above the floodplains along the left bank of the Rhine, looking out towards the channel of the old river and the river island. Nearly 2m (6ft 6in) beneath Kurt- Hackenberg-Platz, the consortium KölnArchäologie, under the supervision of archaeologists from the Römisch- Germanisches Museum, came across the monumental remains of these fortifications, facing onto the Rhine. A section of the Roman town wall, about 25m long, crossed the modern construction pit in a north-south direction. The view from the south side looks towards the town wall and the outlet of the main sewer which ran through the foundations of the Roman gatehouse. ABOVE The substructure of Cologne's ‘harbour gate’ underlying Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz, seen from the north on the inner face of the town wall. BELOW Digital reconstruction of the northern Harbour Gate of Roman Cologne IMAGE:RGM IMAGE:Römisch-GermanischesMuseum/Colonia3D
  88. 88. www.world-archaeology.com 35CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY GERMANY along with additional posts, also served as pile-foundations to support a wooden walkway that ran at the same height as the base of the wall. A ramp comprising fragments of greywacke piled against the walkway apparently served as a quay for the loading and unloading of ships and boats, even at low water levels. The Dendrochronology Laboratory at Cologne University examined 150 oak stakes that made up a section of the plank wall, and analysis confirmed that all the trees from which they cut were felled in AD 89. Trading hub Of the five gatehouses on the Roman wall along the Rhine, this so-called Harbour Gate that would have linked the town behind it to the Roman harbour on the and thickness varies only very slightly, reflecting, once again, the superb quality of craftsmanship of the Roman builders. A contiguous row of vertical oak stakes along the edge of the riverbank was found in front of the conifer shuttering, situated 4m (13ft) beyond the town wall and parallel to it. It appears, from its stratigraphic relationship with the structure behind it, that this line of wooden stakes was installed to shore up the earth along the waterfront ahead of the construction trench for the Roman town wall. Furthermore, the plank wall, Dendrochronology Laboratory established that this shuttering was made of conifer timber; that the trees were felled in the Black Forest; and that they were transported down the Rhine to be sawn to size on site at Cologne. The planks were, on average, about 8m (26ft) long, about 30cm (1ft) wide, and between 3.5cm and 4cm (1.3-1.6in) thick. The width ABOVE The wooden shuttering on the inner- face of the Roman town wall’s foundation was extremely well preserved, thanks to the water-logged conditions of the soil at near ground water levels. THIS BOX Reconstruction of the harbour gate with its ramp for landing ships. The wooden casing of the foundations was extremely well preserved due to the levels of groundwater. After the foundations had been poured, the rising walls of the harbour gate were established, approximately 8m in height. This work was accompanied by the construction of a main sewer that ran under the door pening and flowed outside the city walls. Over wooden ramps that led to the level of the pier, the harbour gate connected the area of the port with the inner Roman city. Such high calibre workmanship would have required considerable technical expertise. PHOTO:Römisch-GermanischesMuseumIMAGES:Römisch-GermanischesMuseum/Colonia3D
  89. 89. 36 Issue 59CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY occurred shortly after the decision was made to promote CCAA to the status of provincial capital of Germania Inferior in c.AD 84. Construction work was almost certainly undertaken by the military, and visitors to Cologne’s bank of the Rhine at this time would have been confronted by one huge building site. However, almost as soon as construction of the town wall was complete, the harbour basin had become fully silted up. By the middle of the 2nd century AD, the river island, formerly close to the bank, was attached to it. It is almost certain that the main harbour of Roman Cologne was then located on the west side that remained open to the Rhine, and the Roman settlement extended along the eastern bank of the island. The area of the river island itself was transformed into a transshipment point with storage facilities and commercial buildings. Later, during the 4th century, walls were built to shore up the north and south of the island. Just how much building work took place during the Medieval period along the former channel of the River Rhine, however, will be another story for CWA and further revelations about the archaeology of the North-South Underground line of Cologne. also recovered the remains of sunken – or abandoned – wooden flat bottomed boats that, with their shallow draughts and wide hulls, were specifically designed for transporting large quantities of goods along the river. The ‘harbour gate’, the city wall, and the drain outlet, as well as the wooden walkway along the base of the wall’s outer face, were all part of an extensive building project that included construction of the town’s fortifications in about AD 90/91 – possibly during the rule of Domitian (AD 81-96). It can be no coincidence that this all river below. Thanks to the slower current in the partially silted Rhine channel, it was ideal for river traffic, and Colonia Claudia became a busy trading hub, importing and exporting a wide variety of goods. This, certainly, is reflected in huge quantity of small finds found during excavation, including an unusually high number of fragments of Roman amphorae for carrying wine, spice sauce, and olive oil. More than 1,500,000 small finds were recovered from the former harbour basin – though much of this included rubbish from the centre of Cologne that had been dumped into the river along its bank. We LEFT Fragments of amphorae with tituli dipinti (painted inscription), one with information about imported sweet olives, found beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz. ABOVE A boathook, dating to the middle of the 1st century AD, just one of the huge quantity of finds recovered from the former riverbank of the Rhine. BELOW Roman shipwreck recovered from the excavation beside the remains of the harbour gate. The waterlogged site's anaerobic conditions preserved the wooden ship, allowing archaeologists to create a miniature model, using around 1,000 nails, as in the mid- 1st century AD. SOURCE Dr Alfred Schäfer, Römisch- Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln, alfred. schaefer@stadt-koeln.de; Dr Marcus Trier, Direktor des Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln, marcus.trier@stadt-koeln.de FURTHER INFORMATION For more about the 3D reconstruction of Roman Cologne, visit: www.colonia3d.de/ GERMANY IMAGE:RBAd017894/AWegner
  90. 90. Need$for$innova,on Menno%Heling Community%of%Prac4ce:%statements%&%ques4ons%9%Por4co%project,%Ghent%may%21%/%22%2013 Innova&on'as'process'or'innova&on'as'a'way'of'life? Is'there'a'consensus'on'the'need'for'innova&on'in'engaging'as'many'people'as'possible? Main'objec&ve'is'to'foster'innova&on;'but'do'we'have'a'clear'picture'of'a'defini&on'of'innova&on;' and'how'it'fits'in'our'strategy'to'achieve'our'heritage'goals'in'the'long'term? To'work'and'labor'on'innova&on'means'perspira&on;'that’s'what'a'community'is'for;'in'mean&me:' innova&on'is'derived'from'inspira&on'as'a'result'of'crea&ve'thinking.' Innova&on'is'based'on'the'sharing'and'management'of'informa&on,'but'only'leads'to'‘new'maEer’'as' a'result'of'insight.'Not'all'groupmembers'are'geared'towards'crea&ve'thinking.'We'do'not'share'the' same'DNA'(crea&ve'and'entrepreneurial)'to'excell'as'leaders'in'the'innova&on'process.'And'we'do' need'leaders'(by'example). Focus'on'and'iden&fy'which'roles'in'the'community'of'prac&ce'are'instrumental'and'essen&al'to' create'an'innova&ve'environment.'Who'is'the'leader,'who'is'the'fascillitator'etc. ANer'distribu&on'of'responsibility'for'different'parts'of'the'process,'small'groups'can'engage'in' training'innova&ve'thinking.' PP Other'statements: P Why'a'lack'of'innova&on?'Answers'before'pretending'to'start'a'community'of'prac&ce'‘’to' foster'innova&on’’.'(no'entrepreneurship,'no'compe&&on,'no'urgency'or'accountability) P Need'for'innova&on:'only'in'our'partnership'with'users'/'public?'But'also'in'our'core'business' (which'is'what?'Selling'Heritage'as'a'touris&c'service?'Uncovering'the'past?'Whose'past'/' heritage?'And'whose'culture?'Who'is'leN'out?) To'set'up'a'COP: P Need'for'leaders P Need'for'thought'provoking'content'(ar&cles,'cases,'presenta&ons) P Need'for'infrastructure ''
  91. 91. P Need'for'commitment'from'members'of'the'heritage'community'(par&cipa&on'only' 1P100P10.000) P Need'for'change'and'ac&on'and'no'objec&ons,'please How'to'start'a'movement? P Are'we'clear'on'principles'and'strategy? P How'do'we'embrace'the'first'followers'(TED'talks) P Do'we'all'need'a'traineeship'in'social'media'and'community'management?'(how'many'of'the' par&cipants'of'the'COP'3+4'are'really'ac&ve'3.0? P Do'we'embrace'the'2.0'way'of'thinking? P How'do'we'experience'synergy'in'sharing'and'par&cipa&ng'in'this'new'society'as'a'network?' P Read'Peter'Sloterdijk’s'magnum'opus:'Spheres Turn'the'heritage'sector'into'a'business! P Apply'the'Golden'Circle:'have'a'dream P No'monopoly'on'quality'of'content P From'quality'control'to'quality'management'an'beyond P End'users'and'emancipa&on'of'the'masses'(Castells) P Focus'on'doing'things'TOGETHER'to'create'a'sense'of'OWNERSHIP,'two'main'objec&ves'for' the'coming'decade. P etcetera contact:'Menno'Heling 0031P631974866 menno@iNhenisnow.nl www.iNhenisnow.nl www.facebook.com/iNhenisnow www.twiEer.com/iNhenisnow www.pinterest.com/iNhenisnow ''
  92. 92. Portico'CoP'presentation' Ghent,'May'22,'2013'
  93. 93. Questions)CoP14 • How to develop and maintain a network /community? B-2-C or B-2-B? • if then is now as a B-2-C network (C/PCoP) • Cooperation with heritage, culture and leisure industries • Challenges: valuecase iso business case • Trends, markets, competition => innovation • Innovation in user interaction • Quality control => quality management (user = consumer => producer: prosumer role changes) ! ! ! ! ! ! 2
  94. 94. Serious)quote)1 Natalia Grincheva: ‘The Canada’s Got Treasures portal, by claiming to present cultural heritage of the country through the eyes of the public, provides only a platform for social control and for media representation of an artificially constructed collective identity of Canada. The project once again illuminates the expanding power of media representations in producing identities and shaping the relationship between the self and society’. ! ! ! ! 3
  95. 95. A)m(b)ission) • To become the #1 community platform on culture, heritage and tourism ! • Access to culture, high and low • if then is now = food for thought • Participation for all, no groups excluded • Inspire, share, contribute: Do culture your way! ! ! ! ! ! 4
  96. 96. 12 Layers'of'meaning
  97. 97. Communities:'working'together
 
 New'communities'and'targetgroups'for'culture'and'tourism
 ! • Users:'heavy'users'to'daytrippers' • Experts:'heritage'and'content' professionals''' • Business'Partners:'museums,'archives,' leisure'industry'(hotels,'travel'agencies),' regions,'cities' • Strategic'Partners:'affiliate'partners'like' Zoover'and'Dinnersite,'Europeana,' Amazon.com,'media'partners' 13
  98. 98. Traffic Year #'users source'traffic'% Per'week Per'year %'unique %'repeat Strategische' Partners Business'Partners Experts Users 2013 ''6.250 '''325.000 80 20 40 30 10 20' 2014 29.000 1.500.000 75 25 20 30 20 30 2015 56.000 2.900.000 70 30 15 20 25 40
  99. 99. Revenue Model / PMCs ! 2013 - 2016' • Partner+ pages' • Extra products / services (guide POD)' • Use of content and content distribution • Licensing deals' • Affiliate partners' ! 2017 - 2018' • Sponsoring' • Affiliate revenue • Webshops and other services' ! Roll out in EU and beyond
  100. 100. Milestones 16 Nr Overzicht 1 Grant'AgentschapNL'2010Z2012'(Innovatie'Cultuuruitingen)' 2 www.ifthenisnow.nl'in'bèta'live'since'sept'2012'(Drupal,'API'connections) 3 >100.000'articles 4 Mapview 5 Registration'and'participation'by'end'users:'in'4'weeks'more'than'200'active'accounts 6 More'than'2.000'heavy'users 7 Cooperation'with'traffic'builders'like'Zoover,'Dinnersite,'RouteYou,'Europeana,'Museumkaart'and' others 8 Cooperation'with'professionals'ánd'amateurZexperts' 9 >100'volunteers'for'testing'and'development'of'site 10 Professionally'trained'editorial'team 11 Brand'development 12 Pilotprojects:'city'pages,'hotel'partners'and'cultural'partners
  101. 101. Just'launched:'
 if#then#is#now#City'Page'
  102. 102. if'then'is'now'MarCom'principles ! • Brand development: long term focus on ideas and vision • Value case iso business case • Process of loyalty creation • Concepting: followers iso targetgroups • Emotional involvement for all: followers in all socio-demographics • Start with fans and make ambassadors 22
  103. 103. Vision'on'heritage ! • Need to connect heritage to contemporary context • Innovation in presenting Then and Now • Translation of history in essays/mirrors to create room for thought • Connection with leisure partners in a community of meaning (hotelstories) • Heritage is not limited by borders 23
  104. 104. Relation'/'identity'Who(m) ! Inspiration, expert (but not top down), listening partner for • Users (cultural tourists, day trippers and hardcore users (need for local, national of European identity) • Experts in need for dynamic context (by journalists and user generated content) • Leisure partners • City and region partners (dynamic and interactive new way of city promotion) 24
  105. 105. Community'(oP)'Strategy How to start a movement? ! • One • Few • Many ! Challenge: how to build a community? Why? How to finance a process of development? 25
  106. 106. Serious)quote)2 Agnes Alfandari: ‘The augmented museum is permeable. It is not the sole holder of knowledge. It not ontly aims to share its resources with the greatest number, but it must also be entriched by the contributions of all’. ! ! ! ! 26
  107. 107. Heritage: what's in it for me? Anne Vroegop In the current situation of budget cuts and declining numbers of visitors it is important that heritage institutions reinforce their position in society, argues interaction designer Anne Vroegop. Gameprinciples and service design thinking are effective tools in reaching this goal. Heritage institutions might look more into the commercial sector to find inspiration. In the heritage sector one can discern two kinds of technological innovation aiming at efficiency enhancement and the creation of new opportunities. The first kind concerns professional access and research, where scientific standards are applied. In archeological research for instance, new VirtualReality applications enable the creation of a accurate historic reconstruction of a site. The second kind concerns the accessibility of heritage. Technological innovations enable the application of gameprinciples and the development of new digital services. The innovation of (scientific) research however, demands different standards and approaches than the innovation of accessibility. In research only the highest standards are applied, while in the area of access for the public creativity and common sense play a far larger role. This article gives an incentive to think about technological innovation in the access to heritage. Minimal interaction, intense experience Below I will give two examples of innovative applications in reaching out to the audience, with limited use of technology, but with great value for the audience. Starting September 2013, young visitors of the EYE Filminstitute in Amsterdam can use a augmented reality app, called “EYEwalk”, while they are led through the building and get an explanation of the history of filmmaking. This tour on a iPad mini is actually a short movie with actors, that gives the user the illusion that he is being led by geospecific data and that he can interact with the space around him. EYEwalk
  108. 108. Also the next example shows that heritage games do not need state of the art technology. Do you take the wounded soldier with you or do you leave him behind? Will you join the army or the resistance? One question is even more confronting than the other in the interactive documentary “Onder vuur”. The documentary tells a true story about the war near Srebrenica; the visitor has to empathize with a soldier and make decisions in his position. Depending on his choices a different line of story deploys. Even six years after the opening of the installation the documentary still has a heavy impact on the audience. The installation in the Legermuseum is an example where the evocation of emotions, new technologies and minimal interaction join together in a environment where a story based on historical facts is told. The essence of a good interactive documentary is in the quality of the story and the well defined, often simple actions that the visitor has to perform to advance in the documentary. One way to do this, like in Delft, is to offer the visitor a choice of scenarios. Move your audience with game principles The explanation for the success of these interactive documentaries/games is that they are based on gameprinciples, with a clear ‘what is in it for me’. The best games move and touch people, because they are strongly anchored in a gameprinciple – a intrinsic motivation to play the game. The installation in Delft is based on escapism and curiosity: visitors escape their own reality by immersing in an other reality for a short while and want to know how the story ends. Heritage institutions could cleverly use this by developing forms of presentation based on gameprinciples that fit the targetgroup. This requires that heritage institutions do active research in the needs of their targetgroup and develop forms relating to the collection that enrich the life of their targetgroup. Indeed something only is of value when it makes life easier or more pleasant. Moving people and making their lives more pleasant and more easy, that is the essence. Service design thinking for a clever application Indeed, this is service design thinking in a nutshell. In the commercial sector this way of thinking is more common: for example with a chip in your Nike running shoes, you can monitor your running activities with the joining Nike+---app and share the results by social media. This kind of application makes the product (the running shoe) more meaningful to the runner.
  109. 109. In the heritage sector new technologies gain ground slowly. The Rijksmuseum was ahead of it’s time in 2008 with the Rijkswidget, an app that showed a different object of the collection on your screen every day. In the same year, Kissdaweb developed a enormous slotmachine , that was projected on canalhouses in Amsterdam. Instead of images of fruit, pieces of the collection of the Zuiderzeemuseum were shown. With three in a row users could win free entrance tickets for the museum. When hitting the jackpot, one made a chance to stay a night in the museum. It is a rewarding principle that directly shows the heritage consumer what is in it for them. And recently a library in Boekarest established itself in a subwaystation. The walls are decorated with prints of bookcovers provided with QR---codes. By scanning the code, passers by can start reading on the go! Slotmachine in Amsterdam A challenge: from visitor to user Many heritage institutions face budget cuts that force them to follow a more commercial policy. The biggest challenge is not to cut on expertise. Another challenge is the development of new services and tools. Institutions will only succeed if they perform frequent online and offline surveys among their target groups and translate the outcomes to new functions and tasks within the institutions. QR---codes in Boekarest
  110. 110. To keep playing a relevant role, heritage institutions have to show that they have to offer something substantial to society, by moving people and by entertaining them substantively. The success of the mentioned examples shows that heritage institutions have to grow towards a situation in which they view the visitor as a ‘user’--- someone that uses their collection, instead of someone who just passively consumes a painting or film. Usersurveys, preferrably executed by in---house digital media experts, render essential data. Gaming and service---design---principles help to translate this information into forms of presentation that personally move people and enrich their lives. Forms, in other words, that add value to life and that help institutions to confirm their right of existence. Networking is ‘hot’ Heritage institutions do not only enhance their position in society with apps, QR---codes and the application of gameprinciples. It is no new insight that a lot can be gained by participating in online networks. These are not only places to share knowledge, but also to share new visions on the interpretation of heritage collective thinking on the future. For this reason alone should the active participation in online networks be part of the regular tasks of anyone working in a heritage institution. A far more pregnant question is which network deserves the attention of the institution. In the world of heritage one might well speak of a overabundance of international networks, so the most important question seems to be, which network delivers the most value. Participating in networks of your fellow professionals helps to keep up and to create a sense of connectedness, but it is important also to cross boundaries and to look for new networks, that are related to the professional area, so new cross connections are created. In doing so, the commercial sector deserves more attention than it is getting at the moment. Unanswered questions Between now and the next five years, we will have to find answers to the following questions: 1 --- how can we establish new cooperations 2 --- how can we keep on innovating 3 --- what influence does the changing role of social media have on the institutions 4 --- how do we prevent fragmentation of the networks 5 --- how can we go on questioning our own right of existence Anne Vroegop works as interaction designer and conceptdeveloper for her own company Kissdaweb and is also connected to the EYE film institute as coordinator of digital presentations.
  111. 111. Digital innovation at the Allard Pierson Museum / University of Amsterdam Dr. Wim Hupperetz, director Allard Pierson Museum The Allard Pierson Museum is working closely together with the media studies department in different (EU funded) projects on digital innovation related to museology. Some projects and initiatives are described below. The NewMedia Lab (www.v-must.net) The NewMedia Laboratory is located within the Allard Pierson Museum, in Amsterdam. Incorporated into the permanent exhibition space of the APM, the NewMedia Lab will be a “living lab” that will serve as the primary location for Virtual Museum(VM) evaluation activities in WP7 of V-MusT.net and WP6 activities in the meSch project. While the NewMedia Lab is ideally suited for on-site evaluation of VM within the context of a traditional museum, we also equip the NewMedia Lab to handle a variety of evaluation approaches that will be applied to online and mobile VM applications as well. At present, we have already dedicated a space in the museum to the setup of such a Lab and have been conducting early evaluation on the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini Galassi Tomb, a VM application using natural interaction developed through the Etruscanning project (European project, Culture 2007). The aim of the NewMedia Laboratory is to provide a primary location for evaluation activities , as well as serve as a place for students, researchers, developers and SMEs to experiment with VM within a museum context. Although the NewMedia Lab is ideally located for evaluation of VM within the context of a traditional museum environment, it will also be equipped with the necessary resources to facilitate the testing and evaluation of online and mobile VM technologies. We develop the NewMedia Lab in such a way that it can be integrated into the museum, connecting the museum experience to the VM, or can be closed off to facilitate controlled experimentation and evaluation. Furthermore, we intend to ensure the NewMedia Lab is equipped in a manner that allows it to be mobilized for the evaluation of VM in other locations outside of the Allard Pierson Museum of Archaeology. Etruscanning 3D in Short (http://regolinigalassi.wordpress.com/) This project started from a basic idea of bringing objects from an Etruscan tomb together with the original space. Since this could not be done with the original objects in the original space, this had to be done in a virtual way. Etruscanning 3D was a close collaboration between museum curators, archaeologists, software developers, interactive designers, exhibition designers, specialists in storytelling, consultants in digitization and digital restoration, evaluation
  112. 112. specialists and many others who contributed their knowledge and expertise to the project. This list of collaborators shows how this innovative project went beyond many traditional borders and domains. Within the project, we were able to establish an international cooperation in digital acquisition, digital restoration, and 3D representation. Through exhibitions, blogs, videos, and publications, we were able to realize a new approach to the communication of Etruscan tombs and collections in exhibitions in the Netherlands and Belgium. At the end of the project, the final resulting applications will be installed for permanent use in the Vatican Museums, Villa Giulia (Rome) and Museum Formello (Veio). Furthermore, this project proved that it is possible to enable and support cultural heritage institutions to create, run and exchange digital 3D reconstructions. 3D Reconstruction as a Research Tool The 3D visualisation of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb has not only proven to be an essential tool for obtaining greater knowledge about the tomb and Etruscan funerary customs, it also provides an attractive way to present research results. In our multidisciplinary approach to the realization of this 3D visualization, we re-examined and re-interpreted earlier publications on the archaeological context of the finds, and reached new conclusions regarding the location of the objects within the tomb. Through the virtual reconstruction, we were able to place the objects virtually in the tomb, allowing us to identify inconsistencies in the source material and to determine the most plausible configuration for the objects. Using 3D visualization as our research instrument, we were able to study the tomb on another level. Digitization and Digital Restoration During the first phase of the Etruscanning 3D project, the famous Regolini-Galassi tomb from the Sorbo necropolis in Cerveteri was selected to be virtually restored. Using advanced techniques for digital acquisition, including laser scanning and photogrammetry, the tomb and most of its objects were rendered and restored, and subsequently placed in their original locations within the virtual tomb. The project has been developing through a complex methodological approach; from the collection of existing data, to new topographical digital acquisition. Several ontologies of data have been acquired and elaborated upon, according to the typology and topology of the artefacts; including point clouds from laser scanner, photogrammetric data (dense stereo matching), and computer graphics. The Application The Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb was first installed for public use in both the Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam, NL) and the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (Leiden, NL), as part of a joint exhibition on the Etruscan civilization, entitled Etruscans: Eminent Women, Men of Power. The most innovative element of the Virtual Reality application developed for Regolini-Galassi tomb is the paradigm of interaction based on the use of natural interfaces. This means that the user moves inside the 3D space through just his body movements alone. The public now had the possibility to explore the virtual tomb, to get near the artefacts, and to listen to the narrative contents directly from the voices of the prestigious Etruscan personages buried inside; the princess and the warrior, to which the precious objects were dedicated. All of this is possible by moving in the space in front of the projection of the virtual tomb, in a very simple and natural way, without a mouse, keyboard, joystick or consol. Evaluation The presentation of the tomb employed a natural interaction interface which allowed users to enter and explore the virtual tomb using a map on the floor with certain ‘hot spots’ indicated where short stories about the objects in the tomb could be heard. Throughout the exhibition period, the virtual reconstruction was evaluated to determine the added value of incorporating such an application into a museum exhibition and how users responded when confronted with a technological application in a traditional museum environment. The results of the evaluation study presented in this publication offered a great deal of insight into the user experience of the presented case study, the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb. Reflecting upon the results of this evaluation study, the added value of embedding the installation into the exhibition was three fold; contextual, educational, and museological. Contextualization The participants recognized the importance of the installation for providing a clearer understanding of the original placement and purpose of the objects from the Regolini-Galassi tomb. Providing contextualization virtually, as it was done in the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb, gives museum visitors an opportunity to better understand the objects, their use and origins, while protecting the original objects from the potential harm that can come from physically handling and moving objects to prepare for a traditional, object-based exhibition. Furthermore, the installation provided a unique opportunity to experience virtual objects in a virtually reconstructed environment, which is something that would not be possible using the original objects. Generally, the participants in the study were able to identify and praise the improved contextualization of the objects that the installation offered. Although their expressed attitude was that such virtual representations of objects
  113. 113. and environments should not attempt to replace the presence of authentic objects, rather they should complement and supplement the more traditional style of object-based exhibition presentations. Educational Value The Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb offered additional education value, to supplement the content provided in the exhibition. When participants evaluated their experience after the installation and the exhibition, the results showed greater confidence in participant responses when they had experienced both the installation and the exhibition. When examined separately, users were able to provide correct responses to the questions asked after each the installation and the exhibition, but once both parts of the study had been completed, the results show that the participants were more certain of their answers than they were after completing only the installation or the exhibition. The content presented in both the installation and the exhibition served to reinforce each other, creating a more enriching experience for the museum visitor. Museological Value The museological value of embedding the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb into the Etruscan exhibition is reflected in both the enhanced contextualization of the presented collections and the reinforcement of educational content shared between the installation and the exhibition. More than this, however, the results show that the way museum experiences are being defined by visitors is evolving to include a broader range of content dissemination styles, including a more generally accepted presence of technology integrated into museum presentations. The acceptance of technology and Virtual Museum applications in museums by visitors will undoubtedly impact the future study of museology, especially as more museum directors are starting to recognize the value of incorporating technology in museums. Dissemination The methods applied in Etruscanning 3D are not only multidisciplinary but also present a new approach to cross-media dissemination. Starting with traditional museum exhibitions that attracted unto now some 130.000 visitors, and eight publications, from both academic conferences and broad public media, we also achieved widespread outreach through presentations at a Science festival, a blog (with more than 30.000 page views) and several YouTube videos. This could explain the interest from state-of-the art museums, like the Vatican Museums and the Louvre, who are eager to show the Etruscanning 3D installation. Exchange Mechanism in Museum Domain This project was triggered by the exhibition entitled Etruscans: Eminent Women, Men of Power at the Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam) and the National Museum of Antiquities (Leiden). Furthermore, we wanted to create a real exchange in such a way that collaboration on the loans from several Italian partners would be used to create digital content that we could give to the Italian partners in return. In this way, a sustainable and more fruitful relationship was created between cultural institutions. One of the side effects is that, since we have a multidisciplinary team, the museum partners were in contact with more technical researchers from other domains. This also resulted in exchange, and sometimes confrontation, of different perspectives.
  114. 114. Material encounters with digital cultural heritage (http://mesch-project.eu) One of the aims of meSch is to realize tangible interaction with digital heritage. This could for instance be realized by interaction based on sensors in smart objects or – much more physically challenging for visitors – by using gesture based interaction. The April Meetup of the Virtual Museum Network Amsterdam was about ‘Linking the Virtual and the Real’ and focused on a specific project that uses gestures to interact with the virtual reconstruction of a tomb. Opportunities and challenges that arise when museums use virtual reconstructions to re-contextualize objects were discussed.Starting point of the discussion was an interactive in the Allard Pierson museum which combines virtual reconstruction and Kinect technology to allow visitors to virtually explore museum objects. The Etruscanning application is a virtual reconstruction of an Etruscan tomb containing virtually restored objects which were found in the tomb and which are now mostly on display at the Vatican museums. Visitors can navigate through the tomb by making hand and arm gestures and can select objects to find out more about them. See: http://www.meetup.com/Virtual-Museum-Network- Amsterdam/ Dr. Wim Hupperetz, director Allard Pierson Museum http://www.linkedin.com/in/wimhupperetz http://uva.academia.edu/WimHupperetz
  115. 115. Strategists. Designers. Web developers. Consultants. Managers. CHALLENGING AMBITION. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA Abstract Martijn Arts In this abstract I will try to answer all questions connecting the future to present practice briefly. Here are the questions. 1. Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation? What do we need for that? 2. What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near future, which questions will we have to answer within one or five years? How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on it easier? 3. Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we adhere to the highest possible standard of research and criteria for quality, or can we combine high standard research with common sense and practical experience? What is the most useful result for innovation? 4. In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying for our network? With whom do you want to share this future? Who should be involved and participate? Before answering these questions I included a manifesto to this abstract. I believe the Portico network is helped if it creates an inspiring mission (or manifesto) of it's own. This mission (or manifesto) should be fundamental, futuristic and inspiring so that all partners and connected people are clear in this. That will define the identity of Portico. My answers to all questions are listed below: 1. Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation? What do we need for that? MY ANSWER: Yes, it is possible to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation. What you need is simple: (1) the right network as in size and (2) the right people as in quality and (3) the right tools to develop and share visions of the future of heritage interpretation. (1) the right network as in size A good network of people has a minimum and a maximum. Online this network can and need be bigger than offline networks. Smaller than the minimum results in two little activity to be maintainable. Large networks results in loss of overview and loss of the quality of people. The maximum and minimum depends on the community or network. Some long tail networks can be very small whilst still being active. Others can be very large without losing efficiency. It is very important to know your minimum and maximum, even if these numbers are
  116. 116. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA merely goals. A strategy should be layed down to reach these numbers or goals. My presumption is that Portico is and should be an online platform. My estimation is that the Portico network should contain minimum 10 european cities, not necessarily of different countries. I also estimate that these cities should be represented by at least 5 different heritage or archaeological organizations (= 50 organizations) and at least 2 persons per organization (= 100 persons). The maximum would be 30 european cities, 15 different heritage or archaeological organizations on average (= 450 organizations) and 3 persons per organization on average (= 1.350 persons). (2) the right people as in quality In order for the network to become active, people should meet the right people. This causes the registration to be very important. The cities that will be registered, need to be of somewhat the same size and archaeological character, otherwise different subgroups will come into life. This could not be a problem. I do believe however that Portico is best off with a homogeneous set of cities that are medium sized to large in their country, not being the largest. The registration procedure should be open and well prepared. By preparing this registration procedure, the network strategy is tested and improved upon. I advice that new cities are asked to join the network and these candidates are chosen by the members of Portico. This forces Portico to look outside the closed group and to add one city every period, like e.g. every half year. This will greatly improve the dynamics of the network. The best archaeological organizations should be included in the network. This is what the new candidate cities are tested upon. This requirement is important, if this is not met, some of the other organizations will be disappointed and become less active. What exactly 'the best' is needs to be decided upon. But it seems logical that that has to do with future and innovation and archaeology or heritage. (3) the right tools to develop and share visions of the future of heritage interpretation There are lots of tools that are important. So many that it is not possible to state the best set of tools. I do advice to use as many open tools as possible for the following purposes: - (Open) Storage: Like CKAN or MySQL with an open API; - Co-creation: Like Google Docs/Apps, Basecamp, Workspace et cetera; - Displaying/marketing: Like Wordpress or Drupal and/or Behance; - Personal messaging: I advice an smartphone App using Titanium/ Appcelerator;
  117. 117. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA - Monitoring: Like Sparkwise, Google Analytics, social cardio et cetera; - Social media: Like Slideshare, Pinterest/Flickr, Behance; - Networking: Linkedin; - Knowlegde: Wikimedia and/or Wikipedia. In order for everybody to truly become active I would suggest an App that can be used to view the latest messages, projects and ideas as well as to enter new messages, projects and ideas. This will be the activity lifeline. There are lots of good examples of active suggestion websites likes hunch.com and coolhunter.com. A good example of a website that solves problems in an 'open innovation' way is OpenIDEO.com. A good example of a website that encourages everybody to enter new ideas is Kickstarter.com but also sellanapp.com. Apart from these online tools, you can of course also use offline tools like events, CoP's an annual report or book et cetera. We believe in the combination of physical events with an online network. 2. What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near future, which questions will we have to answer within one or five years? How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on it easier? I see the following challenges as the greatest challenges: - Technology in the core: Technology is evolving rapidly which makes the job of heritage experts and archaeologists more and more technical. Technical staff is scarce. The solution to this will be to focus on using proven technology or consumer based technology or to include technologists in the team (including a technical roadmap). - Rapid web developments: Developments on the web follow up on each other faster and faster. How to choose for one development and invest in it and not for another. E.g. should we choose to invest in AR or not? And in Google Glass or not? And if yes, when should we do that? Choosing the right developments and starting a continuous web R&D will be a challenge. - Economy and entrepreneurship: Everything will be measured more and more. Business models and business cases will be desired by sponsors and funders. The business will become more and more based on economy. This results in a need for entrepreneurs in the organization that normally do not want a regular contract. The question will be how to involve and engage these cultural entrepreneurs. This, combined with the retracting role of the government in funding makes this challenge very important.
  118. 118. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA - Fundamental knowledge: Fewer and fewer students choose to deepen their knowledge in cultural science. How to find the right researchers that are equipped with the right skills. - Experience (and) marketing: Most projects need cultural consumer focus. Consumers are rapidly diverted and need to be 'entertained'. Young people do not read a lot and they do not excel at being concentrated. This results in the necessary of knowledge of marketing and experience marketing. The results of heritage need to be 'sold' to he public. - Open innovation and Open Data: The crowd can be used to help in innovation like is done at OpenIDEO.com. This requires an open structure of he organization. It should be able to work together with outsiders, developers and agencies. Open Data is also part of this challenge. Knowlegde about these technologies, these methodologies is important. The shift in culture is also a challenge. - Co-operation: I believe that more and more heritage and archaeological organizations will merge or disappear. This is a challenge of its own, because it generates an inward focus whereas an external focus on technological, economic and marketing trends is necessary. There are probably a lot more challenges but this is just a handful of challenges I foresee. You can discover these challenges, and more importantly their solutions, more quickly if all Portico partners stress and share their current and future challenges regularly, e.g. every (half) year. Solutions can be shared more frequently, but these need a connection to the challenge for which it is a solution. By linking these, the challenges will become more important and visible. The solutions will then be less 'just an idea' and more strategic.
  119. 119. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA 3. Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we adhere to the highest possible standard of research and criteria for quality, or can we combine high standard research with common sense and practical experience? What is the most useful result for innovation? The current approach to innovation is to use ideas like 'lean startup', 'continuous development' and 'continuous beta', which means that you need to fast, flexible and not use the highest possible standard. The first result of both R&D as well as innovation is never the end result that becomes a success. Most web startups have developed and redeveloped over four versions of their web innovation before it is released ad successful. This is completely different than the old dogma of industrial production and research. In an open innovation environment, continuous experimentation is very important. This requires the right mentality, culture, (IT-) architecture and more. I always advice a dual approach for all classic and modern organizations. On the one side, use a IT-like structure that is implemented based on the highest standards. Let this structure suit al processes that are core business and that need to be also of the highest standards. On the other side implement an 'experimentation room, group and ICT-structure' that is used to continuously innovate. The best innovations can become a new venture or can even be improved upon so that it becomes integrated in the core business. Then it needs to follow the highest standards. 4. In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying for our network? With whom do you want to share this future? Who should be involved and participate? Technology should always be used as a means to an end of course. The end or the goal should be defined first before technology is chosen or used. Only if technology becomes part of the core business of an archaeological organization then R&D of technology itself is an option. Technology is set implemented together with partners in an open structure. If costs can be shared between partners this will reduce the cost for the organization itself. The results should be implemented per organization however. To be more precise: invest collectively in developing frameworks, standard modules, adapters et cetera (like Drupal and its modules and CKAN and its modules). Use grants from the government as much as possible to improve digitization, open data, innovation and more.
  120. 120. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA I do not really understand what is many by 'who should be involved and participate'. In short I believe at least head of collections (heritage), head of Reseach (& Development) and head of Web of Marketing. This, for me, is the go den triangle: content, technology and (online) marketing. 5. examples 1. Maritime Museum - THE MARITIME MUSEUM 1001 ITEMS. COUNTLESS SEAFARING STORIES Mijnscheepvaartmuseum.nl was launched in the autumn of 2011 simultaneously with the opening of the Dutch Maritime Museum. Ever since its launch, around 1500 E-xpos have been uploaded every month on mijnscheepvaartmuseum.nl: http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/maritime-museum 2. Netherlands Insitute for Image & Sound - COLLECTIVE MEMORIES BROUGHT TO LIFE, A seamless blend between online and offline
  121. 121. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA experience: http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/beeld-en-geluid 3. Oneindig Noord-Holland (Infinite North-Holland) - STORY PLATFORM AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CAMPAIGN The Dutch province Noord-Holland introduced the online story platform called ‘Oneindig Noord-Holland. With the help of original & editorial stories and routes the project aims to make a stronger connection with the culture and touristic attractions of Noord-Holland. The concept ‘Proef Noord-Holland’ is in fact a call for action: ‘Try-out North-Holland’ – send in your historical Noord-Holland recipes and one of our renowned master-chefs will have it prepared as a contemporary dish. http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/oneindig-noord-holland 4. ARTS HOLLAND, THE WORLD’S ARTS DISTRICT; achieving good online exposure for the Dutch cultural offer towards international audiences. This initiative concerns a unique combination of three core- strengths: innovation, tourism and culture:   http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/nederlands-uitburo-arts-holland-the- worlds-art-district
  122. 122. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA 5. Social Cardio app Social Cardio helps you keep track of your online reputation by measuring your social pulse. Its main feature is the real-time monitoring of your online activity on a cardiograph, and comparing it to the benchmarks that are important for you. Social Cardio visually plots your social pulse on a timeline, by using a simple algorithm to calculate the score: http://socialcardioapp.com
  123. 123. Introduction This manifesto is made by a believer in cultural change. Change that is necessary in the heritage sector because the world has changed a lot in the past decade due to the use of online and social media. The heritage sector is loosing its connection with society. The rules of the game have changed and to reconnect, the institutions have to play the game according to the new rules. To enable them to do so, the government has to change its own rules too. This manifesto is an appeal to the minister of culture to enable this change. Manifesto BY: Martijn Arts, believer in Change. FOR: The Permanent Committee for Education, Culture and Science of the Dutch House of Representatives. GOVERNMENT: The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science plans to take this manifesto in consideration when formulating future policy. AIM: Influence cultural policy based on the belief that ‘More for less’is definitely possible, but the sector can co-operate in regulations and legislation. MOTTO: ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste!’ Measures Six measures needed to play the new game of cultural heritage. 1 Heritage is social capital. Social capital that should be free for all to see and use. Social capital that is publicly available in all representations. Moreover, these collections in all representations must be publicly available though the internet. All digital collections should be OpenData with a creative commons CC ZERO license. All collections are therefore available for and by developers in order to create services that can be used to let anyone see and use it. 2 Open collections are like raw material for building a society and a national identity. Heritage institutions should be a utility (Dutch: NUTS) company and all heritage should be publicly available. The government is responsible for the cultural infrastructure and cultural education. The government is not responsible for culture (= content) itself. 3 Culture thrives in an open and diverse context. Freedom, open communication and co-operation is crucial for culture to flourish. The government should strive to eliminate all possible issues and barriers for open communication and co-operation. In order to support the mixing and remixing of cultural heritage, both classic as well as modern, current copyrights will be limited. 4 Building and maintaining a sound Heritage sector is of vital importance to levels of society, be it local, national and international. Where society sets out rules and structures, culture blurs them and binds peoples. Comparisons and benchmarks stimulate transparency and co-operation. An attempt must be made to compare and benchmark nations and localities. 5 Culture is the economic spark of society. Creativity, design, play and art fuels society and generates economic development. Where economic freedoms should be regulated, taxed and limited, culture should be stimulated, deregulated and de-taxed. 6 Stimulating cultural activity equals stimulating society and economic development and should be regarded as such in making policy. All stimuli should only be implemented if durable plans have been made. A durable company needs to lay forward a ROI plan and break-even moment in order for investors to invest. If large investments or long lead-times are necessary, long-term contracts must be agreed upon. The same holds for cultural plans. We call for a strong government and a strong cultural sector with respect to digital cultural heritage. The cultural sector invites policy makers to set out and co-create new standards within 2012 based on the eight rules listed above. These standards will be the new gameplay of the sector. A gameplay aimed at achieving more with less. In order to grow and unite. Signed by you? MANIFESTO

×