So welcome. Welcome to the Fitch Colloquium. My name is Jorge Otero Pailos and I'm the Director of the Historic Preservation Program here at Columbia University. Dean Andraus cannot join us this morning, so it's my pleasure to warmly welcome all of you here and those of you attending online through our live stream to the Fitch Colloquium Record Replay Experimental Preservation Technology. And I intentionally reduced the resolution here of the screen so we can talk about resolution a little bit later. We're going to ask some really essential questions today. Can emerging technologies deepen our understanding and enrich our experience of built heritage? Can these new technologies not only improve the daily practice of preservation but effectively inform an entirely new paradigm of cultural heritage? At Columbia, we believe that emerging technology, when developed and applied through the humanistic framework that underpins our profession, is indeed an essential thread in weaving together a new future for preservation, one in which our profession can and must broaden its positive impact on society. Fitch held this belief when he started the preservation program here, the first preservation program in the U.S. in 1964. And 13 years later in 1977, largely through the efforts of Professor Norman Weiss, Columbia was the first university to offer instruction in what we now call preservation technology. Now the first generation of leaders in the discipline was trained here, some of you are here today, and after four decades we must renew our investments in the next generation. So this symposium celebrates the opening of our new preservation technology laboratory, which you see pictured on the screen here. We had a very fun ribbon cutting yesterday to celebrate both St. Valentine's Day. We had a very nice red ribbon. And it was followed by a keynote by Professor Norman Weiss in honor of his contributions to our program and really to the discipline of preservation at large. The lab is a new platform for teaching and research into emerging technologies and into preservation, the future of preservation. We combine our long-standing expertise and materials with the new advanced technologies in 3D scanning, printing, robotics, and computation. So today our distinguished speakers will share with us their cutting-edge work, their cutting-edge research in developing new technologies and their experimental applications to build heritage. We will explore high-resolution 3D scanning, gaming, machine vision, artificial intelligence, bioengineered bacteria, the science and art of smell, data crowdsourcing, enhanced reality, and other exciting new directions in which preservation and preservation technology are taking us. The day will be organized in three panels called Record, Remaster, and Replay. And you can see in that setup already the idea of what preservation technology is, how it's making us think about the workflows in preservation. There'll be three moderators. Erika Avrami will moderate the first panel, David Benjamin the second, and I will moderate the third one. Erika is our very own James Marcin Fitch Professor of Historic Preservation, an expert in preservation policy, and the author of Editor of Preservation and the New Data Landscape. So today we're also celebrating the lunch of this important book, which begins to put data and preservation technology in the framework of policy. How does policy both respond to the new emerging technologies and also how do the new technologies challenge new ideas about preservation policy? So I encourage you all to grab a copy. We'll try to have a few of these in the back. Actually, you can't grab a copy, don't they have to buy it? They have to buy it, right? So I will introduce David Benjamin later before his panel. So today's colloquium will help us unpack and speculate on the future of preservation and the new disciplinary paradigms that might emerge in response to this current upheaval in technology that we are all living through. So please join me in welcoming the speakers to Columbia University and Erika to the podium. Thank you very much for hey and welcome all. We're very excited about what we have in store today with all of these distinguished speakers. This first session is aptly titled record. And when we say record in this context of heritage conservation, we often think about capturing a place in a particular moment in time. And the four distinguished speakers that we have on the panel this morning challenge those traditional connotations of this act of recording. They explore questions beyond our examination of the object. They consider issues of context, both temporal and environmental. They look to actions and relationships of humanity vis-a-vis these things that we designate as quote unquote heritage. And they also examine new kinds of access and more importantly curatorial power when it comes to understanding these places not only within the built landscape but in the context of our societies. So one of our speakers this morning is actually going to be joining us in absentia digitally appropriately given the topic of today's symposium. So I'm going to first introduce a speaker, have them come up to the podium and then subsequently introduce each following speaker at the time of their talk. Afterwards we'll have some question and answer. I'll do some moderating from the table and then we'll open it up to the floor for a few questions as well. So our four speakers today are Eve Ubelman, David Gisson, Hannah Louie via a recorded talk, and Anais Aguerre. First on the docket is Eve. Eve Ubelman is president and co-founder of Iconum, an independent architect from 2006 to 2010. He surveyed, studied and interpreted archeological sites in Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This experience inspired Eve to develop a new high-tech approach to using photogrammetry to survey archeological sites. Co-founded by Eve in 2013, Iconum specializes in the digitization of endangered cultural heritage sites in 3D. Now present in 28 countries, its expert team travels the globe combining the large-scale scanning capacity of drones and the photorealistic quality of 3D to create digital replicas of our most treasured places. Thank you, thank you all for having me here. I'm glad to open this. So I'm an architect and all the work I did with Iconum is rooted in my own experiences on the field. I was working with archeologists in Afghanistan in 2010 when I was witnessing the disappearance of archeological sites. Before many reasons, there is urban spread, there is looting, war. And the very first time I wanted to apply a new technology for digital preservation, it was here. We are in Messainak, south of Kabul in Afghanistan, and the archeological site you will see here will disappear completely because there is a copper deposit underneath, and there is a Chinese company who wants to dig it to work with a copper. And the archeologists found here a nice civilization, Kushano-Sanit civilization with a dozen of monasteries and hundreds of sculptures like that. It's not possible to move this sculpture because it's an urban sculpture. So we had to find another way to keep the memory of this site. So that's why we have been proposed to the Afghan government to use, it was in 2010, it was at the very beginning of the drones and we have to build ourselves our drone to use this kind of technique to take thousands of pictures here on the site. Using different techniques, this is one kind of drone, this is another. And also a picture from the ground with different kind of camera. And the idea was to use the drone as a scanner at the size of the landscape, taking hundreds of pictures and then after you can stitch a different level of picture from high altitude, low altitude picture from the ground in order to create like a full 3D model, a full representation of the site itself. And the very interesting feature of the photogrammetry is it allows us to represent a site at different scale, at the scale of the landscape, at the scale of the architecture. So this is a kind of result we can get with this data. This is a monastery for example, so you are at the scale of the architecture and then you can zoom in and enter in very, very accurate detail of architecture. So this requires to manipulate a big data in 3D and this means a big challenge how to get all this data accessible to non-specialist people, to archaeologists, because this is interesting for archaeologists. This is why we have worked a lot in a platform, this is a platform. So you can see upon cloud and you load the cloud where you zoom in in different places. So the idea of this digital platform is to facilitate the access to this kind of complex data, this big data to people who are not engineers who just want to use this data to study the site itself. So the digital tool is a bridge between remote places. So these places today is not accessible anymore because there is Taliban all around. So between places and a scientific community who use it to continue the studies, a scientific study in this site. So once we have this kind of tool, we decided, I mean the acquisition process is very fast because it's just a few hours or one or two days on the field to get the picture. We decided to make like an extensive class of Afghan archaeological sites in Bamiyan, in Herat, in Mazar. But also in other countries, so a few years later started the conflict in Syria and Iraq. And we decided to apply this concept of emergency documentation in Syria. So you can have this documentation in space but also in time. You have different layers who follow the evolution of the excavation itself. So you can go back in the time to see how was the site before. So then we started working in Syria. So we proposed to Syrian archaeologists to use this technology in order to document the threat in its site, like Palmyra. And it was like a deal. We provide the technology and they provide us the access. So that's why I was one of the first foreigners to arrive with a team of Syrian archaeologists on the site itself of Palmyra. And we decided to document everything there. So this is the Temple of Bel. Have you seen? This is the Museum of Palmyra. We take, again, thousands of pictures inside the museum to document the destruction itself of the collection of the Museum of Palmyra. And we negotiate with the soldier not to go inside the museum in order to keep all the details of the destruction done by Islamic State. So there was still this artefact on the wall but the face was cut and the face was on the ground. So based on all this picture we were able to rebuild like a map of the destruction of the museum. It's like a forensic investigation. But it's very important to keep it because few days later all the collections were bringing back to Damascus to the storage. So this gives us also a well of trustability for the artefact itself. If there is an artefact to disappear we can keep in this document the record of the artefact as it was before the opening of the Museum of Palmyra. And then after we get to the tomes. Here it is a tower tomes so we digitalize all the destroyed tower tomes but there is also underground tomes in Palmyra. So we were looking for this tomes. When we saw this picture from the drone there is like a defensive wall but you see inside there is a stair going down. So we decided to go thanks to this kind of picture to go there. And we took the stair and we discovered one of the biggest the most famous tomes of Palmyra. The three brother tomes that wasn't destroyed because this tomes was used as a cover against the aerial bombing. So soldiers of Islamic State just cover the representation of human body as you see here. But they use this space in a manner of living. So we can document the destruction but we can also document the conservation in military purposes. And this is the famous painting of this tomes. It was just covered by a white painting and this room was used as a living room for soldiers. And some tomes wasn't accessible so we used this kind of device like a coloscopy to see inside. Sorry for the comparison. It's not so funny but we were able to see that some artefacts disappear. And we were able to share this information with Interpol because Interpol are looking for this artefact in the market today. And then this is a temple of Bell so completely destruct. So what is interesting is to study the destruction itself and the state of conservation of each blocks. So you can see if it will be possible or not to rebuild it in the future. This is interesting information for experts so you can see the red blocks in good shape and the white is broken blocks. And then after we use with the same technology archive imagery. So this is image from the same temple from 1930s taken by a French architect to study this temple. So you can use it to rebuild the temple as it was before. So then after you can overlap the destruct temple as you see here. And the temple in red that is the temple before is destruction and see in detail the position of different stones that we can see here on the floor. And we can imagine the original place of the stone and we got further with the arch. So you can simulate the destruction itself. So using the old documentation we rebuild the arch as it was before and then after we make the simulation.  So behind this there is a whole database with each block each dimension. And this also is good help for the architect to imagine as a future reconstruction. What we call an anesthesiosis but digital analysis analysis. And then we document also other monument like the theater and as you may know Daesh came back a few months later in Palmyra.  So we have the theater in 3D before the destruction and after the destruction. So that's why it's very important to be on the field as soon as possible. Because we keep a record of this kind of heritage we disappear very very fast. And then after we try to apply the same technology to the big city. So this is Aleppo with this huge data management you can now digitalize a whole city. So the historical center of Aleppo from from IRL view but also from inside from the souk. This is for example I try to this is a 3D model of the souk. So we build like a specific hardware with different camera to take picture every meter to have like this full reconstruction of the souk. Kilometers of souk. This is also very fast. It's just a few few hours on the field. And then after based on this model you can use it for different kind of analysis structural analysis and see also the strategy of restoration behind. And this is IRL picture of Aleppo. So you can see the kind of destruction. This is a RPG destruction here with rockets. This is IRL bombing and you can read also the process of destruction itself of the city. And there is a reoccupation of the place you can see the antenna between the impact of the bombs. And here this is tunnel bombing so rebel group that dig a tunnel they put explosive inside and then blast a huge part of the city. And it's very impressive to see from the ground. And that is the raw material that architect today use to imagine the future of Aleppo itself. And then after we wanted to walk in Iraq in a different way because we went in Iraq at the time a Mosul was still the capital of Islamic state. And we asked Peshmerga people here to bring us to the front line. And with this kind of specific drone it's long range drone who can fly over 200 kilometers. And then we send the drone to Mosul just to survey the Mosul during the occupation of Islamic state. So the drone come back after one hour with all the picture. And then you can use this picture to rebuild a 3D model of the city. And few months later UNESCO asked us to come in Mosul but after the bombing after the battle of Mosul and to make an overlap with this documentation from before. And this is Mosul after the bombing after the battle. So at this time we were able to go to the field to go to the site. And here you have this huge amount of data it's billions of billions of points. So you can make an assessment of each building based on this. And there is a team from UNESCO who are working today to assess the general conservation of the city of Mosul. So this raw data is very important in a collaborative work between architect, between politics, to restore, to imagine the strategy for the restoration of the historical city. And outside but also inside the main monument was scanned also from inside. So it's just again 10 days of work on the field so it's very fast. And so this is the church, the main church of Mosul. And then after you can make maps with different layers of analysis, respect to the high of the building, respect to the destruction, respect of many things. And then you can grow the cadastre in few weeks, the post drama cadastre of the city. So then using this technique we were able to build like an extensive library of many sites from many countries. And we decided also to use this data not only in scientific purposes, not only in architectural purposes but also to build exhibition. And for us it's very important to use also the imagery in order to bring this important subject of preservation of the memory to the public, to the general public, but also to political leaders. So this was the first exhibition we did. It was two years ago in Grand Palais in Paris in partnership with Le Louvre. So it is like a full mapping, a video mapping of the site all around the visitor that brings the architecture to the visitor because the visitor cannot go there. And the idea is to show the richness of this culture about Syria, Iraq, here and Afghanistan. This is the same exhibition. So it's immersive experiences of these sites that are not accessible anymore. And this is another one. It's just closed after two days, something like that. It's currently in Paris in l'Institut du Monde Hab. This is the mapping of video mapping of Aleppo, video mapping of Leptis Magna in Libya, video mapping of Palmyra. And with headset experiences, with real-time experience inside the different sites. And this is just the video. We have created the tool itself to produce this kind of exhibition. So for us, it's more than an exhibition. It's part of our activism. We try to bring this project to political leader. Indeed, the first exhibition was opened by François Hollande. This one was opened by Macron. And we try to convince these leaders to act for the subject of the conservation of the memory and to make us available to transmit this site to the future through this technology. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Yves. Our next speaker is David Gisson. David Gisson is the author of the book Subnature, Architecture's Other Environments, and Manhattan Atmospheres, Architecture, the Interior Environment, and Urban Crisis. His historical reconstructions, reproductions and restorations have been exhibited at the Canadian Centre for Architecture. The Venice Biennale, and numerous additional galleries and museums internationally. He is professor at the California College of the Arts and university professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, Austria, and I believe may be relocating soon to our coast to the new school. So we welcome him to New York. And he is a former visiting professor here at Columbia and the PhD program in history, theory, and criticism of architecture and art at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. David, welcome. Thank you, Erica and Jorge for the invitation. It's very nice to be here. So my talk today examines the environmental reproduction of cultural artifacts. I'm interested in the way we can negotiate certain intrinsic aspects of the reproduction of artifacts. So these things include qualities such as brightness and darkness, chromaticity, contrast, noise, reverberation, and frequency to represent the environmental histories of artifacts.  So I just want to briefly, in the time that I have, take you through a few techniques, but I also want to relate these to some contemporary and historic themes in the reproduction of cultural artifacts. So some of the work that I'll show you today relates to work I've done in the lab that I co-direct with my colleague Armin Chang at the California College of the Arts and an alum of Columbia, as well as conversations related to a new initiative that I'm taking on with somebody named Jennifer Steger, a professor at Johns Hopkins called the Copy Shop. So as many of us in the room are aware, particularly speakers today, the digital reproduction of cultural artifacts has kind of arrived as a cultural form in and of itself. So these reproductions, both ones well-made and not so well-made, have figured very prominently within public events in often surprising ways. So here you see this 2016 display in Trafalgar Square of a partial-scale digital reproduction of the Arch of Palmyra, something a site that Eva is just talking about. And it became a backdrop to a speech by Boris Johnson about Middle Eastern politics today. And here the digital reproduction is positioned as a way for a public thousands of miles away from the site to imagine how to recuperate what's been destroyed and lost and the role in that recuperation. So in terms of public visibility and political utility, digital reproductions have figured prominently in discussions of repatriation and restitution. This can be seen in something such as the digital reconstitution and repatriation of Veronese's wedding at Cana. This was stolen by Napoleon's administrators 200 years ago from Venice. It was digitally reproduced by Faktum Arte in 2007 and reinstalled in its original location in Venice in 2007. And this, at the time, was one of the largest and maybe one of the most famous digital reproductions of an artifact when it was installed. So the digital reproduction has also emerged as an object that can demand a surprising amount of public concentration, like the public visual concentration. And this, relative to the original artifacts that we think of as being the more common draw for people to experience or have an aesthetic kind of sensibility or knowledge of the past. So blockbuster exhibitions, which you're seeing here, such as Gods in Color, which displays polychromatic reconstructions of Greek and Roman artworks that were originally made through digital processes, that traveled the world for the past 10 years. And these exhibitions have been at the center of very interesting controversies in culture about representation and race, for example, and antiquity, and have raised various issues regarding the license of those people who reproduce artifacts in terms of their imagination of how things are recovered and what things look like in the past. So other exhibitions, such as the Lost Museum, which was at Berlin, which was a display of works damaged and destroyed during World War II in Berlin, are predicated also on an appreciation of reproductions. And then, in an architectural and fine art context, the Victorian Albert Museum's exhibition A World of Fragile Parts at the 2016 Venice Biennale was completely made of contemporary digital reproductions and mixed with more historic reproduction techniques like plaster casts. So this particular exhibition marks my own entry point into this kind of realm of digital productions and reproductions and preservation that we're discussing today. So in 2015, the curator of this exhibition, Brendan Cormier at the Biennale, asked if I could connect some written research that I had done on environmental history of buildings and landscapes with a potential digital reproduction for this exhibition. So I think we might hear about this more from Anias, but the idea of the Victorian Albert Museum's curators was to stage a kind of contemporary caste court and using contemporary photogrammetric, laser and printing techniques for capturing art and architecture. So one of the things that interested me and the group that I work with at the California College of Arts is the kind of marked absence of any idea of environment in a lot of digital reproduction practices. And I would describe this simply as the kind of mediating realm between some things, somewhere, at some time, and the subjects who perceive it and who have perceived it. So another way to state this is that something like photogrammetric reproduction operates through a very specific interpretation of documentary photography. It captures the image form of a building or landscape through the best practices of archival studio photography. And I'll talk about the implications of that a bit later and the historical implications of that as well. But this particular exhibition initiated some responses to this. So particularly here at Columbia in the preservation program, the impacts of photography on the preservation of buildings has been analyzed very intensely. And so it generally results in a kind of pronounced optical bias to what gets recovered, preserved, and reconstructed from the past. The more and more photography infiltrates the preservation practices of today. So again, I want to return to some of the implications of photographic sensibilities of photogrammetry in a minute. But in terms of the context of this exhibition staged by the Victorian Albert Museum, I became interested in a whole set of additional tools outside the photographic and that have something to contribute to our understanding of the documentation and digital documentation of a building in its form. These figure much less prominently in contemporary discussions about digital preservation. And so what you're seeing here is a photograph on the left and a drawing, a diagram on the right for the setup to create what's called an impulse response. And these are used to capture the reverberative acoustic energy in a space. And they can be utilized in something called a convolution reverb processor. Some of the people speaking today probably work with these tools. So this enables any audio to remotely sound as if it's in a particular space, not actually in that space. And the right image helps explain a bit in the process. It's usually some kind of loud noise is set off digitally or through a pistol shot or clapping of hands. That's then captured by audio equipment digitized in a computer. And then that becomes a kind of algorithm or convolution tool that you can use for other audio. So an impulse response can capture the acoustics of any space. But there are audio engineers, almost a subculture of audio engineers who travel the world creating acoustic captures of the interiors of various historic buildings. And in some cases there's been, the work has been very important in terms of preservation efforts because it gets preserved or rebuilt in a space that's undergoing renovation. So for the Victoria and Albert Museum's exhibition I assembled eight of these different impulses from various global historic monuments. These were all made by other engineers and into an audio piece which had a somewhat humorous title called some small leaks in big spaces. So it essentially acoustically reconstructs eight leaks that have been documented by preservationists, restorationists, architects, or others from around the 19th, between the 19th to the early 20th centuries. So each of these leaks was the result of different factors, age, fire, earthquakes, in the case of a mosque in a Darren War and others simply neglect. And this formed a sort of unintentionally, I suppose, a background audio for part of the exhibition. I think I can play a little bit of it but is there a keyboard here so I can advance? Okay. The idea here was to create a more ambient and formless sensibility of the monument. This is an exhibition in which there are quite a few images of destruction, of course, and this creates a kind of different sensibility of the ruin. And in a way also became a kind of white noise in the exhibition as well. And as you can see from the accompanying text descriptions, visitors understood that the form and surfaces, the interior spaces of these monuments were constantly changing. There's about eight and one, again, that became damaged through various ruination. So in addition to photogrammetry tending to transform monuments into giant three-dimensional photographs, digital reproductions also lend artifacts a heightened sense of mobility. And this is similar to the sensibilities of many plaster casts. And I want to be careful in mentioning this. So it's not necessarily a criticism that these artifacts appear so mobile within these kinds of photogrammetric representations and prints, because this characteristic I think is key to the ways that digital reproductions have been effectively used to make arguments about the restitution of the things that they represent. So, but again, it struck me that many of these contemporary reproduction practices are at odds with contemporary historiographical preoccupations. The ideas of a new materiality, environmentality, multi-temporality among other issues. Now, this is a controversial example of someone who contended with this sensibility in photographs but 80 years ago of historic artifacts. So the marble statue that you see in all of these images was excavated on the Athenian Acropolis in 1889. It's one of the few surviving 6th century Greek statues that has example of polychromate paint, bits of paint on it. You can see it a bit in the eyes on the left, but also in the hair that has a kind of yellow ochre quality to it. And this lent the statue a very unfortunate name it's known as the blond boy among those who studied Greek antiquities. So these reproductions that you see on the right are quite unusual. So in 1939, the German art historian Ernst Langlotz commissioned a series of photographs of this statue and in what must have been a conservator's nightmare, he took this and many other sculptures outside under the site of the Acropolis outside in the sunlight to photograph them strong and overhead sun.  And he argued that they placed the experience of sculpture in an indeterminate space and time. So he was a student of Heinrich Wolfling who believed that light and lighting and a reproduction could represent a particular way of seeing from a particular time, which I still think is a very interesting idea. And Langlotz was also taken with an idea of somebody of a very well-known Viennese art historian, Elias Riegel an idea of artistic will of Kunstvollen which states that the perception of a work and the manner in which it was conceptualized as a formal artifact were intimately related in time and space. Another vision is historically relative. In his ideas, Langlotz argued that Greek sculptures would have been viewed in their time under strong sunlight and he believed the strong overhead sun created the correct sense of contrast and shadow for viewing the sculpture and that the form of the sculpture was actually in dialogue with this particular environment. In other words, the sculpture and the environment had to be understood together. So hence the photographs. So in the past 20 years, artifacts like the blonde boy have been reproduced with processes such as laser scanning and this is a photographic model made a year ago by Scan the World from this early 20th century cast of the blonde boy that's held in the Pushkin Museum. So like Scan the World would likely see the digital processes behind this reproduction as some major break in the reproduction of artifacts. We can also see this as something that extends a much earlier history. And so as I mentioned earlier, photogrammetry and as we saw in Eve's talk requires photographic images and if anything, photogrammetry has made photography more central to the reproduction process. So the photographic sense of these artifacts today is close to some of the earliest hand-painted photos in which the entirety of a black background was removed. And this is precisely the phenomena that inspired Langlotz's explorations of photography 60 years ago. So I'm interested in some of the ideas that inspired Langlotz but of course I question this essentialism that ties the true appreciation of an artifact to a specific interpretation of climate and creation. So a year ago I was invited to explore how to environmentally reproduce this Roman copy of a Greek Hercules from the first century. This was done as an illustration for a study related to the V&A's Reach project which we'll hear about later, Reproductions of Art and Cultural Heritage. So I wanted to reproduce this artifact at the experience of night in the 18th centuries and as it was once viewed. So why am I interested? Why reproduce this into night time? On the one hand this is meant as a provocation into the environmental history of reproductions. We don't really have an environmental history of reproducing art but suffice to say that the modern history of reproducing cultural artifacts demonstrates how certain institutional values light, clarity, cleanliness, consistency become imprinted into the global experience of culture more generally. And historically it's well known that antique marbles had color because they were painted. This is the topic of Black Gods in Color exhibition I mentioned earlier. But in the 18th and 19th century antique marbles were also admired for the matter in which they became highly volatile artifacts relative to their surroundings. They could become stained or changed with interior forms of illumination and color. Those with the means to collect and view them often displayed them in contexts that changed their chromaticity as well as the Sir John Sones Museum in London. Today when we uniformly imagine marbles as white we're engaging in a contemporary cultural attribution but it's a cultural attribution that it's physically reinforced with solvents, plaster, 3D printing, a gallery's white walls lighting and acculturated forms of viewing that is through selective processes of reproduction. So this night time reproduction translates the model into the statues chromaticity under candlelight, gaslight, hearthlight and skylight. Before the electrification of cities the ambient skylight was much brighter at night than it is today. Again by translating the model into four forms of light energy we also bring in an idea of multi-temporality and complexity to reproductions. So this is based upon a photogrammetric model that was created by Thomas Flynn of the statue and it was relit with the UNIX based radiance platform. Any of you who have ever worked in sustainability or environmentalist architecture in the room are probably familiar with that. Radiance was originally designed at Berkeley for modeling energy in architectural spaces and about 15 years ago the British computer scientist Alan Charmers demonstrated how radiance could be appropriated to reconstruct historic forms of illumination and reproductions and with great accuracy. Here it's brought into a 3D artifact for the first time. So I think I'm running out of time. But for me using radiance to think about chromaticity and light energy and reproduction was revelatory. Most of us have been taught to think about color spectrally. That is a range of light waves that go from short to higher frequencies red, orange, green, blue, indigo, etc. Or as a mixture of primary colors when painting or drawing yellow, blue, and red and diagrams of these ways of thinking about color on the bottom. But radiance enables us to think about and recompose colors spatially and temporally. This chart shown at the top of this slide shows how a single color of indeterminate value under four different forms is equated light. And so they're arranged from left to right by those colors that are more volatile to those that are more stable under different forms of light. For those interested in any of these problems of environmental reproduction this is a kind of useful way to think about color. So back to the statue. So the photos of the statue were from radiance were brought into a photogrammetric we're brought into a photogrammetric modeling program where this embeds or bakes in the colors into the surfaces of the model and enables us to create sensations of color that would be difficult to produce in an actual space. The chromaticity of the object transforms as you turn it. This was then printed in full color on gypsum as you walk around the reproduction its color changes. Now due to something the way our minds work due to something called the retinax effect most people will see this reproduction of the statue as a white model which is what the retinas are. But you're actually looking at something in different colors and you actually have to display an image behind it that shows it's transforming coloration so people will understand more clearly how that's happening. You'll notice the model has a half tone printing technique because I wanted this to look made to be a kind of self-evident translation of light into color so at close distance the surface of the sculpted form and the coloration So from a purely technical perspective both of the reproductions I've shared with you utilize or appropriate various forms of energy modeling software to environmentally reproduce artifacts. But the point is not simply to enable you to experience light or sound energy I think at a more conceptual level the idea of an environmental reproduction enables us to begin to sense how others might have come into contact with an artifact and how a reproduction might become able to understand the contingency of experience. I'm a bit obsessed with the idea of a reproduction representing a kind of population of observers if that's at all possible it's much easier to do with certain forms than others. So in contrast to those who use reproductions to reconstruct a more kind of univocal image of an artifact that comes from a particular point of view and their meaning and experiences of time and space that become embedded into that reproduction. Thank you very much David. Our next speaker in absentia is Hannah Louie. Hannah Louie is professor of architecture at the University of Melbourne in the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning she is an architect and academic with teaching and research expertise in architecture history and theory of the 19th and 20th century. Heritage conservation and the new media in representing and the use of new media representing history, place and heritage. She has been a past president of Chahans, the Society of Architectural Historians of Australia and New Zealand, co-editor of Fabrications, chair and vice-chair of Dokomomo Australia as well. Louie co-edited and co-authored the book Community, Building Modern Australia in 2010. She is currently co-editing and co-authoring two books for publication in 2019, Modern Modernism and Architecture Landscape and Design and the Rutledge International Handbook in New Digital Practices in Galleries, Libraries, Archives Museums and Heritage. Unfortunately Dr. Louie had to undergo back surgery and was unable to fly from Australia. So we do have a video presentation of her talk. This quote here by Christine Boyer on the screen just while I introduce and we'll come back to that at the end of the talk. So extending the trope of the Museum Without Walls from Andre Malraux's Conception in the 1940s, this talk explores the promise of historical fabric in cities becoming open to the saturation of digital interpretation as a kind of museum imaginaire. Interpretation is taken here to mean the annotation of places, buildings, markers and scenes with either denotative or poetic explanation so whether through familiar things like signage, touring, visual or textual annotation. Long used in heritage practice to inform about the significance of sites interpretation has acquired new energy in the post-digital age of ubiquitous and smart computing and holds promise of weaving citations and allusions of the historical past into the present urban context. Drawing on our experience of creating and evaluating a digital application called Passport for local citizens to post and share historical images, memories and information about an area of Melbourne. Examples of recent digital techniques of interpretation within urban realms will be examined in this talk today that aim to foster awareness and appreciation of historical and heritage places. Over the last decade or so digital app based history and heritage tours and guides have emerged as a familiar way of experiencing the city. Entering a history walking tour as a search term into any app store produces a seemingly endless list of search results that promise to quite lose yourself in any given city without getting lost. Reflecting the usual bias towards the western world's epicenters of both Glam as in galleries, libraries, archives and museums and digital content production. The list nevertheless contains a motley mixture of institutionally branded and privately developed offerings. I will give a snapshot of a very small sample of familiar kinds of apps from London and Melbourne today that offer heritage interpretation in the form of guided tours, walks and itineraries targeted to a range of audiences both local or international. Each of these utilises different or progressive I think in development digital platforms and tools including GPS located sound, then and now photographic montages using a smartphone, camera and so on. This array of visual and oral techniques for in placing what Casey's term of placing, historical artifacts images and collections into the streets and outside the confines of traditional archives will then be briefly explored. Through research on their creation and user experience and as we have elsewhere critiqued, the opportunities are bound for smart technologies to extend the curatorial presence of cultural and historical organisations into the hands of those who wish to experience and apprehend the city in new ways. I suggest that the experience can be situated somewhere betwixt and between the wandering of the 19th century Flammeur, the 1960s Deriv and the formal guided. Since the 19th century there have been a number of characterisations of the activity of touring in the city as habitual cultural practice, whether as a tourist at home or abroad and open to urban experience. There also exists an Victorian legacy of heritage and historical curatorship that presents places of significance as if like an open-air museum complete with a tour, a guidebook of information, physical or digital signage that reframes the visitor experience. This is a GPS activated tour in the Docklands in Melbourne. Therefore underlying this recent digital explosion is of course the observation that guided tours of places and collections have existed in many digital forms for centuries whether as human guided tours of a self-guided tourist book or the annotated heritage site and in many cases the digital version can seem like an inferior offspring of these former incarnations but arguably when done creatively they can open up new ways that allow for self-paced freedom to explore and engage between text, image audio, film and present day situations and realities. So after briefly describing the evolution of four different kinds of digital heritage touring platforms, I want to come back to a number of these opening threads through this legacy of practice of both walking in cities and of museum and heritage curation and annotation. So the first example this selected pair of tours is a very straightforward and familiar example of what we've called the click-stop tour. Here users are presented with a map which has clickable stops on a defined route that may include mixed digital media, sound and or text. So in this case this tour is called The Golden Mile was created as part of the Melbourne Museums walking through history series some years ago and developed through company MyTools The AppTour was based on an existing successful human guided heritage tour of the centre of Melbourne visiting 45 stops of mainly notable 19th century buildings built after the gold boom of the 1880s that gave impetus to Melbourne's rapid development. The companion tour app also created by MyTools was published as part of the Victorian War Heritage Trails project and that one this similar click-stop kind of thing takes a route that passes along the edge of a major urban park and the Shrine of Remembrance and you can see here that this is a kind of important viewing platform for the city as well. This style of digital tour mimics the established format of human guided tours by presenting a prescribed route of designated significant stops designed for an obedient user with a scripted delivery of manually triggered content at each stop. These ideal users are people who are largely content to be cast by tourists in their own city and are happy with consuming fairly conventional authorised heritage content. Here the city becomes experienced as a series of highlights or what Christine Boyer has described as a scenographic heritage tableau akin to exhibits choreographed in a museum yet embedded within the urban everyday realm. The second example in 2010 the Museum of London in collaboration with friends and sisters launched the app Street Museum which was designed to create an immersive museum experience on a phone or tablet outside of the museum's walls. It used geotagging augmented reality and the phone camera to animate the museum's collections and archives in an attempt to bring history to life at the very spot where it happened. Structured around a Google map Street Museum created a series of sites linked to a selection of digitised images which were supplanted with brief curatorial notes and context. Some 300-400 images could be viewed in situ with users able to manually line up old images with the contemporary view or use the camera function to capture them in either 2D or 3D to create a kind of ghostly overlay. The Museum of London opened in 1976 as the first major museum to be created after World War II in London and their remit was to tell old and new stories about London and Londoners staving off a midlife crisis and hoping to lure competition from very crowded cultural retail and sporting sectors. In the 2000s it began to think about renewal programs recognising that museums have a need to be rapidly evolving from traditional ways of exhibiting and curating to satisfy a world where as the former director of communications at the Museum of London said to me quote, all of us are curators now we all carry mobile devices around with us, we want to dip in and out of content. So the Street Museum was originally designed in part as a marketing tool which aimed to increase traffic to the physical museum to speak to younger audiences and to take collections out and about into a new generation. The strategy worked. Street Museum was a widely acknowledged pioneer in the field of digital museum and heritage apps and was very successful initially with over 10,000 downloads in the first month of release going on to win a series of awards and returning more than half a million downloads in the first couple of years of existence. It's also been highly influential in the heritage and museum sectors. However in late 2017 Street Museum was taken offline due to budgetary hurdles required to keep it up to date which is an ongoing issue in digital cultural heritage maintenance and funding models. But the app achieved far more than marketing and brand awareness as it was pioneering in spatially and temporarily extending the impact of the museum by taking collections out of the confines of the museum's space and into the surrounding messy city of London with endless possibilities of exploration and no set itineraries or tools. The third example, Soho Stories was also set in London in the area of Soho and was created by the National Trust in 2012. Unlike Street Museum used location-triggered audio content only to explore the vivid history of the local area rather than the whole city. The historical oral content focuses on post-World War II street life with stories and personalities and events. Many from the museum from the music and sex industries that characterised Soho's recent history in the 1960s and 70s. Although the many content hotspots were presented on a map the central design concept of Soho Stories defied the idea of a prescribed route rather the user is invited to wonder listening through headphones with their smart device tucked neatly out of sight. Despite the typical click-stop guided tour here the aim was not the factual delivery of official history but instead an inspired and personal spoken narrative of past inhabitants. In one view the ideal user of Soho Stories is constructed as a modern flanner with echoes of the playful deriv or drifter open to eclectic content including poems, ambient sounds and music through which to experience the local place. And further in the manner of the situation as perhaps the narratives were often cut into fragments as the user wanders in and out of range of the GPS hotspots. Perhaps slightly countered his intention of fluidity the out-present of the voice of the human guide cleverly designed to provide linking commentary as the user moves between these hotspots. But because this imaginary guide is invisible it can be experienced through the spaces anonymously and at will. The fourth example is one that we've created ourselves as part of a large research project entitled Citizen Heritage and this is a tour app and a community based local heritage sharing tool called Passport as part of that project and was designed for experiencing local areas in Melbourne. Passport was an exercise in design based digital heritage research aimed at local residents who might want to share what they knew or to find out more about their local areas as a kind of tourist at home. Similar in some ways to larger international platforms like Europeana and Historypin it was developed as a web app accessible on any device as simple and direct as possible for people to co-curate fragments of information about their local history and heritage pinned to particular locations on a map. Uploaded content can be created by any registered user with each item open to separately viewable page of historical content in the form of text of audio video as well. More socially interactive than other tour examples discussed here in addition to posting content users can post questions on the map and flag queries for others in the community and follow standard social media conventions of interaction. Other schemes for orchestrating the historical digital content in Passport are suggested walking tours curated by any contributor as a loose sequence of posted items and viewed on the map with a short textual overview of each tour. And themes are similarly consisting of related groups of items which can be grouped on the map or viewed as a listing. So here's an example of a theme in terms of demolitions in Port Melbourne and example of a walking tour in this case Ghost Signs which since developed the whole app for another area in nearer the actual city of Melbourne and doing a number of other walking tours there say about the setting of an Australian film or the kind of commemorative and contested landscape of a local park and so on. Another feature is the ability to create then and now comparative photos as a way of further animating old archival images and comparing them with the present view which has proved very popular as a further way of replacing archival images into contemporary situations and a phenomenon that I've become a bit obsessed with and written other papers on about this kind of use of re-photography. These combined aims of community led grassroots sharing plus tour guide were important to us from the outset but challenging to design and realise. The combination has proved popular to date supporting John Uri's observations that tourists and visitors often like to loosely follow other people's interests and plans while others prefer the spatial serendipity of the map. The desire to use digital guides and apps to explore the heritage of one's own city or when travelling to new places can be traced not only to the historical legacy of the touring impetus but also back as many commentators have suggested to the 19th century figure of the Flanneur that aimless urban wanderer as taken up by Charles Baudelaire and others to characterise a particular social time and place in Paris. John Uri amongst many others then appropriated this strolling figure of the Flanneur as a forerunner of the modern tourist who walks to experience new places whether at home or a file and often typically to photographically document them as a mode of interpretation while Susan Sontag also makes explicit this link between the Flanneur and photography seeing the photographer as a technologically armed version of the middle class Flanneur and the situation as in the 1950s and 60s revived a related idea of the deriv meaning a playful or subversive engagement with the city quite different to the journey or the stroll that entailed a letting go of conventional leisure and work plans yet still open to being guided by and drawn into attractions and interests through a sensory led itinerary. The possibilities open by ubiquitous computing and the smart city for annotating the contemporary urban context with stories, memories and images of past inhabitants events and places therefore suggests perhaps innovative ways of rethinking the historical trope of the urban wanderer receptive to varying degrees of personal reference to experience yet desirous of some kind of personal guide or itinerary. The urban armory of the smart phone provides a new kind of camouflage for urban walking outside of normal routes and habits yet accompanied by a map, a voice or a thread of recommendations that temper the situation as idea of the deriv towards something arguably more approachable and accessible to many including arguably women in more urban situations. Embedding historical and heritage guided and annotated routes into the urban context also suggests as already hinted at the further erosion of physical boundaries of our civic and cultural collecting institutions. So I return in concluding remarks to the opening analogy of the well-worn idea of the museum without walls first used to describe the boundless possibilities of the art book enabled by high quality photographic reproduction and vividly captured through the photographic portrait seen here of Malra taken in 1954. Here Malra explored the reshuffling and juxtaposing of reproductions of works of art regardless of their origins or contexts in an album yet as if constructing a personal and portable museum. The visual technology of photography here creating a new kind of representation that was not an encyclopedic survey but allowed for the making of new associations and meanings. If we then return to the current digital paradigm new tools for the co-creation of different kinds of portable and imaginary museums and curated interpretations of the city are again rapidly evolving and again potentially flexible and fluid able to be overlaid onto the physical civic urban realm but arguably still carrying many of the interpretive and curatorial principles of the museum. Paul Verillo in his writing on the Museum of Accidents imagine the museum of the future as a new kind of scenography where visitors would no longer move through formal physical galleries and spaces of exhibitions but rather the museographic attention would be quote replaced by the time of the exhibition end quote. We might therefore rethink the Urban Digital Heritage Guide today as more about finding a time to conduct one's own visit on one's own terms and itinerary. Christine Boyer writes of the potentially liberating possibilities of representing urban collective memory by quote drawing out associations and projected ideals to construct our own story line as we travel from picture to picture she goes on we must learn how to mark our own desires this visual order already manipulated by stereotypical forms and handed down ceremoniously for our passive consumption and that these traces of the past might quote open on difference. The four snapshots of digital tours and apps presented here offers a glimpse of how the history and heritage of cities can be approached in new and old ways that may indeed allow the user to lose themselves without quite getting lost but there still seems like a very long way to go in terms of harnessing and sustaining therefore creative and subversive urban potentials. Thanks very much and again it would be fantastic to have any dialogue or questions that might be sparked from this presentation and I really look forward to hearing the recording of the rest of the day. Thank you. The last speaker for this session is Anais Agar. Anais Agar is founder and managing director of Culture Connect a consultancy specializing in unlocking the international potential of the cultural sector harnessing its ability to build bridges between people, institutions and countries. Thanks to this, Anais worked for 15 years as a consultant and senior museum professional. She was notably head of the international initiatives at the V&A in London where she led the pioneer partnership between CMG and V&A resulting in the opening of the new V&A gallery at Design Society in Shenzhen, China and worked for six years at the British Museum on developing the museum's international strategy and generating innovative income streams. Among Culture Connect's first assignments Anais has been working as project director for the REACH program a global initiative on the reproduction of art and cultural heritage spearheaded by the V&A. This led to the signature of the REACH declaration by leading figures of the museum and heritage sector across the globe and the publication of copy culture sharing in the age of digital reproduction. Please welcome Anais Agar. Thank you very much Erika for the introduction of the panel and myself before sort of jumping into the topic I would like also to say a warm thank you to all the organizer behind we have conceived and planned this 2019 Fitch Colloquium that was a very impressive sort of work they've been putting together and of course thank you very much to Jorge for the invitation today. So as Erika said my sort of perspective is going to be slightly different. I'm not an architect and I'm not a computer scientist but I will really sort of look at the big picture here and how which is basically sort of why we're here all today really explore what lines behind the immense premises that digital technology offers to the field of history preservation and more broadly how it is shaping the way we're building tomorrow's heritage. The development and democratization of technologies such as 3D skinning or photogrammetry is radically changing the way we record our cultural heritage as we've seen from previous speakers this morning. As a result of that a parallel and ever-growing world of digitized artifact and monuments exist in standby as my colleague who we've referred to a lot today Brandon Cormier would say so what does that mean in particular for the museum and heritage community which is charged with the mission to preserve, study and share our heritage and create the condition and the context to transmit it to future generation. How can these digital copies be on standby, be activated for the benefit of all and is the response of the global museum community to actually now look towards creating new digital cascord. So that's the question I will try to sort of answer in the 20 minutes we have ahead of us. I will look in particular at sort of three aspects. So really looking at sort of how this digital technology is shaping or transforming the core mission of the museum and heritage community. I will then look at sort of the necessity to develop a roadmap for us to work more harmoniously together and the importance that this will be at a global level and also across discipline. And finally I will sort of really reflect on sort of the work we've conducted with Reach through the Reach initiative itself and Reach inspired project. So a few images that are now sort of familiar to you. I think it's really important to sort of recognize that as we've seen this morning the digital museum landscape has changed from sort of objects from collections that you can now sort of see or download on Sketchfab to initiative such as the work that Econem is doing in bringing this technology in the museum context to maybe more sort of controversial initiative like the Nefertiti Act of Nora Albadri and Nikolai Nels, we can see that those digital collections are now sort of a part of the museum life. However, what's really interesting is that all this example demonstrate that this initiative are most of the time spearheaded or pushed by non-museum people and really sort of inviting or provoking the museum community to react rather than sort of necessarily being sort of the force behind this initiative. And I think for many of you working at the crossroad between heritage and technology sort of the impact and the benefit of digital recording for museum would be a no-brainer when you think about sort of this enormous challenge that museum have to keep objects forever. Of course, we can really think easily how this digital record have really are representing increasing interest to keep precise data on the state and this changes state of an original as we've seen in particular in the presentation of HEVE. We could also see how they could really inform decision making in terms of conservation in the museum. They are also sometimes becoming really sort of the only surviving record of an original when an original is lost and they also enable sort of a new ways to engage with the public. So a lot of the functions that museums have to tackle with. However, even though I was saying sort of there is sort of a new digital landscape, this digital landscape actually looked quite uncertain and the rich declaration which was launched in December 2017 at the V&A was somehow a response to this uncertain digital landscape characterized by raging disparities between museums in terms of the way they had adopted those new technologies and the whole idea behind the rich declaration was really to empower the museum and heritage community to embrace with confidence these revolutionary opportunities that the force industrial revolution was offering in terms of new advances in technology and connectivity and how that could really activate new ways of learning, creativity, innovation, audience engagement and preservation. So this is really the genesis of this rich initiative and how can we see in that initiative an invitation to invent a new digital cascord. So I think today we've seen a little bit of that this morning and we'll hear more around sort of the challenges and sort of the questions that we're wrestling with when it comes to sort of these digital copies and that as well as the technical one and I think it's important to remind ourselves that to some degree we've been there before. I would like to bring you back for a moment to the 19th century when Sir Henry Cole, the funding director of the V&A, had really sort of somehow already sort of set the scene for the discussion we're having today. He was an industrialist and curator but most importantly had seen really the benefit of bringing art, science and technology together as an engine of social development and economic growth. And this vision was really sort of the driver behind the first exhibition of 1851 which led to the development of the V&A. And in the second international exhibition in Paris in 1867 he actually sort of formalized a bit more, he's thinking about how the technological advances of the time, mainly photography, electrotype, new technique in cast could really help push this sort of ideal of the Victorian times of highlighting the masses and really providing sort of large access to culture to a bunch of people. At the time there was no sort of easy jet or other sort of focus company and the Grand Tour of Europe was really a benefit just for the few so the whole idea behind Henry Kohl was really to broaden access to culture as a way to sort of improve society and its development. So he wrote this convention now called Convention of 1867 really promoting universally the reproduction of works of art for the benefits of all countries and the idea behind was really to use this new technology to capture the best example of architecture and works of art that would have been created by the human brain and hands and share that sort of across Europe. And one of the really interesting thing is not only this led to sort of the development of large cast courts across the world but also and I will put here Professor Marie Landing Kohl's convention marks a key moment in the translation of national monuments into portable global patrimony and really what it has started is really this idea that further in the talk of really sort of the mobility of this heritage and sharing that sort of at a global stage. So if we're now moving sort of moving forward fast forward to the 21st century our question at the VNA was to sort of really explore how the condition have changed. We are facing sort of two big sort of elements sorry I have moved so we were sort of really facing two major forces. On one side this force industrial revolution as I was saying earlier really transforming the way our museum practice was going to develop in the future in particular in connection to preserving and passing on this heritage to our contemporaries and future generations but also at the same time there was sort of a great awareness about the destructive forces that threaten our shared heritage. Pollution, terrorism, conflict as we've seen with Eve's presentation this morning but also masterism and so the question for us was really to sort of start to understand how looking back to Henry Kohl's sort of official convention how we could rethink this question of sharing and preserving at a moment of disruption in technology and how can our sector really would be able to use that for its benefits. And it was really interesting again I won't sort of expand too much on the world of fragile part which was curated by Brandon Cormier but it was a key milestone in moving towards the rich project. The idea was really as explained by David to really sort of rethink the history of copies and in particular the implication that new technology had on the way we were sort of studying, preserving and sharing our museum collections. And in this work Brandon did a fantastic work in nursing this convention and the whole idea for us was really to sort of think and have quite similar conditions to what Henry Kohl was looking at which is sort of advancing technology, a combination of a desire to preserve and transmit heritage and this desire of sort of broadening access to culture to a large group of people. And that's really how we started the rich initiative. The whole idea was really to bring together the global museum and heritage community to explore how our imperial heritage could be preserved in our digital era and debate creative opportunities that copying these works offer to global audiences. And we really wanted to sort of create a new framework and a new network for museums to work together in that and be less on sort of the receiving end but becoming a bit more proactive in this debate. In order to do that we were keen to sort of really broaden our scope of research to the entire globe. Even though Henry Kohl was claiming that he was looking at sort of the entire world in to a large extent that was very Eurocentric. So the idea was really to sort of go bring this Henry Kohl convention to the world through a series of five round table discussions that we did organize with a series of partners so creating a global consortium of museum to really explore how the museum community could engage more proactively with those issues looking at sort of Europe the Middle East and Africa, the Americas and really sort of also trying to have a very sort of cross-disciplinary and I will pause on that for a moment because I think that's one of the interesting aspect of today's colloquium is also to bring sort of different perspective on this issue and I think one of the important thing that we have to sort of bear in mind in sort of progressing is to make sure that we are looking at that across discipline and that the museum and heritage community could really take part in the conversation. So in order to do that we organize really sort of a core group of museums but work with as I was saying people across the sector so looking at sort of start-ups working in the digital field like Econem, lawyers working on sort of issues of copyrights, conservators and I have to say it was really impressive to see how those technology are used at the hermitage. They're really sort of at the cutting edge of using digital data to really make preservation decision but also looking at sort of learning officers in museums so really embracing the whole range of people who could have an interest or an impact on these digital heritage issues and the idea was really to also bring this conversation and that was mentioned a bit earlier this conversation to sort of a more political stage so we launched the initiative at UNESCO and close it there once we had sort of completed the whole range of consultation and the reason it was important it was really to sort of bring this debate outside of just the expert field but also to make decision makers realize the importance of investing in this digital heritage dimension and also realizing that a lot of the questions that was apparent throughout the consultation most of the issues and discussions that people have or problem that they are tackling with are shared and the response to how to use better this technology to better accomplish this mission of preserving, studying and sharing this collection has to be looked at collectively there are a number of issues such as storage that would have to or investment in storage infrastructure that no individuals or individual institution could tackle so we created sort of this declaration which is some sort of roadmap for the museum heritage community to start to establish sort of more standardized approach we developed sort of technical guidelines to accompany that there was a publication copy culture that was mentioned earlier and the start of an online research space housed on the VNA website to start sort of opening up even more this rich dialogue and conversation as I was saying at the beginning this declaration was signed by a number of key leaders in the field and I think that's an important sort of asset of this project which is sort of really starting to have leadership of museum and heritage sector to really start to understand the potential and the importance for the sector to engage with those topics I won't sort of read the list but it's really important to have those key leaders and important sort of museum we have endorsed this declaration and it's really sort of first step towards us working more together and more intelligently around this technology and reclaiming a little bit the role of museums and heritage in this conversation looking at sort of the first point of reproduction which is really sort of the topic of this panel the key aspect was really to anchorage museums and cultural heritage communities to record for the benefit of the public of to then future generation but also really start to standardize the ways they were sort of documenting this initiative to make sure that again when looking at the preservation of this digital record we could actually use them and make sense of them now and in the future and we're able to sort of exchange and share those digital data more easily one of the issue when we look at the museum sector and digitization is the fact that for many years a lot of the system have been sort of closed system a lot of bespoke software have been built for museum and that was very sort of limiting approach to museum really embracing the digital world and one of the question that we tried to sort of address was really to sort of have a more open approach to digitization and really thinking in terms of collaboration and exchange and circulation I won't sort of go through sort of the aspect but we looked also at sort of storage which is another sort of key aspect the notion of sharing and the aspect of collaborations but in order to sort of give you a little bit more of the sort of aspect of how this rich initiative work I would like to sort of give you two examples which were sort of developed as sort of rich inspired projects at the VNA I think there are those examples and a few others but one of the things which was interesting with this document is that even though it's not a binding document it really created a roadmap for our sector and also a point of reference for many people working in conservation department or learning teams who had started to understand the potential of digital and had really sort of really sort of trying to sort of look at how we could really build built on that at the Louvre that started their contribution to rich really started to open at government level in France the question of open access one of the expert on the board is now looking at developing blockchains to really understand how we could identified original copies which will again open up a whole new world for museums but on the VNA side and I will skip because I think I'm a bit late we've been sort of working and again the VNA is not necessarily at the forefront of digitization but the work on rich really started to push a bit those boundaries a collaboration with Rapid Forum at the Royal College of Heart and we scan 25 objects from the collections using hand-holding digital light scanning and I will just sort of quickly look at the criteria to sort of choose this object the list of criteria I won't sort of go through that but it's just to sort of highlight that those intervention in museums are not neutral the fact that we are selecting this on those terms and then sort of encountering sort of the technical limits of the technology today means that what we are passing on for the future is the result of not such a neutral dimension and we have to really think about how we select and how technology could also limit and influence what is going to be transmitted to the future and as sort of a spin-off from this scanning project we brought four objects to a school of blind children who had technologies for we had 3D printed technologies and it was an interesting way to see how scanning the collection was enabling us to really sort of make visible the invisible and reach out to sort of new audiences but again the selection of the object were linked to sort of the limitation of the technology the limitation of our sort of financial power behind that but this is the thing that are going to be sort of shared and spread so we need to really think about the selections and the criteria we choose what we are actually sort of digitizing and what will be the implication in the long-terms ideally you would want to really have this sort of digital cast-court using and sharing sort of the best example of for in the case of the V&A of works of art and design and architecture and be able to share that really sort of openly. One of the question which is remaining open is the need to sort of maintain this dialogue open built on this community that we started to gather through the REACH initiative looking at ongoing updates of this digital standards as technology is evolving more rapidly than the museum sector and really pay attention to sort of the ethical question around that and that's why I really think it is important to make sure that even though technology is evolving at a really rapid pace and the museum at large is still very unfamiliar with all these technologies it is important that they are part of this conversation and that's what we've tried to create with REACH really this open dialogue with museums and people with the technology to ensure that these digital standards that we are creating are going to be truly representative of our heritage for future generation. Thank you. One of the themes that really threaded through all of your presentations including Hannah's was one related to this notion of access David you talked about mobility Eve you spoke specifically about access on IE's you spoke about transmission and those sort of enlightenment ideals of learning and creative innovation and Hannah spoke as well about this idea of participatory curation that the public is engaged in part of this process and so I'd like to ask you all or individually or you can speak with each other about what some of the tensions are in your own work in relation to that more kind of positive and inclusive theme and the exclusion that is inherent with this endeavor meaning data and recording are not neutral and curation is not unbiased whether professional or done by a general public and so I'd like you to talk a little bit about how you reconcile those tensions or face those tensions in your own work. Eve do you want to start? No it's for us it's a big issue because we have a lot of data sensible data as well from country at war so our idea is to draw like an attic frame about what we want to do on the field first which kind of data we will take without any political idea in it and the most important thing for us at the beginning is to take objective data I mean photography with a drone it's an automatic way to take pictures so it's like objective we cover a territory and so this data for us is a raw material that can be shared to everybody so everybody is people from those countries, the government but also people from the museum people from our country and then after they can this I think this is important to engage ourselves to share this data this raw and objective data and do what they want with this and ourselves we do specific narrative with that doing this exhibition but it's our own view we bring to the public but the raw data needs to be accessible to the scientists but also to the public in order for everybody to have his own interpretation of it so for us the ethical frame is this notion of objectivity in the way we collect the data and then after we consider that everybody can do what they want with this but everybody still have to get access to the raw data on the raw material but this is also for us a technical issue because it's a huge amount of data so we have to find this kind of technical infrastructure engineering to get this easy access to the point cloud at the beginning but for us it's a very important issue that's why we have in our team we have a team of 15 people but in this team there is at least 5 people who are working specifically on this subject I'm going to ask you to respond to that David particularly because the term you used optical bias I mean I have a lot to say about the way reproductions and as Anaya said the way reproductions kind of imagine a certain kind of subject reproduction always has an idea of the capacities of somebody in terms of the way that they might enjoy appreciate or preserve culture to some of Eve's points I think that is a very large issue but another issue that came up with my work with Anaya and Brendan is the more that culture let's call it the broad term becomes digitized and becomes data the more we need to concentrate on who can access this and whether the infrastructure is there to access it and a very interesting point that came up in the conversations is the lack as we all know the very uneven distribution of access to the kinds of quantities of data that people like Eve and many others work with what wasn't discussed in the conversations with Reach if you take that map of the uneven access to data in the form of computation and data networks and map that to the sites that 10 people digital preservations tend to concentrate on they are located in the same place in the same geographic zones and so that I think requires some self reflection because there is a very big disconnect there I would agree I think it's linked to this question of digital divides and maybe the risk of neocolonial approach to preservation exactly this point of where the technology is and where the sites are and I think again to combine David and Eve's point I think the solution is really not to rush in we make sure that we have time to reflect on the consequences of using those technologies because even though apparently they are more neutral because yes, that's automatic sort of more objective data that you're capturing you still make the decision of going in certain places versus others and we still are the ones with sort of the tools and the skills for that and the point that the rich declaration is putting forward is the necessity also to ensure that there is a transmission also of knowledge and expertise and really sort of a greater collaboration at a global scale in terms of how people could be trained and own this technology on a more positive things I think there is access and this question of reclaimed history I think putting on this digital reproduction has enabled or provoked a bit more understanding of the multiplicity of layers around digital narrative and I think that's a progress in sort of a more even sort of approach to transmitting and how we share this frame sort of this heritage there is sort of the space now to have multiple voice telling the story of one object but again that comes back to the question of context but I think it's something that people working in that field needs to have really at the forefront of their thinking because that's going to shape tomorrow's heritage Another quick question and I want to tie this to a long standing kind of ideal within the heritage realm of stewardship and the way in which recording is sort of seen as a form of stewardship a way of preserving maybe not always the place or the object but the idea of the place of the object and I'd like to kind of taking a cue from your comment talk a little bit about our role beyond stewardship you talked about activism I would also bring in the word accountability and certainly in Hannah's presentation she was bringing this idea well as professionals we're not just the curators there's this public curation process and I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about how you see our role as activists within this preservation arena or as those having to be accountable for very real decisions about the built environment even if only made digitally That's a big question I mean I as a historian I'm completely fascinated by people like me historians who have had to invent processes of reproduction to represent ideas that could mostly live in writing but they did in historical reproductions of artifacts in other words to project the past and the futures of artifacts to try to reinvent practices and ideas about what a reproduction could be and what it can represent so for me I think in my own capacity I do believe that reproductions are extraordinarily powerful in terms of creating the whole notion of like heritage and crisis I kept listening to the I'm hijacking your questions a bit but I kept thinking today a few of the presentations are others we'll talk about world culture and crisis and I think through my own work I want to step back a bit and understand the way that we make reproductions what we choose to reproduce how we reproduce it creates the whole idea of a world culture and the idea of crisis I personally think the responsibility is to step back a bit from the images of ruination and destruction and to be very careful about the kinds of imagery and ideas that we map and reproduce and push out there because I do think they they I don't want to keep using the word reproduce they reiterate certain ideas they we lose kinds of sensibilities and perceptions of people that actually experience these things among many many other variations of experience so I think right now is a very key moment for anybody who's involved with this to have a lot of reflection about the kinds of images they're reiterating with their work and to lead to in these sites because I guess the problem with Palmyra is not just an issue of reconstruction but of people obviously I think for me there is this ongoing tension between very short term and the long term and the museum world is always trying to sort of bridge the gap between the immediate and sort of this historical perspective and I think the players were entering this field are living in different sort of time frame so technology is evolving extremely rapidly and therefore people working on that in that field are used to work in a specific sort of time frame which differs from museum one and I think for me the beauty of the work we've done with Rich is to really bring all these people together to really sort of find what is the right balance and how and I think this notion of pose and think about what it is that we produce I can't find another word but what do we digitize and what we put to the world because this is shaping our collective imagination, our collective culture and it's not just sort of cracking on technical issues, it's about sort of bigger and more lasting questions so for me one of the solution is really to sort of make sure that we still have a platform like Rich where people from different perspective working in different sort of time frame are able to actually look and explore this question together and further that I think our technology is also a very good way to involve the community itself and the community from the different country to work to think about their own heritage and to think it differently than with in a different view from us and we have been working a lot in this very close collaboration with archaeologists in Syria, Iraq Afghanistan by training them to this technology of photogrammetry that is easy to use on the field because you just need like a camera and I saw a lot this enthusiasm from their side to produce this kind of imagery and to use it as as a specialist as an archaeologist as an architect but also to create a narrative about their own history so I think it's a link it's a kind of new link we draw between human being on this kind of culture so it's I think a great opportunity also I'd like to open it up to the audience for additional questions Mario especially I would like to say that for people that have worked in conflict areas it's very challenging to go and take the risk of doing documentation specifically to do something beyond that and to help preserving heritage however I see a lot of tension in the use of this kind of information as you know UAV's regulations around the world are taking into consideration privacy as a very important aspect in when you're taking pictures of anything that doesn't belong to you and this brings to the point as to say well who is going to have access to this data and how this access to this data is going to be in detriment to the actual people that live for instance in Aleppo or Iraq and this is a very important question I like the point of Anais about we need to wait and we need to consult and I think this is the moment we need to consult we cannot just provide full access to all the data that we have now I want to put you all in think about because one of the most important ethical principles is the conflict of interest and I see and I see it from myself too that we are utilizing the data that we are gathering to self promote our mission and our mission can be very important we want to preserve we want this information to transcend to the future but how do you see yourself are you entering a conflict of interest when you display this information worldwide and you get the next project because all of us we all have to pay mortgages I don't know if everyone has and we also have to feed our employees in our organizations or to teach our students so how do you see that conflict of interest specifically as a heritage recording specialist yes I think we all trying to solve a general problem that is not only my problem that is a problem also of community the problem of how to to transmit this monument that are disappearing for the future generation and it's not only the promotion of a technology of a project it's more a philosophical idea we want to bring and this is just one way to do it, there is other way but I'm trying to promote this way because there is a certain efficiency on the field and there is now sort of community, local community help us to do that but I think I don't see really like a conflict of interest because there is some it's a philosophical problem that it us all from our team from the different community I'm not really indeed we are creating a narrative we are promoting this narrative here in Europe elsewhere in Arabic country it's just just a way to reach this goal it's a so general goal that I don't I really don't see this this conflict in my work thank you for the wonderful start to the day, it's a little cold in the room but it just warmed up with these fabulous talks and I just want to take it back to this question of all of you sort of touched upon it the notion of the way in which these representations and technologies sort of embed a sense of community within them and in a sense lay forth for us the biases that are within that community whether it be the biases of our own discipline or the biases of the people engaging with the heritage and in particular with David I thought it was really interesting the way that you began to look at the broader field of bodily experience as a way to try to unpack those biases and to think about this what I guess Baxendal would call like the period I what would a renaissance person experience this heritage object versus the way we do one of the themes that seem to come through in all the presentations is that these new technologies in a sense shape our period I that we our own understanding of the world is mediated through these new technologies and I want to just to have you reflect a little bit in Anais's question about speed because if we think of for example photography the way that it shaped our understanding of heritage you pointed to that between the first photographs in the mid 19th century and the point when everybody had a camera in their hand was like a hundred years is really after World War II when everybody has a Polaroid or what have you and it was still expensive cameras but it's really been 10 years between no one having access to these technologies and everybody having access to these they're cheap like you know they're so cheap that we can afford them as a program Columbia University so I just wanted to have you reflect on that a little bit because the compression of time in a way there is a sense of playing catch up but to what degree are we able to sort of pull back from that because it seems that a lot of the biases that we are finding in this new technology are the kinds of biases that we ascribe to photography and its relationships to colonialism to opticality and so on so is it possible for us to step back and begin to unpack new kinds of our own biases and have you found biases that you find or let's say surprising to you and that you might not find in earlier histories I forget the term of Bruno Latours but it's really nice in this conference which is this idea that you know there's most people think of technologies as successions and he talks about the coexistence of mutual technologies and we have air powered nail guns but people still use hammers it's not something that we threw out with the nail gun and I think with processes like photogrammetry and several other things we'll see today we'll see a similar thing where photography and digital photography and digital software are moving parallel and they're informing each other back and forth so it's not a replacement but it's kind of there's still a lot of developments with digital photography that are informing the photogrammetric work so I think that's an important idea just to have around the other thing I mean your question makes me think about this issue that I'm obsessed with like what is a reproduction right because if I make a drawing of you right now we would not say that's a reproduction of you in that space but if Eve flew the drone around you and took a series of photographs and reconstructed it in agile soft photo scan we could say we have a reproduction of Jorge so you know and there's just to throw out a few more names there's a very interesting idea by the art historian Erwin Panofsky about what a reproduction is he says a reproduction is some thing or phenomena that gets translated through some law of natural science that can be a photograph that can be a photograph needle that could be an algorithm today and I think that's so key and I think that's that algorithm so to speak that whatever that thing is that represents science the natural science of the reproduction is where I personally want to concentrate where I think the most interesting issues are right now it puts us more in control of the software processes or has us in dialogue with people that make the software that make these images enables us to insert our own values it's a beginning it's a place to begin to think about where we might insert ourselves in the kind of the the natural science that's always represented by any form of reproduction light, sound, chromaticity et cetera and I do think that has the capacity to represent many different forms of experience in absentia I'm just going to add to that thinking about this term reproduction as both a female and a parent I think that there are added dimensions to this idea of reproduction in terms of the creative process and what we bring to the table that is well beyond a sort of analytical understanding of that and so I'm just going to add that in there that's a good point that's natural science too oh sorry we got two quick questions one for Anais if you could share with us who were your partners for the reach program in Latin America and the Caribbean and for Yves if you could share with us some information about the cost involved with not only the recording but also interpreting and presenting the data so thank you very much for this question so as I was saying we really try to sort of start this plan thinking okay we can't just be Eurocentric anymore like and claiming that we talk for the universe and so we really try to sort of work quite broadly across the world obviously and that's always the limit we had limit in times and money so we work with Sandra Lopez from university she had done key so from Mexico so we only had one representative from Latin America and that was Mexico so in few writings I wrote around sort of that for me that was one of the failure of the work we've done but it was interesting to really reflect and she in the book I mentioned before copiculture she has actually a really interesting section where she talks about this cultural divide and all these big questions that we are sort of touching upon upon now I think that's a reflection of the fact that we are still talking even though we try to sort of be as open as possible we work with sort of the people where we keep sort of in the same circle and for me sort of the next step of reach is really to create a space online where people could actually comment share their sort of techniques we have this sort of guidelines technical guidelines and the idea would be to have them as sort of a working document where people could really share and really use this connectivity we have to sort of bring more people on board but I think that was one of the one of the limitation and we had nobody from the Caribbean which again being the daughter of a high shed person I find it really sad but we had sort of this limit and I think we were aware of that coming back to sort of the previous question on sort of the technical aspect I think we are sort of it's sort of a new frontier and we are testing a lot of things and as we said we have this tension between the short and the long term I think we can't stop progress and it's important to sort of embrace with confidence this new technology but what we need to keep in mind is we need to enter this field being fully awake and aware of the holistic approach that we that we are taking when we put these things out there in the world what are the consequences and the responsibility is for those people I think one element that the rich declaration is tracing is the importance of documenting the process so if you do embark on this project what was the purpose describing sort of the technology and having sort of has many objective data around sort of the why of the project in order for this to be understood with possibly an understanding of the bias that may have sort of come into play in reproducing that sorry I think there was another I've got a microphone back here sorry I think there was a second question as well there was a second question the second part of the question just the cost is between 20,000 for a monument a big city like Mosul is 200,000 but what is more interesting is from where comes the money the funding and it's a real problem I mean we worked a lot with UNESCO with the government but we found out that every funding comes from political willing and some place like Syria like Libya we didn't find the funding so at the beginning of Econem I raised money 1.4 million to negotiate with investor to use part of this money in order to make emergency mission where I think it's necessary to go and this gave us a little freedom about the choice of the place we go it sounds to that we did all this in Syria but in our experience every funding is linked to a political willing at the beginning so it's very difficult to put apart politics and culture and that's what we are trying to do but there is a lot to do in this field and I want to make a quick comment I think one of the solutions is to keep this question at a global level the broader we are the last risk there is in terms of this conflict of interest or advancing one specific agenda so keeping the platform to dialogue collectively at a global scale is really important I think Norman and then we have Mike down here please I have three small comments but they may not be small depending upon the response and they represent all three of you the first is that something was said a few minutes ago that really conveyed the spirit of egalite and the comment was I fear a little too early in the process which was that the raw data itself should be accessible to scientists by which I think you meant scientists, engineers, technology as well as to the public and the problem there is that despite the fact that the public and I include myself in part in that we see the amazing power now of our cell phones and our personal computers but even here in the school Jorge said we are doing this work which we are for sure but even here where we have in our lab we are told the best computers in the school right now it can take days to download files from the work that they have done in the field so now we compare that to what is available to the public it is a dilemma second comment is and for this it is definitely not too late is that I think this is the moment to sharpen the terminology not the technology which is getting sharper daily but the terminology that we use in the field for example I am driven insane by the term digital preservation because it is a term that for well over a decade has already been used in a different community with some slight overlaps through museums to this community and by that it means the preservation of digital files that institutions have and are now having difficulty with files from 10, 15, 20 years ago that they need to be able to preserve and modify so the sharpening of terminology is exceptionally exceptionally important I think and then the third comment is applauding an ace for mentioning electrotypes as well as cast because most people think of this only in terms of cast what is interesting to me is that that period of time when Henry Cole was starting to consider this was also the moment when particularly in France the process of electrotyping became much more common and electrotypes interestingly enough have now become valuable in and of themselves especially because in the case of electrotyping of metals and so on that we can sometimes see well they did the electrotype from a particularly sharp example or they did the electrotype from a poor example that they had in their collection at the time so there is new comparative information so congratulations on saying that I would add however that electrotypes at the time 1850s 1890s was the great peak period of electrotyping that they also represented a confusion to electors to dealers to the public simply because electrotypes made and as hollow things were filled with more metal so that they had exactly the same heft not precisely but reasonable replica shall we say of the heft they were then patinated so that they looked like the original metals so we asked the question today were they meant to deceive in part were they meant to educate were they meant to offer replicas of things that institutions couldn't have or within the art market where they meant to fool people into spending money that's a big one I'm not an expert in electrotype and I will sort of encourage you to sort of read what Hengus Patterson at the V&A he just wrote a very interesting book on that so I recommend sort of the read I think that's the same I think there were sort of multiple because there was sort of a there were a commodity as well and there was a market for this reproduction I think the idea of the in the case of the V&A that was really sort of educational and sort of being able to sort of inspire a larger public in order to sort of have access to reproduction or replicas rather than fooling the visitors I think that's a big question and a big debate I think this question of copies reproduction is also inviting us to confer to the question of authenticity and context and it's sort of a big question probably we won't really have time I think it comes back to expressing the intention of the whatever sort of reproduction endeavor you're on and making sure that it is recorded with the actual digital record in order for future generation to make their mind about whether we were biased and what we were trying to do but I think documenting the purpose and why we did something might lift a bit of the sort of personal bias that we can bring into this project I fully agree with the question of the terminology I mean I worked a lot with an archeologist and it's completely different to save I mean preserve the image of a site and preserve the site itself and the problem is there is a confusion between this for example for an archeologist if you have the image of a site you cannot dig the image to see what is inside the site so you lose a huge amount of data knowledge inside the site indeed there is this the the problem is that really create this very impressive imagery and people think that ok so we are now the virtual site so the real site don't we don't need it anymore but indeed all the knowledge of the history of the historical layers of the site the sedimentation is in the matter it's not in the visible image of the site so we really need to make the difference between that and the 3D model is just a tool to investigate what can be visible but it's not a tool can help us to understand the layering of the site on the sedimentation do you have time for one more question Michael? so I make a lot of images that are similar to the processes that you've been talking about today and I just had a couple of sort of overarching questions about what the scene you guys involved in are like and what the people's needs are mostly like as far as preservation goes when using photogrammetry or laser scanning or whatever you're using there's this digital part of it like an immense manual part of it before the rendering even starts so you shoot the images and what you get in your initial render is always going to take a lot of work to be seen the way that I see it so I think there's like an authorship and like a copyright question right there and that's before you click render and when you click render a lot of people use like Amazon Web servers or whatever they're going to use not the worst ever and I think there's like real security questions there when you relate them to like stuff like you're doing where you scan a large environment with a drone God forbid that environment would be the target of something terrible and that scan might be used for planning of that because it's very mathematically accurate and then lastly kind of what you were talking about with Reach I would like to get a better sense of like where the blind spot is because like having worked in scanning and VR myself like I know there's a huge disconnect when you're not in the same room with a person to like give them a headset and show them these things and the online platforms are not there or at least don't have a proper incentive for people on the museum or preservation side to be a part of it like it was interesting that you brought up copyright so I'm kind of trying to think through why as a museum outside of kind of the goodness of the own heart and the want to share the collection like what kind of resources are missing to be able to make the practice a little wider Can I start with Ben? As you want So very quickly on the sort of what are sort of still the road block I think it's a combination of things that are more intangible which is sort of the mindset of people in the museum sector where there is a lack of familiarity with the technology and therefore a bit of resistance to invent a new common ground because they feel so far from that when I mentioned sort of the work that professor Eugene Chang is doing on blockchain just the notion of blockchain for many museum colleagues they just sort of close I think there is this things which is more about sort of a lack of familiarity with the world then there is the question of funding and in particular storage infrastructure because there is the question of where do we store that and most of the time museums won't have the capacity to actually keep those data and do the work of presenting it to the public which is what they are supposed to be doing so I would say that's probably the two main roadblocks For the problem of indeed of the security of this data on how this data can be used indeed I think we need to be prudent in the schedule of release this data because there is a very sensitive data in the case of conflict so once this data came in the sphere of history it can be released and this must be released to have a better knowledge of the different event but sometime a few weeks or few months just after a battle it's indeed difficult to broadcast this picture to everyone but there is still the groups that still are fighting together so we have to share this data with international authority for example UN, UNESCO but not the wide public so indeed we need to be prudent but I think our goal in the future is to open all this data to have a better understanding of the conflict I mean of the heritage of the process of the destruction of the heritage itself so and then for the question of property so we we had a discussion with a lawyer in France to see who owns the data and it's really not easy to know because for example a photographer, a journalist come to CIA take picture the photographer sells the picture so we can imagine that is more or less the same thing so the lawyer was explaining to us as it is like automatic way of taking picture what I call objective not fully objective but in a way more objective than a photographer will take a picture we cannot protect this in intellectual property but we can protect the model itself that is like stitching of the picture more or less automatic again but in the French law it will be easier to protect the model the photograph itself which is not so bad because the raw material in the future should be public in the public domain because it's like a raw knowledge of this kind of event and then after the 3D model the exhibition, the image all the interpretation you can do with this should be with the ownership of the author of the film but really today it's not clear even with this lawyer because this new technology brings new problems and we try to make a parallel with the old technology which is photography but everything don't match with that so it's still ongoing thinking so I am loath to cut off this conversation but we have two more sessions and I expect that many of the questions raised will be threaded throughout the rest of the day so please join me in thanking