Augmented Reality Applications for Photographic Collections in Archives and Museums: Tangible Objects vs Digital Interfaces
Sometimes you just need to touch something to better understand it, but that’s not always possible. Take photographic objects. Interacting with their physicality is seldom possible for researchers and members of the public alike. Photographs are understood as both object and image; this generates a lot of debate when it comes to how photographs are used for research, exhibited, how they are managed (physically and digitally), and also preserved in archives and museum collections.
During an internship as a curatorial assistant at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris, I had the opportunity to work with their photographic collection, containing prints and objects of immeasurable value. I recall standing there in awe, as I went through boxes of John Beasley Greene, Gustave Le Gray, and Henri Le Secq prints, among many others; being able to hold each print in my hands, spend time with it, and look at every detail, is something I will never forget. I have, since that time, been entrusted to handle various precious photographic objects in other collections, but this is an exception. This level of access to collections very much depends on the institution — most follow strict preservation policies. Not being able to touch material in photographic collections can be a disappointment, more so for those doing research, but these practices are in place to preserve these fragile objects in the best way possible.
In an effort to address this issue of access, institutions have started experimenting with Augmented Reality as a tool to enhance interaction with their collections material and shape how we understand them.
“Already on a path of convergence with mobile technology, AR has become a portable tool for discovery-based learning that can enhance the information available to patrons when visiting gallery spaces, interacting with real-world objects, or even exploring outdoor installations” (Ding, 14).
A surprisingly large percentage of material in collections never gets seen by the public, utilized for exhibitions, or even accessed for research. These fascinating objects remain housed in boxes and never leave their home on a shelf in the vault. The transition that museums and art institutions have undergone since the emergence of digital technology, trying to provide access to this material, can be understood in three phases. Initially, the goal was to get as much of their collection digitized as possible, so it could be properly catalogued and then put online to be accessed by researchers and the public; a process that continues to depend heavily on funding. The second phase, involved doing something with these now digitized works in the form of online exhibitions, as well as dissemination across social media platforms for marketing, sharing, and engagement. The third phase, is a more innovative one. The question has now shifted to: how can we use this digitized material combined with current digital technology to engage a new audience in a meaningful way?
While many museums and institutions are still stuck in phase one, due to lack of resources and funding, those who have the means to go beyond digitization of their collections, see augmented reality experiences as the new thing. You can watch a painting come to life by holding your smartphone in front of it, see dinosaurs in 3D roam around a museum, and even interact with animal skeletons.
Similarly, AR shows great potential as an interactive tool for viewing objects in photographic collections. What if you could hold a smartphone or tablet over a 19th century salted-paper print and simultaneously see the negative it was made from, while also learning more about the positive-negative process? Daguerreotypes are pretty magical photographic objects that you often only see displayed in a case, but rarely get to touch or interact with.* What if that interaction could be simulated in AR? Or what if you could learn about how Daguerreotypes were made through the interface of a smart-device, while still viewing the physical object?
The materiality of an image is valuable, thus making its preservation an important concern. Being able to study a photograph as a physical object, as well as an image, is also important. Elizabeth Edwards and Janice Hart in Photographs as Objects: on the Materiality of Images, referencing Batchen, speak to this importance:
“photographs exist materially in the world, as chemical deposits on paper, as images mounted on a multitude of different sized, shaped, coloured and decorated cards, as subject to additions to their surface or as drawing their meanings from presentational forms such as frames and albums. Photographs are both images and physical objects that exist in time and space and thus in social and cultural experience. They have volume, opacity, tactility and a physical presence in the world (Batchen 1997:2) and are thus enmeshed with subjective, embodied and sensuous interactions.”
By using image recognition and delivering interactive visualizations and layered information to the user, AR can be used to give new life to photographic material and provide greater context for understanding an image; establishing a meaningful connection between the photographic object itself and the greater history and narrative it belongs to. Information about the materiality of the object, the process by which it was made, what the recto and verso look like, and preservation and housing considerations, can all be delivered to the user in an AR experience, enhancing the user’s understanding of that photograph as an object. Looking at a photograph and then being able to view related images and digital assets from another collection as a virtual layer could be useful in educating the user about the provenance of that photograph. Information about the photographer, the subject, the cultural and social context during which it was made, aesthetic choices, and various other interpretations, can serve to enhance the user’s understanding of the photograph as an image and object.
While there are legitimate concerns about using AR for this purpose — copyright of material that is digitized and then placed in a virtual space and the perceived value of a digital reproduction and its authenticity––the outcome could be worth the effort to try and work through these obstacles within an institution’s cultural policy.
Having the opportunity to view and interact with a historical print through AR seems like an ideal alternative, but the limitation is that you still can’t quite touch the object. It’s a bit of a tease. You see the object in front of you but can only touch the screen of whatever smart device you are using. Is an AR experience an adequate substitution for not being able to touch or handle a photograph? Perhaps not, but since there are significant reasons why these objects cannot be touched, and that will not change, it presents a more engaging and educational alternative to just browsing through the collection’s database to see a digitized version. AR thus becomes a tool that archives and museums can leverage to increase engagement with their collections material; a compliment to the viewing experience, rather than a substitution for touch.
* A Daguerreotype is a photograph made with a process that was introduced by Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre in 1839 and used widely throughout the 1850s. The direct positive image has a copper plate support, covered with a layer of finely polished silver. Each Daguerreotype is a single, unique image. The image material is made up of tiny particles deposited on the polished silver surface. A Daguerreotype can appear as a positive or a negative, depending on how the plate is viewed. These unique photographs are often mounted in an ornate case with a hinged cover, or housed in a passepartout style (frame).
References
Edwards, Elizabeth, and Janice Hart. Photographs objects histories: on the materiality of images. Routledge, 2010.
Ding, Mandy. “Augmented Reality in Museums.” AUGMENTED MUSEUM: essays on opportunities and uses of augmented reality in museums, Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press Pittsburgh, PA, 2018, pp. 13–14.
