As I reading Bonnett and Favro articles this week, I am considering that whether the 3D technology tools really have significant meaning in cognition and history research. I agree that Digital representation expand our methods of investigation, the aspects we consider and our overall understanding of historical environments,as Favro says. But to what extent and on what expense can 3D environment influence scholars and students understanding of history, of past.

Actually, I think the scope of 3D technology can benefit is limited. Of course, for students who need to have basic structure of knowledge and archeology who need to restoration the incomplete relics, 3D technology might show a more accurate scene. However, on one hand, I am always wondering whether those accurate images may limit the imagination of viewers? A ancient environment compound with digital lines, from my perspective impede the people’s imagination about ancient society. One the other hand, the details of social environment are invisible, which is important for scholars to study the architecture in the past. The study for historical environment, undoubted, should be separated with the social culture at that time.

And even 3D immersive technology could achieve the goal that completely restoration the scene of that time. It still time consuming and cannot reach to everyone because of technology limitation.

In addition, how much useful information could be shown through the 3D technology? And how much information could people get from a 3D technology? For example, can we really get an overall comprehension about the feature society of a dynasty or an empire by experience 3D immersive technology in museum? I might have a better understanding but never get fully understanding. The form of 3D technology, for my point of view, plays a more important role than the content it really have.

Advertisements