Comparing Tangible and Virtual Exploration of Archaeological Objects
Comparing Tangible and Virtual Exploration of Archaeological Objects
复制标题
比较考古物品的有形和虚拟探索
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Kirsh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Kirsh
虚拟参与是否能够实现考古学家在现场所享受的那种与物体的互动耦合？为了探讨这个问题，我考虑了三点：1）肌肉互动：肌肉和肌腱的接触在体验和理解物体中扮演什么角色？2)思考问题。当我们操纵事物以促进思考时，会涉及到什么样的互动？3)投射和想象力。考古学研究涉及的过程超越了感知。物质的参与刺激了这些过程。在虚拟环境中必须存在什么才能重现物质参与的感觉？我的结论是，原则上，没有什么可以阻止未来的虚拟环境支持这种数字版本的文物的材料参与。但是，关于如何实现这种物质参与，无论是在技术层面还是在认知层面，都还有很多需要理解的地方。仍然是一个开放和非常活跃的问题。我们中的许多人相信，通过与物体进行有形的互动，我们可以获得比观察这些物体的图像（甚至是3D或全息图像）更多的东西。通过广泛的方式进行交互-除了视觉和声音之外，还有触摸和手动操作-我们以实际扩展认知的方式与物体交互耦合。如果这是真的，那么，正如许多人所争论的那样，[Clark 2003，Hutchins 2005，Kirsh 1995，2009，2010，Latour 1986]人类可以从字面上“思考”物体，虚拟参与如何支持考古学家在现场享受的那种思考？这个问题可以说得更直截了当。考古学家在该领域的实践涉及更多的模式和更多的物质参与，而不是在虚拟环境中支持一段时间。我的目标是了解更多的是在一个物理世界给考古学家。为了探讨这个问题，我考虑三点：1。肌肉互动：肌肉和肌腱的接触在体验和理解物体中扮演什么角色？2.思考问题。当我们操纵事物以促进思考时，会涉及到什么样的互动？3.投射和想象力。考古学研究涉及的过程超越了感知。物质的参与刺激了这些过程。在虚拟环境中必须存在什么才能重现物质参与的感觉？考古勘探是一种具体的物质活动。为了理解物理碎片的功能，考古学家们会举起物体，感受它们的平衡;他们会仔细观察它们，把它们放在远处，或者把它们放在其他物体的背景下。无论心理投射和想象是否被认为是有效的考古方法，它们仍然是好奇心的重要因素，而与物质对象一起工作和玩耍的身体行为刺激了两者。我们能否用虚拟世界中的数字对象创造出足够的真实感，来复制真实的人工制品的认知感觉？我们能否重新建立“生成”的背景，以再现考古学家在该领域所享受的认知过程？在关注虚拟考古学在重建物质参与的认知深度方面所面临的挑战时，我并不想在任何方面质疑虚拟考古学为考古学家和公众提供的特殊品质。正如其他人所讨论的那样，虚拟世界允许我们在远处交流想法，与文物进行协作角色扮演，添加或交换虚拟背景以使我们的遭遇情境化，或者重新创建永远丢失的挖掘元素。因为很容易用数字对象来增强任何虚拟场景，所以很容易添加计算元素，从而降低信息搜索、信息可视化和视觉比较的成本。场景可以被创造，历史可以被赋予生命。毫无疑问，考古学将越来越多地朝着数字化方向发展，无论是对现场的考古学家来说，他们可能希望增强当地的现实，还是对虚拟旅游和文化探究感兴趣的热情公众。然而，从认知的角度来看，身体参与物体如何影响认知的问题，
Can virtual engagement enable the sort of interactive coupling with objects enjoyed by archaeologists who are physically present at a site? To explore this question I consider three points: 1) Tangible interaction: What role does encounter by muscle and sinew play in experiencing and understanding objects? 2) Thinking with things. What sorts of interactions are involved when we manipulate things to facilitate thought? 3) Projection and imagination. Archaeological inquiry involves processes beyond perception. Material engagement of things stimulates these processes. What must be present in a virtual environment to recreate the feel of material engagement? I conclude that nothing, in principle, prevents future virtual environments from supporting this material engagement of digital versions of artifacts. But, there is much that remains to be understood about how to realize this material engagement, both at a technological and a cognitive level. remains an open and very active question. Many of us believe that by interacting tangibly with objects we get something more than by observing images of those objects, even 3D or holographic images. By interacting through a broad range of modalities – touch and manual manipulation in addition to sight and sound – we interactively couple with objects in ways that actually extends cognition. If it is true, then, as many have argued, [Clark 2003, Hutchins 2005, Kirsh 1995, 2009, 2010, Latour 1986) ] that humans can literally ‘think’ with objects, how can virtual engagement support the sort of thinking with things enjoyed by archaeologists who are physically present at a site? This question can be stated more bluntly. The practices of archaeologists in the field involve more modalities and more material engagement than are likely to be supported in virtual environments for some time. My objective here is to understand what more being in a physical world gives archaeologists. To explore this issue I consider three points: 1. Tangible interaction: What role does encounter by muscle and sinew play in experiencing and understanding objects? 2. Thinking with things. What sorts of interactions are involved when we manipulate things to facilitate thought? 3. Projection and imagination. Archaeological inquiry involves processes beyond perception. Material engagement of things stimulates these processes. What must be present in a virtual environment to recreate the feel of material engagement? Archaeological exploration is an embodied, material activity. To understand the function of physical fragments, archaeologists heft objects and feel their balance; they closely scrutinize them, they hold them at a distance, or place them against a background of other objects. Whether or not mental projection and imagination are deemed valid archaeological methods, they are still vital elements in inquisitive minds, and the physical act of working and playing with material objects stimulates both. Can we create enough realism with the digital objects populating virtual worlds to duplicate the cognitive feel of real artifacts? Can we re-establish the ‘enactive’ context needed to reproduce the cognitive processes that archaeologists enjoy in the field? In focusing on the challenge that virtual archeology faces in recreating the cognitive depth of material engagement, I do not in any respect mean to question the special qualities that virtual archeology offers to archaeologists and the public. As others have discussed, virtual worlds allow us to communicate ideas at a distance, to collaboratively role-play with artifacts, to add or swap virtual backgrounds to contextualize our encounter, or to recreate elements of a dig forever lost. Because it is easy to augment any virtual scene with digital objects, it is easy to add computational elements that reduce the cost of information search, information visualization, and visual comparison. Scenarios can be created and history brought to life. There is little doubt in my mind that archeology will move increasingly in a digital direction both for archaeologists on site, who may wish to augment local reality, and for an enthusiastic public interested in virtual tourism and cultural inquiry. FFrom a cognitive perspective, however, the question of how physical involvement with objects affects cognition