Augmented Reality Art pp 255-276

Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC) | Cite as

Augmenting the Archaeological Record with Art: The Time Maps Project

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter proposes a new method for evoking the complexity of the Past from the archaeological record, based on a transdisciplinary approach linking science, art and technology. Inspired from the fractal-theory, this method employs different levels of augmentations from general context to detail and uses a combination of Augmented Reality techniques and visual media, with a high artistic quality, to create a Mixed-Reality user experience. The paper presents an experimental Augmented Reality application on mobile devices, and discusses the efficacy of the method for an educational strategy to help communities recover and transmit their immaterial heritage to future generations. The research was based in Vadastra village, southern Romania, in an archaeological complex of a prehistoric settlement.

References

  1. Arth C, Schmalstieg D. Challenges of large scale augmented reality on smartphones, workshop ISMAR 11: enabling large-scale outdoor mixed reality and augmented reality basel, 26 Oct 2011 (2011).Google Scholar
  2. Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: teleoperators and virtual environments 6, 4; August 1997. Malibu: Hughes Research Laboratories; 1997. p. 355–85.Google Scholar
  3. Benford S, Giannachi G. Performing mixed reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Bimber O, Raskar R. Spatial augmented reality, merging real and virtual worlds. Wellesley: A. K Peters; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. Bonde S, Houston S. Re-presenting the past. Archaeology through text and image. Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley R. Image and audience. Rethinking prehistoric art. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Brogni A, Calwell DG, Slater M. Touching sharp virtual objects produces a haptic illusion. In: Shumaker R, editor. Virtual and mixed reality new trends. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown CT, Witschey WRT, Liebovitch LS. The broken past. Fractals in archaeology. J Archaeol Method Theory. 2005;12(1):37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burghelea V, Melinescu A, Brăileanu A, Gheorghiu D, Lăbus A. The ceramics of the Chalcolithic Vădastra culture, key engineering materials. Euro Ceram VII. 2001; 206–13.Google Scholar
  10. Butchart B. Augmented reality for smartphones – a guide for developers and content publishers. JISC Observatory. 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Chandler D. Semiotics. The basics. Abington: Routledge; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Clifford J. On ethnographic allegory. In: Clifford J, Marcus GE, editors. Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  13. Craig AB, Sherman WR, Will JD. Developing virtual reality applications. Burlington: Morgan Kaufman; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. Ede S. Strange and charmed. Science and the contemporary visual arts. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation; 2000.Google Scholar
  15. Geroimenko V. Scope, cabinet exhibition, peninsula arts gallery, 14 May–25 June. http://www.geroimenko.com/Scope-Augmented-Reality-Artwork-at-Cabinet-Exhibition 2011. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.
  16. Geroimenko V. Four key words lost in augmented reality: a VR-based digital photo painting with a hidden AR object. In: 16th international conference information visualisation, Montpellier. http://www.geroimenko.com/Four-Key-Words-Lost-in-Augmented-Reality-D-ART-Online-Gallery-France-July-2012-June-2013 (2012). Accessed 1 Dec 2013.
  17. Gheorghiu D. Le projet Vadastra, Prehistorie Européenne. Liège: Université Libre de Bruxelles; 2001. p. 16–7.Google Scholar
  18. Gheorghiu D. Art-chaeology. A sensorial approach to the past. Bucharest: UNArte; 2009a.Google Scholar
  19. Gheorghiu D. De l’objet à l’espace: Une expérience art-chéologique de la préhistoire. Etudes Balkaniques (Cahiers Pierre Belon 15), Paris; 2009b. p. 211–24.Google Scholar
  20. Gheorghiu D. A study of art-chaeology, Centro Studi Archeologia Africana, Archeologia Africana – Saggi occasionali 2005–2009, (11–15). Milan; 2009c. p. 45–50.Google Scholar
  21. Gheorghiu D. Experimenting with prehistoric spaces (Performance, experience, evocation). In: Nash G, Gheorghiu D, editors. The archaeology of people and territoriality. Budapest: Archaeolingua; 2009d. p. 235–54.Google Scholar
  22. Gheorghiu D. The technology of building in chalcolithic southeastern Europe, p. 95–100. In: Gheorghiu D, editor. Neolithic and chalcolithic architecture in Eurasia: Building Techniques and Spatial Organisation. Proceedings of the XV UISPP World Congress (Lisbon, 2006 Sept 4–9)/Actes du XV Congrès Mondial (Lisbonne, 2006 Sept 4–9), Vol 48, Session C35, p. 95–100. BAR International Series 2097. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2010.Google Scholar
  23. Gheorghiu D. Metaphors and allegories as augmented reality. The use of art to evoke material and immaterial objects. In: Back-Danielsson I-M, Fahlander F, editors. Encountering imagery. Materialities, perceptions, relations, Stockholm studies in archaeology, vol. 57. Stockholm: Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University; 2012a. p. 177–86.Google Scholar
  24. Gheorghiu D. eARTh vision (Art-chaeology and digital mapping). World Art. 2012b;2(2):211–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gheorghiu D, Children G, editors. Experiments with past materialities, British archaeological reports international series 2302. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2011.Google Scholar
  26. Gheorghiu DS, Ştefan L. In between: experiencing liminality. In: Aceti L, Rinehart R, editors. Not here, not there. Leonardo Electron Alm;19(1). Istanbul: Sabanci University; 2013a. p. 44–61.Google Scholar
  27. Gheorghiu D, Ştefan L. The maps of time project: a 4D virtual public archaeology (poster). In: 19th EAA annual meeting 2013. Pilsen, Czech Republic, 4th–8th Sept 2013; 2013b.Google Scholar
  28. Huys V, Vernant D. L’Indisciplinaire de l’art. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 2012.Google Scholar
  29. Ifantidis F. Archaeographies. Excavating neolithic dispillo. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2013.Google Scholar
  30. Karlekar J, ZhiYing Zhou S, Lu W, Nakayama Y, Hii D. Mixed reality on mobile devices. Singapore: Interactive Multimedia Lab., Dept. of ECE National University of Singapore; 2010.Google Scholar
  31. Mandelbrot BB. The fractal geometry of nature (Updated and augmented edition). New York: W. H. Freeman; 1983.Google Scholar
  32. Mandelbrot B. interviewed by Anthony Barcellos. In: Albers DJ, Alexanderson GR, editors. Mathematical people: profiles and interviews. Wellesley: AK Peters; 2008. p. 213–34.Google Scholar
  33. Mateescu C. Contribution to the study of Neolithic dwellings in Romania. A dwelling of the second phase of the Vadastra culture. Dacia NS. 1978;XXII:65–71.Google Scholar
  34. Mathieu JR. Introduction: experimental archaeology. Replicating past objects, behaviors and processes. In: Mathieu JR, editor. Experimental archaeology. Replicating past objects, behaviors and processes, British archaeological reports international series1035. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2002. p. 1–12.Google Scholar
  35. Milgram P, Kishino AF. Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst, E77-D (12). 1994. p. 321–1329.Google Scholar
  36. Mullen T. Prototyping augmented reality. Indianapolis: Wiley; 2011.Google Scholar
  37. Papagiannakis G, Schertenleib S, O’Kennedy B, Arevalo-Poizat M, Magnenat-Thalmann N, Stoddart A, Thalmann D. Mixing virtual and real scenes in the site of ancient Pompeii. Comput Anim Virtual Worlds. 2005;16(2):11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paul C. Digital art. London: Thames and Hudson; 2011.Google Scholar
  39. Pink S. The future of visual anthropology. Engaging the senses. London/New York: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
  40. Reid J, Geelhoed E, Hull R, Cater K, Clayton B. Parallel worlds: immersion in location-based experiences. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York; 2005. p. 1733–6.Google Scholar
  41. Renfrew C. Figuring it out. The parallel vision of artists and archaeologists. London: Thames and Hudson; 2006.Google Scholar
  42. Suderburg E. Introduction: on installation and site-specificity. In: Suderburg E, editor. Space, intervention. Situating installation art. Mineapolis: University of Mineapolis Press; 2000. p.1–22.Google Scholar
  43. Tyler S. Post-Modern ethnography. From document of the occult to occult document. In: Clifford J, Marcus GE, editors. Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press; 1986. p. 122–40.Google Scholar
  44. Vico G. The new science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1744. 1968.Google Scholar
  45. Vlahakis V, Ioannidis N, Karigiannis J, Tsotros M, Gounaris M, Stricker D, Gleue T, Daehne P, Almeida L. Archeoguide: an augmented reality guide for archaeological sites. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2002;22(5):52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagner D. History of mobile augmented reality. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Handheld Augmented Reality, Graz University of Technology, Austria; 2005.Google Scholar
  47. Zubrow EBW. Fractals, cultural behavior, and prehistory. Am Archeol. 1985;5(1):63–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doctoral SchoolNational University of ArtsBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Integrated Applications DepartmentInstitute for ComputersBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations