‘The RISE IMET conference gathered researchers, academics and practitioners working on emerging technologies applied in museums and cultural heritage. In the presentation, I discussed the approach for evaluation and impact assessment of digital heritage projects, which we introduced in the project Mingei, together with Merel van der Vaart, on behalf of Waag.

Evaluation of technology-mediated experiences of users qualifies as one of the most important challenges in digital heritage. Most often, evaluation approaches focus on the final product or outcome of a project. Within Mingei, Waag advocated for an approach that monitors and examines what is being learned during the project. The process of collaborative learning that takes place in working with different partners, is complex and merits to be monitored and documented as well. It is for this reason that within Mingei we introduced the concept of institutional and organisational learning.

‘Within Mingei, Waag advocated for an approach that monitors and examines what is being learned during the project.’

This means that Waag will examine, monitor and document the institutional and organisational learning that take place in the project, in addition to monitoring all utility, usability and user experience (UX) studies. We put forward an approach that draws inspiration by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework (as applied in museums and heritage sites) and the method of Team Based Inquiry. The Generic Learning Outcomes model advocates that learning can manifest itself as enjoyment, inspiration, and creativity. At the same time, Team-Based Inquiry cycles carried out by heritage and technology partners, allow to identify a pertinent question, and investigate how a program, project or activity can be readily improved.

Our work was at the origin of various questions from the session participants around articulating, combining and presenting evidence from findings around learning. Learning which occurs both as a result of using Mingei project digital outcomes, as well as learning as a multidimensional and multi-experiential outcome from getting involved in a complex, multi-disciplinary digital heritage project. You can read the abstracts of other presentations and keynote speeches of the conference here.

What is next?

Mingei plans for reaching out to like-minded digital heritage and digital media, learning and education practitioners during the annual CECA (Committee for Cultural Education and Cultural Action) Conference. This event will be hybrid and take place in Belgium and online in October 2021. The conference theme is ‘Co-creation inside and outside the museum’.’

Written by Areti Damala, freelance academic heritage researcher for Waag.

In museums, objects are often exhibited separately. Tools are shown alongside other tools, and glass objects are exhibited together with other glass objects. How do you tell a coherent and captivating story, connecting the dots between different exhibited objects? In co-creation with CNAM (Conservatoire national des arts et métiers), Waag has been prototyping a digital experience for Mingei’s pilot on glass. Developer Lodewijk Loos takes you along the journey towards the first prototype.

Visiting CNAM

The goal of creating this digital experience at CNAM is to engage visitors and give them insight into the process of glass making. The prototype should work on site (in this case in the context of the museum), and should add to the already available real objects on display. However, the technology used for the prototype should be non-obtrusive to the local situation. Visitors who do not wish to use the technology, should not be bothered by it.

In order to get a grasp of the local context at CNAM, Meia Wippoo and Lodewijk Loos of Waag went to Paris in March 2020. There, we had a fruitful co-creation session with a team of museum professionals from CNAM and conceptualized a rough version of the prototype. In the glass section of the museum, we made some observations that were key to the first version of the prototype.

First of all, the glass objects are exposed in vitrines, they couldn’t be touched or picked up and could not be looked at from all angles. Of course, not being able to pick up objects in a museum is normal. However, as a lot of these objects are tools and utensils, being able to do so would contribute to the understanding of the object. We also know from experience in earlier projects, like meSch, that being able to pick up objects leads to more user engagement.

The next thing we noticed is that some objects were related to other objects that were displayed in different rooms of the museum. For example, the glass tools and a glass product were not in the same room. The reason for this is that there are different ways to classify object. The tools were in the tooling section and the carafe was in a section with artworks. However, these objects are part of the same story that we would like to tell: the process of glass making.

Another observation that we made was that some of the objects key to the story were not on display in the museum, for example a furnace and piece of wet paper were not there.

Augmented reality

As we decided upfront, the prototype should help to get insight in the process of glass making. With these observations, we could translate the story of glass in a more generic story. One could say that in the context of crafts, a general pattern is that objects are used with other objects (for example tools with materials), in different parts of the process. That is what we want our digital experience to give insight in.

We also concluded that the use of augmented reality (AR) technology could be of value for this prototype. With AR, it is possible to create the sense of picking up (virtual representatives of) objects, use them in another room, and show objects that are not physically there.

Mark the process

We returned back home and worked out several concepts. Next, we aggregated common interaction principles from our concepts. Our interaction principles showed similarities to (adventure) games. Adventure games are like a puzzle: you often have to pick up objects, sometimes not yet knowing what for, and use them at another location, sometimes in combination with another object.

One of our concepts focused at the carafe, named “Mark the Process”. This concept would lend itself for this type of adventure-like (mini) game. The central piece in this game would be the various parts and stages of completion of the carafe. This is how the process of making this type of carafe is currently displayed in CNAM. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had pick up the tools associated with this process in the one room, and place them at the right “step” in the other room? We also liked the idea of being able to collect museum objects and take them home for closer inspection.

The use of markers

With this concept in mind, we started implementing a proof of concept as a smartphone app. From previous AR projects, we had experience with the combination of Vuforia (AR framework) and Unity3D (gaming engine). The former is very well integrated in the latter, making it an ideal tool for (at least) prototyping. Vuforia support various ways of augmentation, both marker-based as marker less.

Markers are physical signs that are recognized by the app to instigate interaction. Using markers makes the app less dependent on local lighting conditions, which were not ideal or constant at CNAM. Recognising a marker, instead of an object itself, generally just works better. Additionally, using markers could make it easier for users of our app to see at which locations in the museum they could interact, because they serve as a visual clue. When you’re in a museum with thousands of objects, it is convenient that you can see immediately (without using a device) which ones are interactable. Finally, markers are easier in use. Augmenting an object by placing a marker in front of it is less challenging then having to scan the object and markers make it also easy to place objects in the void. In the longer run, the use of markers helps to accomplish a more generic application for different venues with different content, that allows its content to be authored by curators (as opposed to software developers).

Living room demonstration

Our original intention was to test the prototype at CNAM with random visitors of the museum. But during the development of the app, Covid-19 came around and it became clear that testing the app in a public venue with a real audience would not be possible anytime soon. Furthermore, the Covid-19 situation might even change the way we design things permanently. For example, it might have become undesirable to have devices in a museum that are handed out to visitors or to have installations with touch screens. An AR app that people can run on their own phone should be relative safe and convenient.

With this in mind, we slightly changed our prototyping strategy and made the decision to create a living room demonstration. Originally, the prototype was meant to include virtual copies of the museum objects. By the lack of museum objects in the developer’s house, we used general building tools and convincing 3D models from online repositories.

The prototype demonstrates a few of the principles. The user can pick up object and place them back again, objects can be collected in a treasure chest for later use, objects can be used with other objects by using them with a marker next to that other object, referenced media for the collected object is available as background information, information overlays (giving hints) can be shown and a collection of objects can be used to make simple puzzles. As a gamification element, the user receives badges after completing specific tasks or reaching certain goals.

Next steps

This simple approach allows for a lot flexibility to create puzzle-like games. For example, a timeline game could be created by changing the physical placement of the markers into another linear layout. One could also imagine having different kinds of visual markers for different kind of interactions. One type of marker could indicate that an object can be picked up, and another marker could indicate that an object can be used at that spot.

At this point it is also interesting to think about how these principles can be applied at the other pilot locations. Part of the Mingei project is a pilot in Chios (Greece) on the craft of harvesting and processing Mastic from the mastic tree. Would it be feasible to apply the prototype at the local situation over there by augmenting the Mastic tools and placing markers on and around a real tree? There is still enough work to be done and questions to be answered towards a generic AR application for on-site craft experiences!

Written by Lodewijk Loos (Waag)

From 9 to 13 September 2019, PIOP welcomed all partners to the Mingei Consortium Meeting onChios, Greece, where the Mingei pilot on mastic is deployed. With coordinated efforts, the valuable help of the Mastic Museum staff and PIOP’s excellent relations with the local community of Chios, we were able to organize a fruitful meeting.

Visit at the Chios Gum Mastic Growers Association

On Monday morning of 9 September 2019 , the consortium visited the Chios Gum Mastic Growers Association – which represents the entire community of Mastic cultivators on Chios – and had an interesting meeting with the president Mr G. Toumpos.  One of the main aims of the Association is  with respect of growers-associates labour and efforts, to stand by them as an assistant, by contributing to the upgrade of mastiha cultivation, to the improvement of its producing procedure and of course to the guarantee of the highest possible profits. The consortium received input on the needs of mastic growers, ranging from practical issues to strategical goals.

Visit at the Mediterra S.A.

In the afternoon, the consortium visited the Mediterra S.A. Company and had a meeting with Ms Marialena Kavoura. Mediterra was founded by Chios Mastiha Growers Association, with the main objective to develop, product, promote, and sale mastiha products worldwide. Mediterra is a company initiated by the Association and it has the role of a marketing tool for mastic products. Today, they are also building a research centre for pharmaceutical and medical uses of mastic.

The main concern of Mediterra today is to promote mastic in the markets of U.S.A. and Australia, among others, where mastic is not known. Mastic is nowadays considered a super food, thus the main marketing strategy for those new markets is the pharmaceutical and medical use of mastic. Major export countries include those where mastic is used in their daily routine, such as in Saudi Arabia.

Mastic cultivation and agritourism

On Tuesday morning of 10 September 2019, the consortium met with thematic tourism stakeholders and with Ms Boura, who is the owner of the tourist Agency named Mastic Culture, in order to provide the experiential presentation in the field, at the Mastic Museum.At the open air exhibition of the Mastic Museum, where pathways have been developed, as an itinerary through the mastic field, participants became acquainted with the special characteristics of mastic cultivation and the agricultural landscape of southern Chios.

Mastic cultivation steps, processes and practices were demonstrated to and performed by the participants, providing a first-hand experience of the labour, the dexterity and the required practical difficulties, as well as the consideration of efficient use.

Plenary meeting

On the first day of the official consortium meeting, Wednesday 11 September, all partners and guests from the advisory board (Ms Stavroula – Villy K. Fotopoulou and Mr David Fajolles) attended presentations of the progress of the project and discussed with the consortium. During the day, all participants viewed the motion capture process that was taking place at the mastiha trees of the museum.

A guided tour of the exhibition space provided the opportunity to become acquainted with the history of mastic, the process of the mastic cultivation and the architecture of the settlements. Everyone became familiar with the history of the cooperatives, the Chios Mastiha Growers Association, the steps in the mastic production Line, its uses and the products.

Keynote talk by Villy Fotopoulou

Intangible Cultural Heritage, Local Knowledge and Sustainable Management of Cultural Assets and Environmental Recourses

During her talk, Ms Fotopoulou provided insights in Intangible Cultural Heritage, Local Knowledge, and Sustainable Management of Cultural Assets and Environmental Recourses. Ms Fotopoulou provided guidelines on the policies for the preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage as acquired from the collaboration of the General Directorate of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage, of the Ministry of Culture and Sports – Hellenic Republic with UNESCO, regarding the inscription of elements of Greek Cultural Heritage in the Representative List of Intangible Heritage of Humanity.

Keynote talk and guided tour by Manolis Vournous

The architecture of the Mastiha villages

In the afternoon of the first day of the meeting, PIOP had planned two architectural guided tours in the Olympoi and Pyrgi villages, by Mr Manolis Vournous, architect and former mayor of Chios. Mr Vournous presented his talk in the context of two guided tours at these villages. Mr Vournous elaborated on the architecture of the Mastiha villages and the way it supported the cultivation of mastic during the last 10 centuries, as well as the protection of threats to the local communities due to piracy and weather conditions. The group ended up at the central square in Olympoi, where we had the opportunity to relax and enjoy the dinner provided by PIOP.

Co-creation activities

On Thursday  of 12 September, we started the day with an update on the technological progress of the project by the technical partners. After that, we continued with the co-creation sessions organized by WAAG, which focused on the creation of mastic stories oriented to the museum’s spaces, both indoor and outdoor. All participants were divided into three groups and created stories that linked the history of mastic, its social implications, the chewing gum production line and the external pathways of the natural landscape with the potential needs of different group visitors. The great participation, the fantasy and the ideas of all partners showcased the charm and the impact of this unique product on everyone.

Keynote talk by David Fajoles

Why does the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage matter?

On the final day of the plenary meeting, Friday 13 September, we had the chance to attend the speech of Mr Fajoles, on the importance of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. During his talk, Mr Fajoles provided insights on the organisation and operation of UNESCO Culture Conventions and in particular the 2003 convention on Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, as well as the ways in which heritage is inscribed in the representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity or the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Mr Fajoles presented in detail the function of Heritage Inventories, awareness-raising on international and national level, as well as the function and value of the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices of UNESCO.

The planning of the next steps and issues of the council put the epilogue to a productive but intense 3-day meeting. The next consortium meeting will take place in Paris, involving the glass pilot, upcoming December. Until then, the scent of mastic has remained strong in everyone.

Short bios of invited presenters

Stavroula – Villy K. Fotopoulou is a graduate of the Department of Archeology and History of the Athens School of Philosophy. She has been working in the Ministry Of Culture since 1996, where she was appointed as a graduate of the National School of Public Administration. She holds postgraduate degrees in Modern History (NCSR, 2008) and in Social Folklore (NCSR, 2011). She is the Director of Modern Cultural Heritage in the Ministry of Culture since 2014. She has represented the Ministry of Culture in International Organizations (UNESCO, EU), on matters of its competence.

David Fajolles is a Professor at Sciences Po – C-factor.tech Paris, in Cultural Policies and International Relations. He is a Former Secretary General of the French National Commission for UNESCO and has worked for the French Ministry of Culture as an advisor to the Minister and as a head of the department studies. He is the founder of Manufacturing of Curiosity, a European initiative for smart innovation in cultural and creative industries.

Manolis Vournous graduated in 1996 from the School of Architectural Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens, and in 2000 with a scholarship from the Institute of State Scholarships he completed postgraduate studies in monument restoration at York University, graduating with distinction. His research interests relate to the architecture of Chios during the period of the Genoese and the Ottomans. With his publications and conferences he has dealt with issues, such as the vigils and fortifying architecture of Chios, the evolution of the post-Byzantine church in Chios and the creation and evolution of its settlements. From 1996 to 2003 he worked in Athens focusing mainly on studies and supervision of the restoration of buildings and the incorporation of new architecture into a historical setting. In 2014 he was elected Mayor of Chios.

Written by PIOP and FORTH

To digitise and transfer knowledge about the (in)tangible aspects of crafts; that is the goal of our European project Mingei. Already from that single sentence, a lot of questions arise.

How do we define the term ‘craft’? What is considered a craft, compared to art or industry? Who has the knowledge and expertise on a craft, and who do we need to transfer this knowledge to? How do you identify and capture intangible aspects of crafts? How can you digitise knowledge and expertise that is so inherently physical? And what is the best way to transfer knowledge to specific audiences, in specific contexts?

Silk weaving, mastic harvesting and glass blowing

We have to understand that these questions can be answered in many different ways, because they can all be influenced by the context in which they are asked. For that reason, Mingei is an interesting project. It is based on three pilots, each connected to a different craft, to research these questions.

Early July, I got to go to Paris for a day to visit the Musée des Arts et Métiers, that is hosting the pilot on glass blowing. My main objective; to get to know the context and scope of their research and design questions in the Mingei project, so that we can find the best way to support them in their process.

The challenge of co-creation

In the context of each pilot, we will introduce a co-creation process to help research the questions. Waag is responsible for that introduction and will support and coach these craft partners in that process. The craft partner will host activities with local craftsmen, museum staff, stakeholders, visitors and other people with relevant knowledge and expertise that will contribute to shaping the content for digitalisation, and the conceptualisation of solutions for knowledge transfer.

Co-creation is a new approach for most of the project partners, which means it requires some changes in their regular practice. Change is always difficult, especially when you are working in a big institution, where you have to deal with many factors outside of your control. So, the best way for me to support the partner, is to better understand their context. And since there is a direct and quick train from Amsterdam to Paris, it was an easy decision to go visit the Musée des Arts et Métiers and see for myself.

Eye for context

During my visit in Paris, I got to see the set-up of the museum and the way a variety of crafts we’re already displayed. This helped me understand the possibilities and limitations the museum had to deal with. I also got a bit of insight into the day-to-day practice of the museum staff and the type of visitors they would cater to. I was able to do some small exercises with both the curators and the educational staff, so that we would better understand the ambitions that were floating around in the museum, in relation to the Mingei project. All these things are important to know when setting up a co-creation process. The more aware you are of your ‘limiting’ factors and scope, the better you are able to find the space for experimentation.

It was a fruitful visit, both for me, representing Waag, and for the museum – since we both have a better understanding of what we might be able to achieve in the project. In December, we will visit the museum again. By that time, they should have some nice co-creation sessions under their belt, and I am looking forward to their new insights and ideas.

Written by Meia Wippoo, Waag