Unit 9: Reality vs. Not Real in the Digital Word

The process of holding a book and reading it is not the same as reading a pdf or other online version of the material. https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-way-to-hold-a-book-while-reading The only interactivity that happens with a book is inside the reader’s head while digesting the information. On the screen, a reader searches for interactivity, for graphics and links. Information may be there in shorter bits. The reader’s hands are not positioned in the same way with a laptop or desktop computer or mobile device as with a book. Whether one is better than the other is debatable, but that physical difference does affect whether one believes an experience is real or not.

But an online experience can be immersive in ways a book cannot. Digital Karnak https://vsim.library.ucla.edu/xmlui/handle/20.500.11991/1012 and the Edinburgh project are examples of that, taking you back in time. Online, a website visitor clicks away, picking and choosing bits of appealing information. Karnak links don’t all work anymore; Daily Rituals, for example, no longer has video. The site lacks sound, and the 35-second video that supposedly shows visitors today is blank. Nevertheless, with what is available, a visitor can process a “book” full of information much more quickly than reading a book. People process images more quickly than text, unless the text is a big red STOP sign or something similar.

The article that discussed the aroma of new and old books in chemical terms was wonderful. Some people love musty old books. Others won’t touch them. An online experience has no smell. It is sanitized.

An example of real versus non-real: During the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, British and American television showed film of young pilots bombing enemy targets. They used technology https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Persian-Gulf-War/276372/206294-toc and https://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/weapons-of-desert-storm.asp that mimicked the video games the generation of pilots knew well-- talk about blending real and non-real. Military training incorporated virtual reality for soldiers learning combat for Afghanistan. Virtual reality came later to the general public.

MAKING MUSEUMS FUN

Some go to museums for reality, some for fantasy. Online, you get just a taste. There, you get text and images and maybe more interactivity. An acquaintance told me she recently went to The Museum of the Bible, but it was too much information, even though she is religious. The museum does not charge admission, but does have a “ride” of sorts, an immersive experience. https://www.museumofthebible.org/visit/current-attractions/washington-revelations  It cost $5. “This was the best part of the museum,” she said. While she was telling me, her husband pulled out his mobile and proceeded to show me the photos he took – about 50. “I liked the Bible room, but all the signs everywhere were overload,” he said. “This way, I can look at these tomorrow and understand what I saw.” For whom was that experience more real? They both liked Nazareth Village. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rdjOVMYwg 

Can a museum online experience be real, the same as visiting the museum? The Washington area has some of the best museums in the world. The National Air and Space Museum website present to a visitor information on exhibits and objects, and that IMAX films are available. There is no information about the virtual-reality rides, which any visitor I’ve taken there has enjoyed. Like the no-admission Bible museum, you don’t mind paying for this immersive reality, or for an IMAX movie. Jurassic World, Fallen Kingdom may not sound like air-and-space museum fodder, but if that’s what it takes to get someone to like a museum, why not? https://www.si.edu/Imax/

George Washington’s Mount Vernon slave exhibit https://www.mountvernon.org/plan-your-visit/calendar/exhibitions/lives-bound-together-slavery-at-george-washingtons-mount-vernon/ is so popular that it has been extended. It is the opposite of flashy but brings reality to the visitor. Research into the slaves who worked at the estate is presented in their words, their lives from their viewpoints. This is an example of mixing the non-real past with reality very effectively.

Colonial Williamsburg’s https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.com/ formula – costumed narrators, curators, old-time crafts, etc. – seems to be replicated at many museums, whether they are a historic house or not. In my opinion, the formula needs updating – but it is tricky to create a “real” museum experience. Charging admission to present a short program on Alexander Hamilton’s ties to the Washington area and inviting participants to try on clothing similar to that worn in Hamilton’s time may be too immersive for some museum-goers.

One of the best museums I have visited is the Jorvik Viking Center https://www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/  in York, England. There are smells both pleasant and not, scares and surprises. The visitor can choose to be an observer, merely reading signs and seeing objects, but participating in the full immersive experience includes a train that loops through scenes from times past (with latrine and animal smells), plus video, costumed staff, and interactive exhibits. The website doesn’t have the same impact. 

Check out http://www.museumofdeath.net/ and you are probably, like this writer, glad that interactivity goes only so far. 

Photo from Museum of Death website

With virtual reality, real and non-real blend in museums https://unimersiv.com/virtual-reality-used-museums/

The reality is that not everyone can get to good museums because of health problems, lack of money, or other reasons. But they can visit the websites and judge how real the experience is, something that could not be done 30 years ago. Digital reality bridges the divide.