skip to main content
research-article

Thresholds: Embedding Virtual Reality in the Museum

Published:30 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We examine the experience of Thresholds, a virtual reality (VR) recreation of the world's first photographic exhibition, which has toured to multiple museums. Following the method of performance-led research in the wild, we provide an account of the artist's design rationale and the experiences of visitors as the work toured. We reveal how the overlaying and juxtaposing of virtual and physical spaces established a VR architecture that underpinned the extended user experience. Overlaying was used to layer a virtual model onto a corresponding physical set to deliver physical sensations of touch and movement alongside visual and audio stimuli. Juxtaposition was used to embed the VR installation within the surrounding gallery space at each host museum, dealing with the challenges of entering, exiting, spectating, and invigilating the experience. We propose that museum designers can use these techniques to deliver VR installations that are compelling but also scalable and tourable.

References

  1. Laurent Aguerreche, Thierry Duval, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2010. Reconfigurable tangible devices for 3D virtual object manipulation by single or multiple users. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST’10). 227--230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1889863.1889913Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Eli Anapur. 2017. Mat Collishaw's thresholds explore photography through VR at Somerset House. WideWalls. Retrieved from http://www.widewalls.ch/mat-collishaw-thresholds-somerset-house/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brian Appleyard. 2017. Virtually brilliant: Once a gritty YBA, Mat Collishaw is now one of our best grown-up artists. And his new VR show is genius. The Sunday Times (London), 10--11. Retrieved on May 4th 2020 from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mat-collishaw-thresholds-somerset-house-bryan-appleyard-rmh09rh2f.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mafkereseb Bekele, Roberto Pierdicca, Emanuele Frontoni, Eva Malinverni, and James Gain. 2018. A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 11, 1--36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3145534Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Andy Crabtree, Martin Flintham, Brendan Walker, Joe Marshall, Boriana Koleva, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, Gabriella Giannachi, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, and Ju Row Farr. 2013. Performance-led research in the wild. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20, 3 14, 1--14:22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2491500.2491502Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Barry Brown, Ian MacColl, Matthew Chalmers, Areti Galani, Cliff Randell, and Anthony Steed. 2003. Lessons from the lighthouse: Collaboration in a shared mixed reality system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’03). 577--584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642711Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Lung-Pan Cheng, Li Chang, Sebastian Marwecki, and Patrick Baudisch. 2018. Iturk: Turning passive haptics into active haptics by making users reconfigure props in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). 89, 1--89:10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173663Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hannah Ellis-Petersen. 2017. Mat Collishaw restages 1839 photography show in virtual reality; artist says VR will change our outlook as he prepares Somerset House display based on Henry Fox Talbot's seminal exhibition. The Guardian (London), TECHNOLOGY; Version:1. Retrieved on May 4th 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/14/somerset-house-mat-collishaw-restages-1839-photography-show-in-virtual-reality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. J. Eve. 2014. Dead men's eyes: Embodied GIS, mixed reality and landscape archaeology. UCL (University College London). British Archaeological Reports Oxford Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerhard Fischer and Bernhard Greiner. 2007. The Play within the Play: The Performance of Meta-theatre and Self-Reflection. Rodopi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel Fitzgerald and Hiroshi Ishii. 2018. Mediate: A spatial tangible interface for mixed reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHIEA’18). LBW625:1--LBW625:6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188472Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Bernard Frischer, Dean Abernathy, Gabriele Guidi, Joel Myers, Cassie Thibodeau, Antonio Salvemini, Pascal Müller, Peter Hofstee, and Barry Minor. 2008. Rome reborn. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH New Tech Demos (SIGGRAPH’08). 34, 1--34:1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1401615.1401649Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Gaucci, S. Garagnani, and A. M. Manferdini. 2015. Reconstructing the lost reality archaeological analysis and transmedial technologies for a perspective of virtual reality in the Etruscan city of Kainua. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage Conference. 227--234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419502Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). 937--946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. F. Giloth and J. Tanant. 2015. User experiences in three approaches to a visit to a 3D Labyrinthe of Versailles. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage Conference. 403--404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7413914Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Google. 2017. Tango. Retrieved from: https://get.google.com/tango/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lilian de Greef, Meredith Morris, and Kori Inkpen. 2016. TeleTourist: Immersive telepresence tourism for mobility-restricted participants. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW’16 Companion). 273--276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2818052.2869082Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. G. Hoffman. 1998. Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism of virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality International Symposium (Cat. No.98CB36180). 59--63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/VRAIS.1998.658423Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Brent Edward Insko. 2001. Passive Haptics Significantly Enhances Virtual Environments. PhD dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Phisan Kaewprapha, Nattakan Puttarak, and Thaewa Tansarn. 2016. Multi-hop network localization in unit disk graph model under noisy measurement using tree-search algorithm with graph-properties-assist traversing selection. Eng. App. Sci. Res. 43: 114--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarrod Knibbe, Jonas Schjerlund, Mathias Petraeus, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2018. The dream is collapsing: The experience of exiting VR. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). 483, 1--483:13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174057Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Boriana Koleva, Steve Benford, and Chris Greenhalgh. 1999. The properties of mixed reality boundaries. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’99). Springer, Dordrecht, 119--137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4441-4_7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Boriana Koleva, Holger Schnädelbach, Steve Benford, and Chris Greenhalgh. 2000. Developing mixed reality boundaries. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Augmented Reality Environments (DARE’00). 155--156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/354666.354690Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. G. Lepouras, A. Katifori, C. Vassilakis, and D. Charitos. 2004. Real exhibitions in a virtual museum. Virt. Real. 7, 2 120--128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0121-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Paul Milgram, Haruo Takemura, Akira Utsumi, and Fumio Kishino. 1995. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In Proceedings of the Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies Conference. 282--293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.197321Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. T. Miyashita, P. Meier, T. Tachikawa, S. Orlic, T. Eble, V. Scholz, A. Gapel, O. Gerl, S. Arnaudov, and S. Lieberknecht. 2008. An augmented reality museum guide. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. 103--106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2008.4637334Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Stuart Reeves, Mike Fraser, Holger Schnadelbach, Claire O'Malley, and Steve Benford. 2005. Engaging augmented reality in public places. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Maria V. Sanchez-Vives and Mel Slater. 2005. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Larry J. Schaaf. Perception of Realities, No. 1. Retrieved from http://foxtalbot.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/2017/05/19/perception-of-realities-no-1/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Holger Schnädelbach, Boriana Koleva, Martin Flintham, Mike Fraser, Shahram Izadi, Paul Chandler, Malcolm Foster, Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, and Tom Rodden. 2002. The augurscope: A mixed reality interface for outdoors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’02). 9--16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503379Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Beat Signer and Timothy J. Curtin. 2017. Tangible holograms: Towards mobile physical augmentation of virtual objects. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Adalberto L. Simeone, Eduardo Velloso, and Hans Gellersen. 2015. Substitutional reality: Using the physical environment to design virtual reality experiences. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). 3307--3316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702389Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Sky. 2018. Nominations announced for the South Bank Sky Arts awards. Sky Corporate. Retrieved from https://www.skygroup.sky/corporate/media-centre/articles/en-gb/nominations-announced-for-the-south-bank-sky-arts-awards-2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Mel Slater and Martin Usoh. 1993. Representations systems, perceptual position, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Pres.: Teleop. Virt. Environ. 2, 3 221--233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1993.2.3.221Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1994. Depth of presence in virtual environments. Pres.: Teleop. Virt. Environ. 3, 2 130--144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1994.3.2.130Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Hyungki Son, Hyunjae Gil, Sangkyu Byeon, Sang-Youn Kim, and Jin Ryong Kim. 2018. RealWalk: Feeling ground surfaces while walking in virtual reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’18). D400:1--D400:4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3186474Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Julian Stallabrass. 1999. High Art Lite: British Art in the 1990s. Verso.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. A. Steed, J. MacColl, C. Randell, B. Brown, M. Chalmers, and C. Greenhalgh. 2004. Models of space in a mixed-reality system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Visualisation. 768--777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2004.1320228Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Richard Stoakley, Matthew J. Conway, and Randy Pausch. 1995. Virtual reality on a WIM: Interactive worlds in miniature. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’95). 265--272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223938Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Stella Sylaiou, Katerina Mania, Athanasis Karoulis, and Martin White. 2010. Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 68, 5 243--253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.11.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Laurie Taylor. It's a Kind of Magic. Retrieved from https://frieze.com/article/its-kind-magic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. M. White, N. Mourkoussis, J. Darcy, P. Petridis, F. Liarokapis, P. Lister, K. Walczak, R. Wojciechowski, W. Cellary, J. Chmielewski, M. Stawniak, W. Wiza, M. Patel, J. Stevenson, J. Manley, F. Giorgini, P. Sayd, and F. Gaspard. 2004. ARCO—An architecture for digitization, management, and presentation of virtual exhibitions. In Proceedings of the Computer Graphics International Conference. 622--625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CGI.2004.1309277Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. William Henry Fox Talbot. 1839. Talbot correspondence project: TALBOT William Henry Fox to HERSCHEL John Frederick William. Retrieved from http://foxtalbot.dmu.ac.uk/letters/transcriptDocnum.php?docnum=3908.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Gaby Wood. 2017. Somewhere between art and illusion; Virtual reality meets Victorian fakery in Mat Collishaw's eerie new works, finds Gaby Wood. The Daily Telegraph (London), REVIEW; NEWS; 6--7. Retrieved on May 4th 2020 from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/artists/really-quite-uncharted-territory-inside-mat-collishaws-creepy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Eric Woods, Mark Billinghurst, Julian Looser, Graham Aldridge, Deidre Brown, Barbara Garrie, and Claudia Nelles. 2004. Augmenting the science centre and museum experience. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia (GRAPHITE’04). 230--236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/988834.988873Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. A. Zenner and A. Krüger. 2017. Shifty: A weight-shifting dynamic passive haptic proxy to enhance object perception in virtual reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 23, 4 1285--1294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2656978Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Yiwei Zhao, Lawrence H. Kim, Ye Wang, Mathieu Le Goc, and Sean Follmer. 2017. Robotic assembly of haptic proxy objects for tangible interaction and virtual reality. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces (ISS’17). 82--91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3132272.3134143Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07). 493--502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. National Gallery. Take a virtual tour of the national gallery. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/visiting/virtual-tours.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Louvre Museum. Retrieved from http://www.youvisit.com/tour/louvremuseum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Factory-42. Hold the World. Retrieved from https://www.factory42.uk/holdtheworld.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Nefertari: Journey to Eternity on Steam. Retrieved from: https://store.steampowered.com/app/861400/Nefertari_Journey_to_Eternity/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Skin and Bones. Mobile augmented reality app for the National Museum of Natural History's Hall of Bones. Retrieved from https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/bone-hall/index.cfm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Thresholds: Embedding Virtual Reality in the Museum

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
      Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage   Volume 13, Issue 2
      June 2020
      172 pages
      ISSN:1556-4673
      EISSN:1556-4711
      DOI:10.1145/3403613
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 May 2020
      • Accepted: 1 October 2019
      • Revised: 1 September 2019
      • Received: 1 February 2019
      Published in jocch Volume 13, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format