TAG 2013 – Bournemouth

Following the success of Seeing, Thinking, Doing in Chicago we are running a follow up session to encourage further discussion on visualisation and imaging in archaeology at TAG Bournemouth 2013.

Seeing, Thinking, Doing: Visualisation as Knowledge Creation

Decades of enquiry have borne witness to the importance of visualisation as a critical methodology in archaeological research. Visual practices are intimately connected to different ways of thinking, shaping not only how we interpret the archaeological record for diverse audiences, but how we actually see and conceive of that record in the first instance (before investigative work has even begun). A growing body of volumes, workshops and symposia* testify to the centrality of visualisation in processes of deduction, narrative construction, theory-building and data collection – all those activities which lie at the heart of the discipline itself. But these testimonials generally still lay scattered and detached, with researchers and visual practitioners often talking at cross-purposes or working in isolation from one another on issues that are fundamentally linked.

Following the success of Seeing, Thinking, Doing at TAG Chicago in May 2013, we seek here to delve further into such issues, concentrating on those bigger intellectual tensions that continue to reveal themselves in discussions of the visual in archaeology. We welcome short papers attending in depth to any of the following five themes:

(1)    Realism and uncertainty

(2)    Ocularcentrism

(3)    Craftspersons and visualisation as craft

(4)    Historical forms of, and past trends in, visualisation in archaeology

(5)    Innovative approaches to representing the archaeological record

The session will be linked across continents with discussants in North American and Europe as well as the main presentations in Bournemouth. We are happy to include speakers willing to participate remotely, via Google Hangout, and we encourage all contributors to add their perspectives here on our group blog prior to – and following – the session. The papers will be accompanied by a roundtable discussion, where we will analyse the five themes—and related intellectual trends in visualisation—at an overarching level.

*E.g., Molyneaux 1997; Smiles and Moser 2005; Bonde and Houston 2011; “Seeing the Past,” Archaeology Center, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, February 4–6, 2005; “Past Presented: A Symposium on the History of Archaeological Illustration,” Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, October 9–10, 2009; “Visualisation in Archaeology,” University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, April 18–19, 2011.

Bonde, S. & Houston, S. (eds.) 2011. Re-presenting the Past: Archaeology through Image and Text. Oxford: Joukowsky Institute Publications/Oxbow.

Molyneaux, B.L. (ed.) 1997. The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Smiles, S. & Moser, S. (eds.) 2005. Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Session Timetable

14.00  Rachel Opitz Reality based surveying, archaeological information visualisation, and the construction of archaeological reality
14.15 Mhairi Maxwell & Martin Goldberg Virtual-Materiality: the digital re-creations made as part of the Glenmorangie Early Medieval Research Project
14.30 Sorin Hermon & Franco Niccolucci Real uncertainty and uncertain reality in archaeological visualization
14.45 Jamie Hampson Is rock art research ocularcentric? Embodiment theory and somatic society.
15.00 James Taylor, Nicolò Dell’Unto, Åsa Berggren & Justine Issavi Seeing Things Differently: the impact of digital visual technologies upon recording and the generation of knowledge at Çatalhöyük.
15.15 Teri Brewer Visualizing the Invisible: Pushing the Craft in Archaeological Screen Media
15.30 Discussion  
15.45 Discussion  
16.00 Matthew Harrison Topology vs. Topography: Visualising the Islamic city in the medieval and modern mind
16.15 Neha Gupta Geovisual perspectives on late 20th century Indian archaeology: putting “place” in visualization
16.30 Nicole Beale & Jude Jones The strange case of Dame Mary May’s tomb: deciphering the visual and biographical evidence of a late 17th century portrait effigy
16.45 Robin Skeates Visualism and archaeology: the case of prehistoric Malta
17.00 Alessandro Zambelli Rendering the Invisible Visible: The Moves of London Stone
17.15 Louisa Minkin & Ian Dawson Art and Archaeology: Figure and Ground
17.30 Discussion  
17.45 Discussion  

Papers

Rachel Opitz – Reality based surveying, archaeological information visualisation, and the construction of archaeological reality

CAST, University of Arkansas

Bio

Rachel Opitz is a researcher at the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST) at The University of Arkansas, where she works on a variety of 3D scanning and digital modeling projects, integrating these technologies into archaeological research and heritage management. Her research interests include digital applications in archaeology, laserscanning and hyperspectral survey, and rural landscapes outside the ploughzone. She has been involved in fieldwork in Italy since 2003 and has been helping manage the Gabii Project’s survey and digital data since 2009.

http://gabiiserver.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu/gabiigoesdigital/

Abstract

During an archaeological excavation  we can find ourselves caught in the gap between the situation on the ground that can be recorded, and what we want our record to look like in order to properly communicate our understanding of said situation. This is the difference between what we see, inflexibly as a machine sees it, and what we see, as archaeologists with a certain amount of subconscious or semi-conscious mental interpolation. This is a deeply familiar divide for archaeologists, there is the data and there is the interpretation, and the interpretation is built on top of the data, usually bringing in contextual information from each archaeologists personal knowledge and experience. We have had this divide since the beginning of archaeological recording, expressed in various ways in the written record. Within the single context system, widely used throughout the UK and Europe, we have the checkboxes and metric data recorded on the context sheet which supports what is written in the observations and interpretation fields or in journal entries. Archaeological plans have, I would argue, a different relationship with the data-interpretation process. During the excavation process, the data and its interpretation for each context are continually noted down side by side in the written record. Both the survey and the hand characterization of the survey plan of each context are meant to represent more or less what is visible on the ground. If an excavator thinks the limits of a context used to extend further south, they mark the southern boundary using the symbol for ‘not real limit’ but, within the canonical single context plan, they don’t also draw in the ‘missing’ part of the context. This is quite sensible, as they don’t know about the missing part in enough detail to draw it. Just how much further south does it extend? And does is extend in a straight line or start to curve? More interpretive plans, where contexts are extended to their interpreted original extents, are usually only made later in the process. Consequently, during the excavations, the surveyed plans tend to emphasize what can be recorded rather than our interpretation of it and if we focus on the visual evidence, surveyed reality can easily overwhelm archaeological reality. The uptake of detailed digital recording methods, in particular Structure From Motion (SFM), for the documentation of individual contexts on excavations extends and further problematizes this distance between surveyed and archaeological realities.

The strength and curse of detailed digital records like the models produced from SFM is exactly that they are detailed and explicit about exactly what was on the ground at the time of recording, and at the same time visually arresting – and this is the key point. There are, of course, practical solutions to separating and indicating where these gaps exist. Working with digital 3D models, we’re into the world of metadata, paradata, tagging and ontologies. But can we simply highlight places where recorded reality and archaeological reality don’t line up, and add polygonal models to extend contexts to their interpreted limits? There are many good examples of projects which have taken some variation on the highlighting, polygonal modeling to fill gaps, and tagging route. I think that broadly this is accepted as best practice, and as the only pragmatic way forward for presenting these models. In this presentation, I will argue that simply highlighting the gaps, extending with polygonal modeling and tagging elements of complex models with levels of confidence or other auxiliary information may not be enough because of how we engage with visual materials, particularly visual materials created through SFM and similar technologies.

In a drawn plan, although we use different symbols to represent known limits, uncertain limits, and interpolated limits of contexts, the contexts and features appearing in a single plan will be represented with approximately the same level of detail. They all look visually similar –  although there different types of lines or shadings – but it is easy to read them visually as having comparable informational values. Yes, you know as an archaeologist that the dashed lines are less certain than the solid ones, but this difference does not visually dominate the plan. There’s a kind of perceptual flattening between the recorded and interpreted information.

Because the models derived from SFM are visually very different, usually much more detailed and with more variation in color and texture, than the simpler polygonal or linear features created to extend the units from their ‘not real limits’ to their interpreted extents, or the transparent features meant to highlight areas of uncertainty or where the SFM model might be misleading, when we view these models it is quite easy to give more value to the SFM models which are visually more attractive, which look more real. We lack the perceptual flattening common in drawn plans.  It’s hard to ‘un-see’ a visualization, particularly an engaging one, or to force ourselves to look at low variation parts of an image or 3D scene which have high variation regions, so in a scene with polygonal and SFM models, the SFM models can easily dominate the viewer’s reading of the evidence, even where they should not. Redressing the balance of the perceived informational value of the SFM models and the models used to represent our interpretations of the recorded contexts and features is an important challenge we should meet as we work to find new ways of visually representing archaeological knowledge.

***

Mhairi Maxwell and Martin Goldberg – Virtual-Materiality: the digital re-creations made as part of the Glenmorangie Early Medieval Research Project

National Museums Scotland

Abstract

As part of our research at the National Museum of Scotland, we have used innovative digital technology to re-create Early Medieval objects based on the fragmentary evidence. Re-creations made in collaboration with Relicarte, of a Roman silver dish from Traprain Law and the Monymusk Reliquary can be viewed here – http://www.nms.ac.uk/collections__research/early_historic_scotland/traprain_law_dish.aspx. The tension between virtual fabrication and traditional craft techniques is explored in the re-creation of a Pictish drinking horn mount.

This paper will explore how using digital technology as a re-creation methodology has developed our understanding in different ways;

  • Digitisation as Craft: Although using cutting edge 3D digitisation and visualisation techniques, these re-creations can tell us about the skills and material know-how belonging to craftspeople in the past. In fact, this method can solve the problem of re-creation by traditional craft techniques where a particular skill is now lost.
  • From Part to Whole: Creating 3D models from archaeological fragments allows us to appreciate how they may have been experienced as new.
  • Digital Discovery: These innovative technological techniques offers solutions and benefits for manipulating and interrogating large quantities of archaeological objects. Crowd-sourcing data collection has the added potential to engage people with real archaeological objects not possible behind glass in the museum.

***

Sorin Hermon & Franco Niccolucci – Real uncertainty and uncertain reality in archaeological visualization

Cyprus Institute

Abstract

Visualization in archaeology is not just illustration; it is instead a substantial component of interpretation. Our research concerns the use of visualization techniques since the first steps of archaeological research. We imagine that archaeologists progressively draw a mental representation of their interpretation, sometimes sketching it on paper, and we believe that currently available tools may support this visual approach, but at the same time they force creativity into rather tight constraints. We aim at discovering how these constraints may become opportunities for improving the interpretation process, and how the techniques need to be changed to comply with research needs. In this framework, 3D visualization technologies made popular by consumer applications may provide innovative and effective support to archaeological reasoning.

We have applied such technologies in several on-field investigations and want to assess this practice from a theoretical perspective.

We will present a number of case studies demonstrating that organizing archaeological data into a well-documented and transparent visualization framework enhances the interpretative process. Representation of inherent or induced uncertainty will be considered as well.

***

Jamie Hampson – Is rock art research ocularcentric? Embodiment theory and somatic society.

University of Western Australia

Bio

Jamie Hampson is an Assistant Professor at the University of Western Australia and Research Fellow at the Rock Art Research Institute (Johannesburg). Jamie, who received his MPhil and PhD from Cambridge, works primarily on rock art, identity, and visual heritage projects in southern Africa, western Australia and the Greater Southwest USA.

Abstract

Rock art images appear at first glance to be direct visual records people made of their own worlds. Yet the directness of visual recognition may be deceiving: the painting may take the FORM of a deer, but is it a picture OF a deer? In addition, the recording of rock art images often overlooks tactile and aural engagements with the motifs and with the rock itself.

Using case studies from southern Africa and west Texas, I argue that the notion of embodiment, and Turner’s (1996) concept of ‘somatic society’, allows researchers to usefully treat rock art images as metaphorical comments on prehistoric and historic social processes. This in turn helps redress ocularcentric biases in rock art research.

***

James Taylor, Nicolò Dell’Unto, Åsa Berggren and Justine Issavi – Seeing Things Differently: the impact of digital visual technologies upon recording and the generation of knowledge at Çatalhöyük.

University of York, UK; Lund University, Sweden; Stanford University, USA

Bio

The authors have been working together at Çatalhöyük for a few years, and are deeply involved in the development of the projects ongoing interest in and adoption of digital technologies in the field. James Taylor is co-field director on the project and has been working closely with Åsa Bergren on the development and implementation of the reflexive methodologies on the site, both have a particular interest in the potential of these technologies as tools to aid the interpretative process of excavation. Similarly Nicolò Dell’Unto has been part of a team seeking to explore the potential of applied 3D technologies in the field in particular, and Justine Issavi has recently been developing and field testing approaches to tablet recording on-site. Together they form part of a much larger team trying to grapple with the logistical and theoretical implications of generating digital data on a large complex site. All authors are currently working for, and/or actively engaged in research with the Çatalhöyük Research Project: http://www.catalhoyuk.com

http://www.york.ac.uk/archaeology/research/research-students/james-taylor/

http://www.ark.lu.se/en/person/NicoloDellUnto

http://www.ark.lu.se/en/person/AsaBerggren

https://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/cgi-bin/drupal/justine-issavi

Abstract

This paper aims to present a review of digital visual methods used in the primary recording of archaeology at the complex Neolithic Tell site of Çatalhöyük, south-central Turkey. As software and hardware becomes more affordable and robust, digital approaches to recording are becoming more and more prevalent in field archaeology – however, the use of these technologies remains mostly new and unfamiliar in terms of a critical theory.  The Çatalhöyük Research Project has always strived to engage with these technologies from its outset, seeking to harness them within its strong reflexive methodological framework. Here we aim to outline how new tools for visualisation, in particular 3D visualisation tools in combination with tablet based recording, have changed the way we approach on-site recording and engage with the more traditional visual components of ‘knowledge creation’ on the site (specifically the graphic and photographic archive) within the context of non-representational thinking.  Furthermore, we will critically consider some of the advantages and disadvantages of ‘going digital’ in the field.

***

Teri Brewer – Visualizing the invisible: Pushing the craft in archaeological screen media

University of Bristol

Bio

Teri Brewer is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Bristol, and is acting coordinator of the MA in Archaeology for Screen Media there. A folklorist and anthropologist by training, she is a filmmaker and a consultant in cultural landscape interpretation. She specialises in short form archaeological and ethnographic screen media made for both  clients and as independent productions.

Abstract

The archaeological project, whether  carried out  in actual excavation, virtual exploration or in conceptual investigation, requires the development of  craft skills in spatial reasoning and visualization applied to a complex  knowledge base. The ability to envision varied relationships between time and space, to reason through the diachronic, the synchronic and other potential relationships amongst the remains of cultural materials  past and present   under investigation are  crucial.

Yet these are  amongst the most difficult  of archeological processes to capture in representing archaeology through visual media. Archaeological media for public consumption  may seize on classic storytelling tropes, the pragmatics of thematic interpretation driven by specific goals, or  rely on authoritative or charismatic narrators to move things along, but a perhaps un-imtended consequence is that these core craft practices in the construction of archaeological knowledge are passed over in favor of developing  a new narrative about history or a portrait about the archaeologists as heroic figures on a quest.

This paper proposes a parallel problem in visualization, by archaeologists and their screen media interlocuters,  both of which center on rendering the invisible envisionable

***

Matthew Harrison – Topology vs. Topography: Visualising the Islamic city in the medieval and modern mind

University of Southampton

Bio

I completed a BA in Archaeology and Anthropology at University of Cambridge in 2007. I then worked in commercial archaeology before beginning a masters in Archaeological Computing at the University of Southampton in 2010. I am now undertaking a PhD with the ACRG focussing on the visualisation and analysis of medieval Cairo, with particular emphasis on simulating movement, visibility and acoustics.

My research interests include procedural modelling, visualisation of ancient cities, the visualisation of uncertainty in archaeological reconstructions, medieval and Roman urbanism, the archaeology of early Christianity and Islam.

Abstract

The dominant paradigm for the representation of spatial phenomena in archaeology is that of topography. On an intra and inter-site level, the plan, elevation, location map and terrain map all take form and position in Euclidean space as their basis. However, the recent popularisation of network analysis in archaeology and the humanities has brought to the fore the use of topology to visualise spatial archaeological data; representing the connections between phenomena rather than their form and position.

These developments will be considered in light of my doctoral research: the three-dimensional digital visualisation of the medieval city of Fustat, Egypt. I will demonstrate that the archaeological and historical source data for the form of the city are in themselves filtered through different modes of visualisation. Medieval eyewitnesses described Fustat almost exclusively in topological terms; elucidating the connections between streets and markets, rather than their dimensions, orientation or location. 20th century historians adapted these descriptions into largely abstract two-dimensional plans, in keeping with European, post-Enlightenment modes of representation. These plans are difficult to reconcile with topographic representations of the archaeological remains of the city, excavated over the course of a century.

These discrepancies are symptomatic not only of working with different data types and representation frameworks, but also of incomplete and imprecise data sources. The holistic nature of 3D visualisation must, as ever, come to terms with the uncertainty of archaeological and historical data. This paper will explore the idea of exploiting the contrasting strengths of topographic and topological visions of the city, in both our sources and visualisation methodologies, in order to engender different interpretations of the past and confront the lacunae of the underlying data.

***

Neha Gupta – Geovisual perspectives on late 20th century Indian archaeology: putting “place” in visualization

Lakehead University (Orillia, Canada)

Bio

I am teaching anthropology and GIS (geographic information systems) at Lakehead University, Orillia. My dissertation, Behind the frontline: local communities, national interests and the practice of Indian archaeology (defended June 2012) employed time-sensitive GIS alongside archival and archaeological research to examine how social unrest and political crisis have influenced the practice of archaeology in post-colonial India. I am a member of the Histories of Archaeology Research Network (http://harngroup.wordpress.com/) and I organized a sponsored session, “Spatial approaches to the history of archaeology” for the Society for American Archaeology meetings in April 2013.

My research interests include the practice of archaeology, computational archaeology, GIS, archaeology of India, post-colonial societies, and the history of anthropology and archaeology. Some of my work is available at: http://cal.mcgill.ca/htdocs

Abstract

Archaeologists, more so than colleagues in history and anthropology, are accustomed to visualizing complex scientific results. In this paper, I introduce geovisual perspectives using geographic information systems (GIS) to examine unseen geographic and spatial patterns and relationships in archaeological fieldwork in late twentieth century India. Geovisual, short for geographic visualization, results from the interaction with, and creation of visual media and technologies to enrich the scientific process and promote unexpected insights on time-dependent spatial phenomena. Using a time-sensitive geovisualization, I draw out the influence of geography or physical and social space on archaeological fieldwork in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 in the northern city of Ayodhya. I demonstrate that visualizing specific places where archaeologists carried out fieldwork at particular moments, offers an innovative method of historical inquiry to examine how knowledge is interwoven with power and space, a critical factor in understanding change and continuity in archaeological practices.

***

Nicole Beale and Jude Jones – The strange case of Dame Mary May’s tomb: deciphering the visual and biographical evidence of a late 17th century portrait effigy

University of Southampton

Bio

Jude Jones recently completed her doctorate at Southampton and specialises in the field of early modern social buildings archaeology and its theoretical bases. Her recent publications focus especially on the nature of effigial tombs and their gendered and bodily subtexts and she is presently researching the performative qualities inherent in 16th-17th Anglican church liturgy which are linked through their spatial and architectural formats to the Tudor and Jacobean theatre.

Abstract

In 1676 Dame Mary May commissioned her tomb from John Bushnell, a famous Restoration sculptor and placed it next to her pew in the chancel of St Nicholas’ parish church, Mid Lavant, West Sussex where she worshipped until her death in 1681. Tradition has it that after her death from smallpox her relatives obeyed her wishes that her effigy should be faithfully lifelike and caused its face to be stippled with pockmarks. In next two centuries the tomb was moved about the church and eventually hidden in the May vault below the chancel. Only in the 1980s was it brought out and re-erected in the north aisle of the church. Using Reflective Transformation Imaging (RTI) to investigate the current state of the effigy, this paper examines the controversy which has taken place since then concerning the nature of female effigial portrait sculpture and the reactions of 18th-19th century congregations to potentially disfigured sculpture. In addition this paper is a reflection on the theoretical implications of the process of documentation of archaeological objects, which came out of a digital image capture session, using RTI, of this tomb and its effigy. Both authors were present at the recording session, one of whom is an expert in digital documentation and the other an expert in early modern archaeology and the analysis of post-medieval parish churches and their monuments.

The paper will explore the notion that digital documentation techniques offer the possibility of an unique engagement with archaeological objects and consequently it fits into the ‘Innovative approaches to representing the archaeological record’ theme. The paper will emphasise the performative and collaborative dimension of imaging with RTI and will discuss the commonalities with other forms of image making (such as drawing) as well as emphasising the inherently social nature of an image making process which requires multiple participants. It is also intended to throw light on the  responses of the tomb’s past viewers to a gendered object which may, at the time, have been perceived as visually transgressive.

***

Robin Skeates – Visualism and archaeology: the case of prehistoric Malta

Durham University

Bio

My publications explore a wide variety of themes within the overlapping inter-disciplinary fields of material culture, visual and sensual culture, museum and heritage studies. A central concern is with interpreting social relations, strategies and transformations between the Upper Palaeolithic and the Bronze Age, including those relating to age, gender and the body. This relates to my interest in ritual performance, including mortuary practices and meanings, and in the cultural construction and transformation of landscape, including liminality, the underworld, the social dynamics of enclosure, and commemoration. It equally relates to my interest in the biographies and power of objects, including the production, exchange and ascription of value to early copper artefacts, greenstone axe-amulets, flint arrowheads, decorated pottery, shell trumpets, coral, and prehistoric objects in museum collections. Out of this has evolved my strong interest in archaeologies of art and visual culture, including ways of seeing, creativity and tradition, visual communication and transformation, the politics of representation and display, and the symbolising of social boundaries, identities, status and prestige. This, in turn, has led to my involvement with sensual culture studies.

For more info, see: https://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/?id=165

And: https://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/?mode=project&id=285

Abstract

The scholarly privileging of sight goes back to the Greek philosophers, notably Plato and Aristotle, and to successive thinkers such as Descartes who made it clear that the sense of science was to be sight. It is hardly surprising, then, that the sense of sight has tended to dominate archaeological practice and theory. But, over the last two decades, scholars interested in the body and in the senses have increasingly challenged the visual bias (or ‘visualism’) of modern Western culture, including its communication media, scholarship and scientific practice. Archaeological theorists, for example, have questioned their use of visual terminologies, such as ‘view’ and ‘perspective’, and of visual techniques, such as aerial photographs, distribution maps, and GIS-based visibility analyses. As a consequence, it is now well-established that visual representations used to record and reconstruct archaeological remains are never innocent providers of information, but rather involve particular visual conventions (or ‘ways of seeing’) and representational strategies used to construct knowledge.

In this paper, I build upon this critique, undertaking a kind of literary and art criticism of historic and contemporary representations of prehistoric Malta, with particular reference to the senses, in order to chart, historicize and contextualize the sensory experiences and perceptions that have surrounded the development of archaeology in Malta over the last four centuries. What I find is that, particularly since the mid-seventeenth century, the Islands’ ruins and their buried remains have been appropriated by outsiders, who have incorporated them within their own poetic and political orders. Above all, it has been their visual culture that has dominated modern representations and experiences of these places and their artefacts, as pleasurable, instructive, and nostalgic sights to be consumed, primarily through the eyes. The other senses have never been entirely excluded in this process, but they have been restrained.

***

Alessandro Zambelli – Rendering the Invisible Visible: The Moves of London Stone

Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL

Bio

Alessandro Zambelli is an architect with his own London based practice.  He is currently researching a PhD in architectural and archaeological drawing practices and transgressions between them. See also https://seeingthinkingdoing.wordpress.com/participants-2/

Abstract

It has been argued that modern imaging techniques in archaeology enforce an alienation between subject and object – an alienation which began with the scientific enlightenment.¹ Or that enlightenment specialisations and cults of difference stifled the fluidity of a peculiarly analogical and visual form of creativity.² How then to recover the visually analogical from the ocularcentric?

alex

In a niche behind a grille facing the road at 111 Cannon Street is London Stone. An artefact of ancient but uncertain origin,³ it might be thought of as an archaeological object, but almost no work of that category has ever been done upon it set adrift, as it has been, from its ancient contexts. Neither is it comfortably an architectural artefact, though architects have attempted to incorporate it into the buildings which have hosted it. Instead of, or perhaps because of this, a web
of myth and poor scholarship now surrounds it.
A hazard to traffic, the Stone was first encased in the seventeenth century. Burned and reduced in the Great Fire it was moved, and moved again, ultimately to be put behind glass and grille. Forgotten and displaced, it has become invisible.

It is the very invisibility of London Stone, the accidental removal of its ocularcentrism which I attempt to recover for the visual, and recast through the re-enactment of its choreography and through the performance of the texts which have become its contexts.

  1. Julian Thomas, “The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape,” in Landscape : Politics and Perspectives ed. Barbara Bender (Providence, R.I. ; Oxford: Berg, 1993) and Julian Thomas, “On the Ocularcentrism of Archaeology,” in Archaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-Modern Context, ed. Julian Thomas and Vitor Oliveira Jorge (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008).
  2. Barbara Maria Stafford, Visual Analogy : Consciousness as the Art of Connecting (Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press, 1999), 23.
  3. John Clark, “Jack Cade at London Stone,” Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 58 (2007).

***

Louisa Minkin and Ian Dawson – Art and Archaeology: Figure and Ground

Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design,  University of the Arts London

Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton

Bio

Ian Dawson is a sculptor. He has exhibited internationally in New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin. His work is held in public and private collections worldwide. He is a regular contributor to House of Fairytales, creating live material workshops and performances. He is currently Head of Sculpture at Winchester School of Art  where he has initiated an innovative teaching strategy of collaboratively remaking historical sculptures, including Anthony Caro’s Early One Morning and Jean Tinguely’s Homage to New York. He is the author of Making Contemporary Sculpture published in 2012.   http://www.iandawson.net/

Louisa Minkin is a member of Five Years, a collective artists’ project. She works with image, text, performance and installed media. Her work has involved reconstructing objects and spaces from paintings and documentary sources. She was awarded an Abbey Fellowship at the British School at Rome in 2006. She is currently Course Leader for MA Fine Art at Central Saint Martins College of Art.   http://louisaminkin.com/

Collaboration:
http://digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk/blog/2868

Photosculpture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8MGtnYpS8
Alexander Galloway on the Cybernetic Hypothesis at WSA  http://vimeo.com/45978167
http://jussiparikka.net/2012/12/13/the-photosculptural-hypothesis/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zwuaSqDAfqI

Basing House Excavation:
http://basinghousecat.wordpress.com/
http://reflectivediscontent.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/basing-house-dig-vols-3-4-and-5.html

Abstract

Over the past year artists and archaeologists at the University of Southampton have engineered a set of meetings, encounters and events to stimulate exchange of ideas and practices. Initially framed around the trans-disciplinary implementation of digital visualization technologies, the exchange has involved practical workshops, visits, exhibitions, and an artist’s residency at an excavation over the summer.

This paper would present an opportunity to open out some of the outcomes of this exchange and discuss the potential of creative methodologies for producing new formulations of image data and to contribute to the visualization and materialization of complex thought.

Part of the project had involved the reconstruction of a nineteenth century Photo-Sculpture apparatus, an antecedent to contemporary 3D prototyping. We would take this as a case study to assess the implications and paradigms produced in working through historic imaging systems and technical modes of representation.

4 thoughts on “TAG 2013 – Bournemouth

  1. Pingback: Seeing, Thinking, Doing II: Visualisation as Knowledge Creation, TAG Bournemouth, December 2013 | SARA PERRY

  2. Pingback: Imagining Hominid Aesthetics | Archaeology and Material Culture

  3. Pingback: Seeing, Thinking, Doing Reprised | SARA PERRY

  4. Pingback: #TAG2013: Visualisation as Knowledge Creation – Session Summary | The Cultural Heritage Web

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s