INTERVIEW SERIES: Tracing the Digital: Cultural Heritage INTERVIEWER: Gokhan Colak INTERVIEWEE: Cecilia Rinaldi

From Preservation to Experience

Digital technologies have radically changed the way cultural heritage can be documented, preserved and presented. When a historical site is transformed into a 3D or immersive experience, are we still preserving heritage—or are we creating a new cultural form inspired by it?

I think most people working in the culture and heritage sector would acknowledge that—potentially—we are doing both those things.

The emergence of new digital technologies has significantly expanded the ways in which cultural heritage can be documented, promoted and accessed. Photogrammetry, LiDAR, and 3D laser scanning now allow us to document sites with unprecedented precision. We are able to create high- fidelity ‘digital twins’ that can serve as a permanent record of a building or a monument at a specific point in time. Such accurate records are obviously of enormous value to those working to preserve heritage sites. For example: digital models can help in identifying various kinds of damage without excessive handling; they can assist in the planning of restoration work; and they can enable the close monitoring of deterioration over time.

These digital representations have value in their own right, while remaining distinct from, and not equivalent to, the original objects or sites that they reproduce. They provide new ways of engaging with and understanding heritage sites. But it is important to remember these 3D digital objects are quite different in character, and immersive experiences cannot replace the original. This distinction can be considered in relation to Walter Benjamin’s concept of the “aura,” which refers to the unique presence and authenticity of the original. Digital reproductions certainly cannot replicate this quality.

Moreover, digitisation alone doesn’t protect cultural heritage from damage or destruction. When heritage sites are damaged by conflict, or destroyed in a natural disaster, digital models on their own are no substitute for what is lost. In such cases digitization should be understood as a precautionary measure and a valuable safeguard rather than as a replacement for conservation by traditional means. Such models can nevertheless create new and valuable ways of engaging with cultural heritage, without diminishing the significance of the original.

The Digital Reconstruction of Memory

3D scanning, photogrammetry, virtual environments and extended reality allow audiences to encounter places that may be inaccessible, endangered or even physically transformed. What happens to our understanding of cultural memory when a place can be reconstructed digitally and experienced outside its original geographical context?

To answer this question, I think we need to first explain what we mean by cultural memory. Cultural memory is a form of collective memory through which societies preserve and transmit shared histories, values, and traditions from one generation to the next. Significant places, monuments, objects and rituals play an important role in the creation of collective memory for a specific community, a people, or a culture and help anchor their identity over time.

It is obviously of great value to have a means of making such places available to a much wider audience than would ordinarily be able to visit them. But what does it mean to make digital reproductions of such places, entirely detached from their original location? What does it do to their role as bearers of cultural memory?

First of all, there is inevitably going to be some loss of context. Digital models can faithfully record a site’s physical appearance, both the architecture and, to some extent, the surrounding landscape. Yet they cannot entirely replicate the atmosphere: the climate, the light, the sounds, smells and how materials feel. Other significant impressions will also be lost, such as encounters with the local communities whose knowledge and practices are central to fully understanding the heritage.

Some loss of context does not mean, however, that digital reconstructions cannot support cultural memory. It just means that additional resources are going to be needed. The significance of the site to local peoples—the why this place matters—can be suggested through community voices, recorded interviews, and personal stories. In this way local voices can be heard, and memories shared. User interaction with the digital model can even be made to reflect the site’;s real-world conditions, for example, by showing and respecting restricted areas of the site; or enforcing appropriate visitor behaviour, to reinforce that the digital model represents a living heritage.

Ultimately, digital reconstructions cannot fully convey the cultural memory embodied in a place. But with the careful use of supplementary materials, such models can successfully evoke a site or monument’s role as a focus and a bearer of a community’s collective memory.

The Politics of the Virtual Museum

Virtual exhibitions have the potential to make cultural collections accessible to audiences who may never physically visit a museum or heritage site. Could digital museums ultimately democratize access to culture—or might they reproduce the same institutional and technological inequalities that already exist in the physical cultural sector?

Digital museums can undoubtedly do a great deal to broaden access to culture. People can visit virtual exhibitions without the need for expensive foreign travel, without even leaving their homes. In this way too, rugged sites that are physically difficult to visit, can become accessible even to those who are in wheelchairs or otherwise unable to travel. Nevertheless it is important to remember that not everyone can benefit from digital reconstructions, as many people still lack computers, reliable internet access, and the skills needed to navigate online platforms.

In addition, while digital museums can certainly make culture more accessible, they can also inadvertently reproduce some of the institutional biases found in traditional museums. As human beings, we are all inevitably influenced by our backgrounds, our lived experiences and the society we live in. And the technologies we create can never be entirely neutral either. This is why AI systems and other digital technologies end up reproducing existing biases, because they are trained using data derived from historical written sources that incorporate past (and contemporary) human perspectives.

Moreover, digital exhibitions are as much shaped by curatorial decisions as are exhibitions in traditional museums. In traditional museums curators decide which objects are displayed, whose stories are told, what historical context is included, and how visitors will experience the exhibition. The same applies to digital exhibitions: in this case the curators are the people who design the platform, select the content, and develop the tools to make the digital reconstructions. This means that certain kinds of bias are potentially going to be present in digital museums too.

All this means that the way that digital models are developed and used is particularly important. We should aim to diversify AI datasets, involving local communities wherever possible in decisions about how their heritage is represented. Ideally, the communities to whom specific objects of cultural heritage belong should have influence and control over both the digital content that is produced, and the narratives that accompany it. In this way, some safeguards against inadvertent bias may be put in place, and at the same time our digital technologies will not only expand access to culture, but also create opportunities for more diverse voices and perspectives to be heard.

Who Owns a Digital Heritage?

Once a cultural site is captured in 3D and transformed into a digital environment, questions of ownership, authorship and control become increasingly complex. Who should have authority over the digital representation of cultural heritage: museums, governments, local communities, technology companies, artists, or the people whose cultural histories are being represented?

I believe digital heritage should be primarily governed by the people whose histories and identities it represents. Naturally, this will be best managed working in partnership with public institutions and museums. On the other hand, when it comes to contemporary digital artworks, ownership should remain with the artists who create them.

Tech companies play an important but supporting role: they contribute the technical expertise and cutting-edge tools that enable communities and public museums to document, share, and promote their cultural heritage. But they should not become the default owners of the resulting digital assets.

If a site or monument is recognized as embodying a community’s cultural identity, this should mean that that community can help determine who is able to access any digital 3D models, whether such models can be modified or commercialized, and whether particular sacred or culturally sensitive sites should be made accessible only with restricted access, or should even be off-limits.

To make such a partnership work, communities, museum governing bodies, artists, and tech companies must negotiate upfront to establish clear agreements on intellectual property, access rights, commercial use, and long-term stewardship. When all stakeholders give their informed consent through such governance frameworks, digital heritage data can be made publicly accessible, where appropriate for education and research.

Projects like CyArk’s Open Heritage, a repository for 3D cultural heritage data, and Europeana, which brings together digital collections from cultural institutions across Europe, prove that open access and public benefits can coexist with strict respect for cultural ownership and ethical stewardship.

Immersive Storytelling and the Architecture of Attention

Traditional museums often ask visitors to move through physical space and construct their own relationships between objects, texts and histories. Immersive media can instead guide attention through carefully designed digital environments. How does immersive storytelling change the relationship between the audience and the cultural object? Does it create deeper engagement, or does it risk turning heritage into an experience optimized for attention?

I think immersive storytelling definitely changes the way audiences interact with cultural objects, creating a different kind of engagement from the traditional museum or gallery experience.

In museums and galleries, visitors are generally not encouraged to interact with objects beyond looking at them. Paintings and artifacts are often displayed behind glass; and the presence of crowds, artificial lighting, and security barriers, can create a sense of distance between the visitor and the object. There is almost a ritual quality to the experience, with a degree of separation between the perceived sacredness of the object and the visitor.

What I find particularly interesting and attractive about digital environments is that they can reduce some of that distance. Visitors can zoom into high-resolution images, rotate 3D models, replay curator commentary, and explore objects genuinely at their own pace. What is lost in terms of atmosphere and physical presence can be gained in freedom of engagement and opportunities for closer inspection.

Digital exhibitions can also combine multiple forms of media. Visitors can access historical film footage, set archival photographs alongside the reconstructed building; listen to oral histories and learn about community perspectives on the site that would be difficult to present in a traditional museum display. Digital reconstructions can also bring together and juxtapose artworks and artifacts from different collections or locations, allowing comparisons that would not normally be possible.

VR environments are becoming an increasingly important form of participation. Friends from different parts of the world can meet virtually, explore an exhibition together, and share their observations and interpretations in real time. This adds a social dimension to digital exhibitions that is not always possible in physical museums.

It is difficult to say, however, whether this engagement is deeper or more meaningful than encountering an artwork in person. For me, this is ultimately a subjective judgment, which depends on the visitor’s personal preferences and expectations. Personally, I still feel a stronger connection to an artwork when I stand before it, and see it with my own eyes. Even though I work in the digital humanities and strongly advocate for the benefits of digitisation.

At the same time, I understand concerns that immersive experiences can prioritise ‘spectacularisation’ over content and meaning. The danger here is of a series of superficial ‘special effects’ ultimately trivializing a monument or an artwork. I think this is a valid concern in a society focused on visibility and user engagement. To mitigate this, I believe the digitization of cultural content should involve specialists—archaeologists, conservators, historians, and linguists—as well as local and source communities, to ensure that technology enhances rather than overshadows the meaning of cultural heritage.

From Object to Data

The digitisation of heritage transforms physical objects, buildings and landscapes into datasets that can be stored, manipulated, visualized and recombined. What new possibilities emerge when cultural heritage becomes data? Could computational models eventually reveal relationships and histories that conventional forms of preservation cannot?

I think digitising cultural heritage opens up the possibility of understanding the past at a scale that was unimaginable before, using traditional approaches. Instead of studying objects or sites individually, we can bring together and analyse huge and diverse datasets in ways that were previously not possible. And yes, I believe this could indeed reveal complex relationships and deeper patterns,connections that would otherwise never be apparent.

For example, computer vision can compare motifs, styles, brushwork and techniques across thousands of artworks, helping us identify sometimes unexpected connections between artists, regions, and artistic movements.

For example, in archaeology, LiDAR has similarly transformed what we can see, revealing roads, terraces, cities and other traces of Maya civilization hidden beneath forests. This has allowed researchers to identify settlement patterns and the scale of ancient urban networks that would have been extremely difficult to detect through conventional archaeological methods alone.

At the same time, I don’t think the new technologies can replace traditional forms of preservation or historical interpretation. The data still depends on what we choose to digitise and how we interpret it. I think the real potential is in combining the two: using computational methods to uncover patterns and connections, and then using human expertise to understand what those patterns actually mean.

AI, Heritage and the Future of Cultural Representation

Artificial intelligence is rapidly entering image generation, restoration, spatial reconstruction and cultural interpretation. How do you see AI changing the future of digital heritage? Could generative systems help us reconstruct lost or damaged cultural environments, and where should we draw the ethical boundary between historical reconstruction and technological invention?

I see AI making many processes in digital heritage more efficient and, in some cases, much easier. Here I am thinking of everything from cataloguing and data analysis to visualization, image generation, and spatial reconstruction. It can help us make collections more accessible and searchable, analyse huge amounts of historical data, identify patterns and connections, and even support conservation by detecting deterioration, or by exploring the potential of different restoration approaches.

I also see real risks, however: biases, misinterpretation, hallucinations, and inaccurate information. This is why AI-generated outputs should always be reviewed and validated by experts. At the risk of repeating myself, technology should serve as an instrument to support cultural professionals, not replace them. AI definitely needs human judgement and expertise.

Culture is shaped by people, their beliefs, their values, and their traditions. For this reason, in the preservation and study of heritage sites and monuments, people have to remain firmly in charge. Without people there is no context, no interpretation, no sense of identity. Living communities may also hold knowledge and perspectives that are simply not present in the archives and datasets that AI draws on.

I think AI can certainly help us reconstruct lost or damaged cultural environments. But we need to be very careful about the boundary between reconstruction and outright invention. Reconstructions should be grounded in historical and empirical evidence; and in our reconstructions we should be absolutely transparent about what is known, what has been inferred, and what has subsequently been generated by AI. Serious precautions should be taken to make sure that no one, using a digital model, can readily (mis)understand what is an AI-generated conjectural reconstruction as historical fact.

That’s why I think policymakers, heritage professionals, communities, and tech companies, all need to come together to establish some basic ethical principles for how AI is used in the cultural sector. Or—to express this assessment in a more positive way—if AI is regarded as ‘a tool that requires skillful management’, rather than a convenient ‘provider of solutions’, then I think it is going to open up a lot of exciting possibilities.

Beyond the Screen

AR and VR increasingly blur the distinction between physical and digital environments. Do you think the future of cultural experience will be less about visiting a museum or historical site and more about moving between physical, augmented and virtual layers of the same cultural space? What might this mean for the very definition of a museum?

I am positive we’ll see increasing interplay between physical, augmented and virtual layers in the coming years, but not necessarily to the extent people currently predict. AR and VR can certainly add new ways of experiencing museums and historical sites, but they are still far from being ubiquitous technologies.

However, I’m quite skeptical about a widespread adoption of AR/VR outside the museum or gallery space. This is partly due to accessibility issues. To use AR on our phones or tablets, the devices need to be compatible with this technology, have high-quality cameras and motion sensors, and VR headsets are still quite expensive. In addition, many immersive technologies require people to learn to use new apps and devices, which can make them less accessible for older adults or people who are less familiar with technology.

Drawing from my own experience, I also feel quite disoriented and dizzy when using a VR headset. While it’s true that these devices have become better at tracking movements and warning you about obstacles, it is easy to lose your sense of where you are in the room. Many users have also reported experiencing virtual reality sickness. What I find particularly interesting is that research shows that women experience VR-related dizziness more frequently and severely than men. This highlights that immersive technologies are not equally comfortable for everyone.

I also think the metaverse has not become as important as it was originally predicted. For these reasons, while I agree that AR and VR have interesting applications, I don’t foresee the technologies becoming extremely common or replacing real-world experiences.

Who Writes the Digital Future of Culture?

Looking toward the future, technology companies, cultural institutions, artists, researchers and communities are increasingly collaborating to redefine how culture is experienced. What kind of relationship between technology and culture do you hope we build—and what should we be careful not to lose as heritage becomes increasingly immersive, interactive and computational?

I am hoping that in the future we can establish a relationship between technology and culture that is collaborative at every level. I would like to see cultural heritage professionals, artists, and communities all working closely together with technologists and researchers, each group well aware of the aims and priorities of the other participants in the process. This is something I have come back to, in different ways, throughout this interview.

Rather than allowing the development of new technologies to drive cultural production, as has sometimes happened in the past, we should aim to establish an explicit and self-conscious partnership between the various stakeholders, negotiated and established at the very outset, to help minimize and avoid many of the risks that we have discussed. This is how we should try to redefine and enhance the way that cultural heritage is experienced.

For me, the most valuable role of technology in the field of cultural heritage is to amplify human voices, histories, and creative expression. Its mission should be to help those voices reach new audiences, to tell stories in new ways, and to give communities more opportunities to share their own heritage. Most importantly, communities should retain ownership of their heritage, and some agreed control over how their stories are told. Ownership here means having the chance to correct mistakes along the way, alter decisions made in good faith—even to change direction, if necessary. If, for example, particular kinds of visualization, or immersive experience are found to be trivializing, or misleading in some unexpected way.