An Exploration of Digital Representation of Australian Aboriginal Art in Museums for Immersive Engagement
ISBN: 978-1-80455-615-3, eISBN: 978-1-80455-614-6
ISSN: 0065-2830
Publication date: 31 January 2024
Abstract
This chapter explores the approaches to digital representation of Australian Aboriginal art and visitor engagement in museum exhibition spaces from a digital design perspective. It discusses recent developments in the fields of digital representation of Aboriginal art, immersive exhibition design and visitor engagement. Through a case study of an immersive exhibition on Australian Aboriginal art in the National Museum of Australia, Canberra, this chapter identifies how Aboriginal art can be digitally represented by appropriate immersive technologies ranging from augmented realities [ARs] and virtual realities [VRs] to mixed reality [MRs] and extended reality [XRs] for enhancing visitors’ immersive digital experience. According to the analysis, the digital representation of Aboriginal artworks needs to be conducted practically, cognitively and ontologically based on understanding Australian Aboriginal history and culture. Visitors can engage with Aboriginal art stories meaningfully through immersive exhibitions through this holistic approach.
Keywords
Citation
Zhang, R. and Peng, F. (2024), "An Exploration of Digital Representation of Australian Aboriginal Art in Museums for Immersive Engagement", Nichols, J. and Mehra, B. (Ed.) Data Curation and Information Systems Design from Australasia: Implications for Cataloguing of Vernacular Knowledge in Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums (Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 54), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-283020240000054010
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Rui Zhang and Fanke Peng
Introduction
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, also referred to as First Nations peoples, have unique traditions and flourishing cultural forms of expression that contribute globally to the arts and popular culture of the 21st century (Fisher, 2016). “‘Aboriginal’ is a broad term that refers to Nations and Traditional Owners of mainland Australia and most of the islands, including Tasmania, Fraser Island, Palm Island, Mornington Island, Groote Eylandt, Bathurst, and Melville Islands” (University of South Australia, 2021). Australian Aboriginal artists in their 21st-century practices embrace a broad plethora of media and influences. These art forms span contemporary and traditional modes of painting on canvas and linen, with acrylics and natural ochres; paintings on bark; local art forms such as pearl shell and emu egg carvings, possum-skin cloaks, hollow log coffins and spirit figures carved or woven; as well as fine crafts such as shell necklaces, ceramics and fibre art (Fisher, 2012). Indigenous curator Hetti Perkins states: “The possibilities of Aboriginal art practice are infinite and can have relevance and resonance outside their immediate cultural context while maintaining the integrity of speaking from within that context” (Fink & Perkins, 1997).
This chapter focusses on the digital representation of Australian Aboriginal art in museum exhibition spaces and visitor engagement prompted by these digital designs. To do this, it discusses recent developments in the fields of digital representation, based on immersive exhibition design. Specifically, it analyses the case study of an immersive exhibition of Australian Aboriginal artworks at the National Museum of Australia, Canberra. Utilising current immersive technologies ranging from ARs and VRs to MR and XR, it argues that these are appropriate for enhancing visitors’ immersive digital experience. The digital representation, in the museum environment, of Aboriginal artist’s work also requires a conceptual ‘situatedness’ in the ontologies of Australian Aboriginal history and culture. ‘Truth-telling’ must be central to the narrative communicated in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums [GLAM] regardless of the form of representation employed. Therefore, visitor experience may be framed morally and ethically with an understanding of the impacts of colonisation on Aboriginal peoples in this country to meaningfully engage with Aboriginal art and Dreaming stories, the content of these immersive exhibitions. Aboriginal Australians are the proud keepers of the oldest continuous culture on the planet dating back 60,000 years. Their heritage stretches across many different communities, each with its own unique blend of cultures, customs and languages. Before the European invasion in 1788, there were more than 250 Indigenous nations, each with several clans (Malaspinas et al., 2016). Throughout this history, Aboriginal art has been an integral part of the traditional knowledge system which includes mapping the landscape and referring to understanding the landscape through Dreaming stories, the teachings of Aboriginal Ancestors (Neale & Kelly, 2020). The development of Australian Aboriginal art forms as commodities has been extensively documented (Cochrane, 1993; Morphy, 1998; Myers & Thomas, 2002; Neale et al., 2000). Ever since Australian Aboriginal art has been produced for so-called Western art markets, art curators (and cultural theorists) have been required to disseminate the works through different forms of exhibitions (Wildburger, 2013). In 1958, the New South Wales Art Gallery in Sydney displayed a collection of funerary logs carved in timber from Arnhem wood decorated with pigments made of clay by painters from the tropical north. It was the first time that an Australian art museum had included Aboriginal artworks in its collection (Goldstein, 2013). Art and culture are meaningful practices that reflect social values and are also able to establish, affirm or challenge these values (Schirato & Webb, 2004). At the core of artistic production is the way the artists internalise locality, nationality and identity into their works. To create another mode of interpretation and understanding Aboriginal artists have worked intellectually, culturally, artistically and politically to ensure that their works receive exposure in multiple forms to extend visitor experiences (Skerritt et al., 2016).
In recent years, museums have moved from repositories of venerable collections to spaces for speech and multi-sensory experiences (Levent & Pascual-Leone, 2014). The technology-driven multi-sensory design has emerged as innovative ways to deliver narration through experience (Dal Falco & Vassos, 2017). An immersive exhibition titled Connection: Songlines from Australia’s First Peoples in a spectacular immersive experience was selected for this study. The exhibition was opened at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra from 8 June to 9 October 2022, presented dynamic images of Australia’s First Nations peoples from remote, rural and urban areas working in traditional and contemporary art forms, highlighting their important contributions to the arts and cultural landscape of Australia. This case study will demonstrate how immersive technologies are leveraged to create a space in the museum for visitor engagement, inclusion and interaction.
Immersive museum exhibitions create another innovative platform for artists to reinterpret their cultural heritage and express cultural identity. Practically, art making is an activity based on the use of materials and centred on the skill and expertise. Cognitively, art making embodies multiple ways of perceiving and generating complex thinking processes. Empirical and conceptual knowledge of human wisdom is depicted in such a way that knowledge becomes a visual representation during this process. Ontologically, art making is a process that reflects material authenticity and human wisdom. The term ‘authenticity’ is explained as “the idea that some things are in some sense really you, or express what you are, and others aren’t” (Williams, 2010). ‘Authenticity’ is a term and a key concept in aesthetics and existentialism (Funk et al., 2012). Thus, this chapter elaborates the digital representation of Australian Aboriginal art from the three aspects which are practicality, cognition and ontology.
Artworks are almost invariably products of human intentional actions, and art production and recognition require a wide range of cognitive skills which include semantic memory or visual perception (De Smedt & De Cruz, 2011). Art is a product of normal human perceptual and motivational processes (Barry, 2006), while it can be approached and appreciated with methods from cognitive psychology as a stable part of the human cognitive repertoire (Dissanayake, 2015).
In 2003, the Museums Australia (now known as ‘the Australian Museums and Galleries Association’) released a document – Continuous Cultures, Ongoing Responsibilities – which was revised based on the report of Previous Possessions, New Obligations launched in 2000. In this document, the collection and display of Indigenous cultural materials and objects in museums and galleries are prioritised. One of the approaches is: “Recognition of the value of stories and other intangibles associated with objects” (Museums Australia, 2005, p. 7), which gives an insight on how to “devise means of gaining proper access to the cultural and historical background of an Indigenous art, rather than simply hanging it on an unadorned white wall” (Murphy, 2009, p. 38).
Since the concept of “new museology” was initiated (Vergo, 1989, p. 2), museums have been concerned with how to effectively represent cultural diversity in their exhibitions, while expanding their audience (Kreps, 2015, p. 5), assisting the cultural experience and, whenever opportune, making use of technologies and wide spectrum systems (Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010). The new museology refers to the changing paradigm of museums, from the simple exhibition of their rare and valuable collections to the enrichment of visitor engagement (Vergo, 1989). In this context, museum experts should focus more on the development of approaches to improve the educational experience of visitors (education and entertainment) (Pallud & Straub, 2014).
The different types of immersive technology are 360-degree tours, VR, AR, MR and XR. The 360-degree tour is the most basic and familiar immersive technology. Most smartphones enable museum visitors to view 360-degree images of an exhibit or the whole exhibition space, wherever they are. VR is another very familiar type of immersive technology which enables visitors to perceive substitute and virtual experiences offered by VR as authentic (Guttentag, 2010). AR is a different type of immersive technology which combines the real and virtual world, while allowing real-time interaction and aligning real objects or places and digital information in three dimensions [3D] (Azuma, 1997). AR extends their real experience by offering them the opportunity to examine selected museum objects from various viewing angles in a virtual environment. MR is a combination of AR and VR. Using multiple senses (e.g. audio, motion, haptics, taste/flavour and smell) in an MR environment, for example, in realist diorama or virtual art – often augmented by touch-screen systems and large projections or displays (Reiss & Tunnicliffe, 2011; Tunnicliffe & Scheersoi, 2014), visitors make sense of the real and/or virtual world around them with some flexibility of interactions and senses (Goffman, 1986). XR is the term used to describe the full spectrum of immersive technology (VR, AR and MR) which focusses on weaving together each enabler’s heterogeneous interaction layers to deliver a unique experience, one that integrates users in both a physical and a virtual representation of the same geographical space at the same time (Margetis et al., 2021).
Immersive museum exhibitions offer visitors a multi-sensory experience that transcends time and place, where they participate as active participants (Gilbert, 2002). Through the use of immersive technologies, the GLAM sector might integrate diverse cultural resources and various information (e.g. images, text, videos and audios) into a unique service which enhances visitors’ digital experience in a limited space. In addition, immersive technologies might deliver content based on user input (e.g. Falk & Dierking, 2008). Limitations of immersive technologies include the expectations of visitors, for example, if they represent an unfamiliar form of engagement and interaction, then potentially their presence may hinder the visitor learning experience (Mick & Fournier, 1998). The effectiveness of interaction and engagement is also dependent on the quality of the informational content delivered to users (Collin-Lachaud & Passebois, 2008).
Museums, as repositories for preserving cultural materials, offer opportunities for Aboriginal artists to represent their stories across multimedia platforms (Onciul, 2015). From this perspective, the cultural authority and intellectual property of the original artworks must be guaranteed, “without changing the original images of artworks or distorting the original intentions or artists” in immersive exhibitions (Chen, 2021, p. 28).
In exhibition design, producing meaning in an immersive space is a creative process which is “the sequence of thoughts and actions that lead to the production” (Guilford, 1950, p. 445). It is often a shared negotiation between artist and curator; therefore, trust and the strength of the relationship is a critical component to reach a suitable composition. Curatorial design strategies would vary depending on the type of artistic expression and its intentions, but in principle, access to new knowledge and innovative ways of engaging with world issues are a welcome approach (Lake-Hammond & Waite, 2010). Digital technology offers an enhanced interactivity, multiple methods to relay meaning, and tell stories, which may, in turn, help realise exhibitions that deliver greater impact in society to digital enthusiasts (Giannini & Bowen, 2019).
Regarding Australian Aboriginal art, digital technologies focussed on immersive experience represent both opportunities in the ways key concepts and ideas may be expressed by the artist. They also present challenges in terms of control of ownership, intellectual property and perhaps are restricted to those artists who have been able to bridge the multimedia space of artistic expression. Common queries would be expected as to how it is created, who it belongs to and how visitors will access and feel the work, especially the physical aspects are important considerations. For many traditional artistic practices such as weaving, it goes beyond the physical object and its production to having a holistic significance to Country and Ancestral knowledge as well as Dreaming stories. A simplistic portrayal of image-based immersion fails to capture the depth of craftsmanship and cultural significance inherent in the object and its creation. Positioning craft practice in a research context can facilitate the reflection and articulation of deeper knowledge generated from within the researcher-practitioner’s artistic experience, so that understandings may be enriched through tactics embedded in the visual representation (Nimkulrat, 2012). Bearing in mind that not all knowledge of making and connection to Country, as part of the object’s composition, is permitted to be transferred to the public exhibition space without cultural authority.
Visitor’s Immersive Engagement
The most satisfying exhibitions for visitors will be those that resonate with their experience and provide information in ways that confirm and enrich their view of the world (Doering & Pekarik, 1996). Kelly (2003) suggests visitors come with their own agenda and views, especially if the subject matter is topical.
Museums, in the context of balancing visitor entertainment and educational experiences, have to document evidence of user engagement often to demonstrate impact and to motivate future funding (Beeho & Prentice, 1995). Means by which to educate and entertain adult participants support a varied approach (Kelly, 2003; Roppola, 2014). Visitors have the freedom to select their preferred learning content and methods, tailoring their experience to their interests and needs (Falk & Dierking, 2016). According to Hall and Bannon (2006), this variability of approach ranges from curatorial design decisions around materiality, narration, sociality, activity and multimodality. Hooper-Greenhill (2007) suggests that modern museums are critical to an inclusive society, supporting lifelong learning for different groups.
Building an enduring relationship with GLAM institutions, where there is a retention of visitors, supports the incorporation of multi-cultural content (Black, 2010). According to Collin-Lachaud and Passebois (2008), immersive technologies empower visitors to choose to become more independent and build their own learning experiences, such as in Fig. 7.1. An immersive museum exhibition is a multi-sensory experience, and Dudley (2010) suggests it offers a broader understanding of museum artefacts, through the senses. Pallasmaa (2014) highlights that digital technology supports mechanisms to interpret visitor reactions and signal for reconstruction of certain aspects of the original exhibit (Kim et al., 2022).
Falk et al. (2004, p. 176) used the term “whole body” to describe immersive replicas of objects or phenomena larger than life. These physical displays allow visitors to physically enter the replica, creating a multi-sensory and kinaesthetic experience (Dancstep et al., 2015). Liu et al. (2021) identified four categories of immersive experiences for human bodies: passive sensory immersion, exploration-based immersion, knowledge-based immersion and user-contributed immersion, respectively. Knowledge-based immersion transfers information organised by thematics, and exploration-based immersion relies on social interactions through participation; user-contributed immersion focusses on the indirect interactions via feedback loops from visitors. As a theoretical framework, this study provides potential insight for the design of digital and immersive representations for Australian Aboriginal artforms in its catering of multi-modal experiences. The following case study proposes a methodology for further consideration.
Case Study – Connection: An Immersive Strategy
Connection: Songlines From Australia’s First Peoples is a new digital immersive experience from the creators and producers of Van Gogh Alive which premiered at the National Museum of Australia [NMA], Canberra (8 June–9 October 2022). It was created and produced by Grande Experiences, the same team that produced the multi-sensory experience Van Gogh Alive. Further details of Connection including photos and video footage may be found on the Grande Experiences website: https://grande-experiences.com/connection/.
This exhibition uses large-scale projections, state-of-the-art light and sound technology to provide a kaleidoscope view of the Songlines (corridors or pathways of knowledge) that criss-cross the Australian continent. Established for thousands of years by Ancestral Elders, the Songlines were a means of explaining Creation, transmitting cultural values and knowledges, as well as wayfinding. The exhibition represents an entry point to the universe created by Songlines. Exploring spiritual bonds with the earth, water and sky through a vibrant symphony of sound, light and colour is a powerfully rich and utterly captivating story.
Digital Representation of Painting Materiality
After walking through the immersive space, visitors are free to sit, stand, walk and explore the exhibition in more detail. Contributing paintings are from 80 Aboriginal artists, who are represented from many different Nations across Australia, spanning rural, urban and remote communities. They are digitally represented by large-scale projections on the walls and floors, see Fig. 7.2. All the elements of the painting (e.g. colours, images and brushstrokes) are enhanced by the interactivity and enrichment of the content. Using state-of-the-art visual and audio technologies, a variety of digital storytelling scenarios change in chronological order with the creation of an interactive experience for visitors to get multi-sensory access. The shifting scenarios, highlighted through interplay of light and shadow, allow for a deeper appreciation of the materiality of Aboriginal painting as a medium. Narratives of the creative process and the way of life of Aboriginal artists are displayed in the background, accompanied by text and audio interpretations. In this informative way, visitors are invited to enjoy an immersive experience of the lives of Aboriginal artists and stories of artistic creation at the same time.
Digital Storytelling of Creative Practices
Storytelling is a method of interpretation, a way to inspire an internal dialogue and ensure a real connection with visitors as well as a strategy for realising an environment where visitors are encouraged to create their own meaning (Bedford, 2001). In an interview, Dr Valerie Keenan, who is the manager of Girringun Aboriginal Art Centre in northern Australia, stated that storytelling is both physical and oral in its performative relay of information (e.g. dance, song and painting). Aboriginal artists continually explore new media, some of which include ceramics, photography and video, to continue the tradition of storytelling and to attract a wider and diverse global audience (Butler, 2019).
Bruner (1990) discussed two characteristics of the story that are directly linked to museum exhibits. The first concerns the way people acquire knowledge, which implies that narrative construction enhances the relay of understanding of human histories and cultural contexts. The second characteristic is that the story influences our core values and beliefs. The use of multiple scenarios allows for linkages between First Nations artists’ work and visitors’ memories and knowledge. Visitors receive a powerful experience having access to such a diverse group of Aboriginal artists all in the same space (see Fig. 7.3).
Immersive Engagement
Compared with traditional forms of art exhibited in museums, the exhibition of Connection offers visitors more creative freedom of viewing due to its immersive attributes. Visitors engage with the virtual Aboriginal paintings augmented by several narrated voice overs. This curation is the result of esteemed Aboriginal Elders and other non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal leaders in the art world being part of the advisory panel. The Connection experience also includes a curated soundtrack of over 25 First Nations musicians and is a key component of the sensorial experience. Unfortunately, sometimes, the volume and sound mixing compromised the audibility of the narrations. Unlike in the example of the Meet Vincent van Gogh by the same company, two versions of audio are not provided in Connections. However, this would be a useful inclusion for different demographics in the abilities of receiving and understanding exhibition information at different ages.
The National Museum’s lead curator Margo Ngawa Neale (2022), from Kulin nation with Gumbayngirr clan connections, explained that Aboriginal culture is primarily transmitted through performance as an embodied knowledge system. And the Connection experience is very close to it with its performative and cinematic dimensions. Following the rise of immersive museum exhibition, this practice of digitally representing Australian First Nations art challenges us to think of new design strategies and curatorial styles for other artefacts and objects housed in museums. Despite the successes of Connections, further research would be welcome to bring further innovation as well as continued “greater connectivity, accessibility and visibility” (Geismar, 2018, p. 78) to works from other Aboriginal artists and their practices.
Conclusion
A growing number of Australian museums have embraced the design of immersive scenarios to engage visitors in Australian Aboriginal painterly art stories. Digital representation of Aboriginal art may increasingly contribute to museum’s collections if Aboriginal artists’ find agency and cultural resonance in this multimedia realm. Immersive exhibitions offer alternative ways of engaging with cultural materials across space and time. The main limitations are in the intellectual property in these collaborations and knowledge sharing governed by cultural protocols that may be difficult to control in the GLAM sector. It also raises questions around the longevity of these artforms and their modes of data storage, in that access for perpetuity is retained for the Aboriginal communities and families directly connected to the stories. It is both an exciting yet complex venture, the space of immersive exhibitions and Aboriginal art, through which to engage in ‘truth-telling’ and the contested histories which dominate popular cultural narratives in this country.
References
Azuma, 1997Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
Barry, 2006Barry, A. M. (2006). Perceptual aesthetics: Transcendent emotion, neurological image. Visual Communication Quarterly, 13(3), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15551407vcq1303_2
Bedford, 2001Bedford, L. (2001). Storytelling: The real work of museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 44(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2001.tb00027.x
Beeho, & Prentice, 1995Beeho, A., & Prentice, R. (1995). Evaluating the experiences and benefits gained by tourists visiting a socio-industrial heritage museum: An application of the ASEB grid analysis to Blists Hill Open-Air Museum, The Ironbridge Museum, United Kingdom. Museum Management and Curatorship, 14(3), 229–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647779509515445
Black, 2010Black, G. (2010). The engaging museum: Developing museums for visitor involvement. Routledge.
Bruner, 1990Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Butler, 2019Butler, S. (2019). Art for a new understanding: An interview with Valerie Keenan, Manager of Girringun Aboriginal Art Centre. Arts, 8(3), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8030091
Carrozzino, & Bergamasco, 2010Carrozzino, M., & Bergamasco, M. (2010). Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(4), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.04.001
Chen, 2021Chen, Y. (2021). Immersive exhibition [Doctoral dissertation]. Pratt Institute. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Publication No. 28544247).
Cochrane, 1993Cochrane. (1993). Wally Caruana, “Aboriginal Art”. Meanjin, 52(4), 769.
Collin-Lachaud, & Passebois, 2008Collin-Lachaud, I., & Passebois, J. (2008). Do immersive technologies add value to the museum going experience? An exploratory study conducted at France’s Paléosite. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(1), 60–71.
Dal Falco, & Vassos, 2017Dal Falco, F., & S. Vassos. (2017). Museum experience design: A modern storytelling methodology. The Design Journal, 20(1), 3975–3983. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352900
Dancstep, Gutwill, & Sindorf, 2015Dancstep, T., Gutwill, J. P., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Comparing the visitor experience at immersive and tabletop exhibits. Curator: The Museum Journal, 58(4), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12137
De Smedt, & De Cruz, 2011De Smedt, J., & De Cruz, H. (2011). A cognitive approach to the earliest art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 69(4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6245.2011.01482.x
Dissanayake, 2015Dissanayake, E. (2015). Art and intimacy. University of Washington Press.
Doering, & Pekarik, 1996Doering, Z., & Pekarik, A. J. (1996). Questioning the entrance narrative. Journal of Museum Education, 21(3), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.1996.11510333
Dudley, 2010Dudley, S. H. (2010). Museum materialities: Objects, engagements, interpretations. Routledge.
Falk, & Dierking, 2008Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2008). Enhancing visitor interaction and learning with mobile technologies. In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.), Digital technologies and the museum experience: Handheld guides and other media (pp. 19–33). New York: AltaMira Press.
Falk, & Dierking, 2016Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.
Falk, Scott, Dierking, Rennie, & Jones, 2004Falk, J. H., Scott, C., Dierking, L. D., Rennie, L., & Jones, M. C. (2004). Interactives and visitor learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(2), 171–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00116.x
Fink, & Perkins, 1997Fink, H., & Perkins, H. (1997). Writing for land. Art and Australia, 94(60), 3.
Fisher, 2012Fisher, L. (2012). The art/ethnography binary: Post-colonial tensions within the field of Australian Aboriginal art. Cultural Sociology, 6(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975512440224
Fisher, 2016Fisher, L. (2016). Aboriginal art and Australian society: Hope and disenchantment (Vol. 1). NBN International.
Funk, Groß, & Huber, 2012Funk, W., Groß, F., & Huber, I. (2012). The aesthetics of authenticity: Medial constructions of the real. Transcript Verlag.
Geismar, 2018Geismar, H. (2018). Museum object lessons for the digital age. UCL Press.
Giannini, & Bowen, 2019Giannini, T., & Bowen, J. P. (2019). Museums and digital culture new perspectives and research. Springer International Publishing.
Gilbert, 2002Gilbert, H. (2002). Immersive exhibitions: What’s the big deal. Visitor Studies Today, 5(3), 10–13.
Goffman, 1986Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. North Eastern University Press.
Goldstein, 2013Goldstein, I. S. (2013). Visible art, invisible artists? Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 10(1), 269–293.
Guilford, 1950Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Guttentag, 2010Guttentag. D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Hall, & Bannon, 2006Hall, T., & Bannon, L. (2006). Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children’s learning in museums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 231–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00177.x
Hooper-Greenhill, 2007Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. Routledge.
Kelly, 2003Kelly, L. (2003). Museums, “dumbing down” and entertainment: A visitor perspective [Conference presentation]. Graduate research in the museum sector conference, Sydney, Australia. 10 October 2003.
Kim, Kim, & Hong, 2022Kim, D., Kim, B. K., & Hong, S. D. (2022). Digital twin for immersive exhibition space design. Webology, 19(1), 4736–4744. https://doi.org/10.14704/WEB/V19I1/WEB19317
Kreps, 2015Kreps, C. (2015). Appropriate museology and the “new museum ethics”: Honoring diversity. Nordisk Museologi, 2, 4–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/nm.3044
Lake-Hammond, & Waite, 2010Lake-Hammond, A., & Waite, N. (2010). Exhibition design: Bridging the knowledge gap. The Design Journal, 13(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069210X12580336766400
Levent, & Pascual-Leone, 2014Levent, N., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2014). The multisensory museum. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Liu, Ricco, & Calabi, 2021Liu, Y., Ricco, D., & Calabi, D. A. (2021, September 24–26). Immersive learning from basic design for communication design: A theoretical framework. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Learn X design 2021: Engaging with challenges in design education. (pp. 756–771) Shandong University of Art & Design. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.06.180
Malaspinas, Westaway, Muller, Sousa, Lao, Alves, Bergström, Athanasiadis, Cheng, Crawford, Heupink, MacHoldt, Peischl, Rasmussen, Schiffels, Subramanian, Wright, Albrechtsen, Barbieri, … Willersley, 2016Malaspinas, A. S., Westaway, M. C., Muller, C., Sousa, V. C., Lao, O., Alves, I., Bergström, A., Athanasiadis, G., Cheng, J. Y., Crawford, J. E., Heupink, T. H., MacHoldt, E., Peischl, S., Rasmussen, S., Schiffels, S., Subramanian, S., Wright, J. L., Albrechtsen, A., Barbieri, C., … Willersley, E. (2016). A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia. Nature, 538(7624), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18299
Margetis, Apostolakis, Ntoa, Papagiannakis, & Stephanidis, 2021Margetis, G., Apostolakis, K. C., Ntoa, S., Papagiannakis, G., & Stephanidis, C. (2021). X-Reality museums: Unifying the virtual and real world towards realistic virtual museums. Applied Sciences, 11(1), 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010338
McLean, 2018McLean, K. (2018). Examining process in museum exhibitions: A case for experimentation and prototyping. In M. Suzanne, A. Tricia, H. Jonathan, & H. H. Oscar (Eds.), The future of museum and gallery design (pp. 121–131). Routledge.
Mick, & Fournier, 1998Mick, D. G., & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. The Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1086/209531
Morphy, 1998Morphy, H. (1998). Aboriginal Art A&i. Phaidon Incorporated Limited.
Murphy, 2009Murphy, T. (2009). Disrupting colonialism: weaving indigeneity into the gallery in schools project of the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria (Doctoral dissertation). University of Victoria.
Museums Australia, 2005Museums Australia. (2005). Continuous cultures, ongoing responsibilities: Principles and guidelines for Australian museums working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage. Museums Australia.
Myers, & Thomas, 2002Myers, F. R., & Thomas, N. (2002). Painting culture. Duke University Press.
Neale, & Kelly, 2020Neale, M., & Kelly, L. (2020). Songlines: The power and promise. Thames & Hudson Australia Pty Ltd.
Neale, Kleinert, Anderson, & Bancroft, 2000Neale, M., Kleinert, S., Anderson, T., & Bancroft, R. (Eds.). (2000). The Oxford companion to Aboriginal art and culture. Oxford University Press.
Neale, 2022Neale, M. N. (2022, June 16). Making culture cool. NMA. https://www.nma.gov.au/explore/blog/making-culture-cool
Nimkulrat, 2012Nimkulrat, N. (2012). Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 1–14.
Onciul, 2015Onciul. B. (2015). Indigenous peoples and international museology. In B. Onciul (Ed.), Museums, heritage and indigenous voice (pp. 26–44). Routledge.
Pallud, & Straub, 2014Pallud, J., & Straub, D. W. (2014). Effective website design for experience-influenced environments: The case of high culture museums. Information & Management, 51(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.02.010
Pallasmaa, 2014Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Museum as an embodied experience. In N. Levent & A. Pascual-Leone (Eds.), The multisensory museum: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on touch, sound, smell, memory, and space (pp. 239–250). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Reiss, & Tunnicliffe, 2011Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). Dioramas as depictions of reality and opportunities for learning in biology. Curator: The Museum Journal, 54(4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2011.00109.x
Roppola, 2014Roppola, T. (2014). Designing for the museum visitor experience. Routledge.
Schirato, & Webb, 2004Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2004). Reading the visual. Allen & Unwin.
Skerritt, Perkins, Myers, & Khandekar, 2016Skerritt, H. F., Perkins, H., Myers, F. R., & Khandekar, N. (2016). Everywhen: The eternal present in Indigenous art from Australia. Yale University Press.
Tunnicliffe, & Scheersoi, 2014Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Scheersoi, A. (2014). Natural history dioramas: History, construction and educational role. Springer.
University of South Australia, 2021University of South Australia. (2021). Yurirka: Proppa engagement with Aboriginal peoples. University of South Australia.
Vergo, 1989Vergo, P. (1989). The new museology. Reaktion Books.
Wildburger, 2013Wildburger, E., (2013). Indigenous Australian art in practice and theory. Coolabah, 10, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1344/co201310202-212
Williams, 2010Williams, B. (2010). Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy (pp. 172–205). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400825141
- Prelims
- Introduction: Co-design and Social Justice Opportunities in Data Curation and Information Systems Design
- Part 1: Infrastructure (Sectional Synopsis)
- Chapter 1: The Ethics and Cultural Sensitivities of Data Management: Some Considerations
- Chapter 2: Enhanced Material Management: Application of Natural Language Processing and Rule-based Modelling for Simplifying Storage Requirements in a Museum
- Chapter 3: Reflections from the Field: Country in a Plastic Bag
- Chapter 4: Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums [GLAM]-focussed Games and Gamification
- Part 2: Body of Knowledge (Sectional Synopsis)
- Chapter 5: Entwined Vernaculars: Heritages of Tolerances, Reconciliation and Resistance
- Chapter 6: Working to Improve the Fire Exhibit at the Australian Aboriginal Cultures Gallery [AACG]
- Chapter 7: An Exploration of Digital Representation of Australian Aboriginal Art in Museums for Immersive Engagement
- Chapter 8: Clapsticks: Investigating Curatorial Opportunities and the Representation of Cultural Data
- Chapter 9: Investigating Alternate World Views: Implications for Design, Architecture and Cultural Records
- Chapter 10: More Than an Exhibition: Finding Voice, Tiati (Truth), and New Perspectives
- Part 3: Body of Experience (Sectional Synopsis)
- Chapter 11: Yarning Journeys: Ngadjuri Perspectives on Cultural Heritage
- Chapter 12: The Significance of Country: Ngadjuri Voices and Cultural Heritage
- Chapter 13: Agency and Authority in Intangible Cultural Heritage [ICH]
- Chapter 14: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in South Australia: Where to Next?
- Part 4: Representation (Sectional Synopsis)
- Chapter 15: ‘Intersites of Knowledge’: Jules Janssen's Nineteenth-century Astronomical Apparatus and a Contemporary Moving Image System
- Chapter 16: Augmented Reality [AR] Storytelling for the Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums [GLAM] Sector: A Case Study with the South Australian Museum Fire Exhibit and Megafauna Displays
- Chapter 17: Can the Transdisciplinary Co-creation of Extended Reality [XR] Artworks Help Decolonise the Glam Sector?
- Chapter 18: Beyond the Inanimate Line: Expanding Narratives of Drawings in Contemporary Creative Practice and Architectural Education
- Conclusions and Future Speculations
- Index