Here is the link to the Omeka item.
The item you see here is a corncob pipe. It is made for smoking tobacco. It is actually unknown when and where it was created, and to whom it belonged to.
Question 1:
- How does attempting to model an object compare to simply viewing one in an exhibition?
I think that attempting to model an object makes you see more detail of the object. You need to view it in every way possible so that the app captures the essence of what the object is. So modeling an object seems to be better if you try to fully see what the object is, with its tiny details. Viewing it in an exhibition, on the other hand, isn’t that great if you try to view its details. Usually if you go to an exhibition, you would just spin the object around, zoom in and out, and walk away without really “looking” at the object itself. I think that attempting to model the object makes you learn more about it rather than viewing it in an exhibition. A good comparison would be if you were studying a subject intensively in a class (modeling) compared to reading a paragraph of that subject on Wikipedia (exhibition viewing). But then again, sometimes I would just prefer to read a log line or two from Wikipedia rather than learning an entire book on a subject. So I think that if you want to just quickly know what the “thing” is, I would suggest just viewing it in an exhibition. But if you would really like to delve deeply into its intricacies, I would suggest modeling the object itself to get a full sense (and to see it in person too).
Question 2:
- Does the process of photogrammetry encourage close looking and attention to details you might otherwise have ignored?
Yes, I think that the process of photogrammerty does encourage me to look closer and pay more attention to the details that I might otherwise have ignored. Personally, when I first started to use the app and make the model of the corncob pipe, I wasn’t actually “excited” to know what the corncob pipe is. But after trying to model it with the app, I became more engaged. Moreover, compiling and making a 3D model from the corncob photos with Metashape also made it interesting, which in turn, encouraged me to see which details did it cut out, or which spot was left blank, and so on and so fourth.
5 thoughts on “Blog Week 5”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hi Jeremy, I really like how you used in class learning and Wikipedia learning as a analogy for modeling and exhibiting viewing! It really puts things into perspective. The corncob pipe has so much unknown to it, modeling hopefully brings more into perspective and will help us learn more about the object. I wonder how this object even came into the college’s possession. Did someone donate it? Did someone in archives just dig it out of a hidden box somewhere on campus? Are the patterns on the pipe unique in any special way? It would be really cool if we could do a DNA extraction…..
Hi, agree that the act of modeling the object itself opens the door to learning more about the object. Through this process you become more knowledgeable about the object and have to understand nuances which are probably looked over in a exhibition context. While this type of interaction is only possible by interacting with the objects itself 3d modeling allows you to get closer to the real object than articles or pictures. I also think its interesting that we don’t know the origin of the object. It seems weird that Carleton would archive an object along with no extra information.
I totally agree with the idea that the process of photogrammetry does encourage people to look closer and pay more attention to the details that might otherwise have been ignored. Your experience with seeing the corncob pipe closer up and recognizing detail is something very similar to the experience I had using the photogrammetry model. The example you brought up about comparing it to reading a book on the object was also something I found interesting that I didn’t consider before hand.
Hi, I like your comparison between classroom learning and learning from Wikipedia. I agree that the process of photogrammetry gives us a closer look at the artifact, allowing us to observe more details. I felt the same way when our group explored a piece of library mosaic—something I would have easily overlooked without this project. Building its model helped me learn more about its history.
Hi Jeremy, I totally agree with you that modeling an object requires a higher attention to detail. Furthermore, I also agree with you that photogrammetry makes the observation process more engaging and fun. I became interested in the history of my model as I spent more time with it and analyzed its details.