Mall skapad a

v Henrik

HOW CAN ONE CREATE AN AURA

FROM A DIGITAL

REPRODUCTION?

Master Degree Project in Media, Aesthetics and

Narration A1E

One year Level XX ECTS Spring term 2017

Moa Andersson

Supervisor: Lissa Holloway-Attaway

Examiner: Johan Almer

Abstract

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction? According to researchers like

Walter Benjamin (1936) this is not possible. However with todays technology and digital

media it is worth looking into how it would be possible.

Museums are looking for ways to expand the experiences of their exhibitions with the

help of digital media, but research into authenticity and aura in digital reproductions is

limited. This research aims to answer if it is possible to create an aura from a digital

reproduction and in what way that would be done.

Keywords: Authenticity, Aura, Digital Reproduction, simulacra, Benjamin

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................... - 1 -

2 Background .................................................................................................... - 2 -

2.1 Cultural heritage ................................................................................................. - 2 -

2.2 Authenticity ......................................................................................................... - 3 - 2.2.1 Object based authenticity ........................................................................................... - 3 - 2.2.2 Existential authenticity ................................................................................................ - 4 - 2.2.3 Staged Authenticity .................................................................................................... - 4 -

2.3 Aura .................................................................................................................... - 5 -

2.4 Simulation and Simulacra ................................................................................... - 6 -

3 Problem .......................................................................................................... - 9 -

3.1 Method ................................................................................................................ - 9 - 3.1.1 Interview ................................................................................................................... - 10 - 3.1.2 Design ...................................................................................................................... - 12 -

4 The Prototype ............................................................................................... - 14 -

5 Pilot study – testing the evaluation method .............................................. - 16 -

6 The study ...................................................................................................... - 18 -

6.1 Session One – off location, without lecture ....................................................... - 18 -

6.2 Session Two – off location, with lecture ............................................................ - 19 -

6.3 Session Three – on location, with lecture .......................................................... - 20 -

6.4 Session Four – on location, without lecture ....................................................... - 22 -

7 Analysis ........................................................................................................ - 24 -

8 Conclusions ................................................................................................. - 28 -

8.1 Summary .......................................................................................................... - 28 -

8.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................ - 28 -

8.3 Future Work ...................................................................................................... - 29 -

References .......................................................................................................... - 31 -

9 APPENDIX .................................................................................................... - 33 -

9.1 Statistics ........................................................................................................... - 33 - 9.1.1 Session One- off location, without lecture ................................................................ - 33 - 9.1.2 Session Two – off location, with lecture ................................................................... - 34 - 9.1.3 Session Three – on location, with lecture ................................................................ - 35 - 9.1.4 Session Four – on location, without lecture ............................................................. - 36 -

9.2 Interviews ......................................................................................................... - 37 - 9.2.1 Session 1 Participant 1 ............................................................................................ - 37 - 9.2.2 Session 1 Participant 2 ............................................................................................ - 38 - 9.2.3 Session 1 Participant 3 ............................................................................................ - 39 - 9.2.4 Session 1 Participant 4 ............................................................................................ - 40 - 9.2.5 Session 2 Participant 1 ............................................................................................ - 41 - 9.2.6 Session 2 Participant 2 ............................................................................................ - 43 - 9.2.7 Session 2 Participant 3 ............................................................................................ - 45 - 9.2.8 Session 2 Participant 4 ............................................................................................ - 47 - 9.2.9 Session 3 Participant 1 ............................................................................................ - 48 -

9.2.10 Session 3 Participant 2 ............................................................................................ - 50 - 9.2.11 Session 3 Participant 3 ............................................................................................ - 51 - 9.2.12 Session 3 Participant 4 ............................................................................................ - 53 - 9.2.13 Session 4 Participant 1 ............................................................................................ - 55 - 9.2.14 Session 4 Participant 2 ............................................................................................ - 57 -

- 1 -

1 Introduction

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?

The transition between the analog to the digital in today’s society is prevalent. The usage of

digital media is ever increasing and is becoming increasingly common in our everyday lives.

Even in our cultural activities we often encounter digital objects and experiences.

Traditionally, we go to museums and visit cultural heritage sites in person, but what would

happen if these experiences also were converted to digital media? What would happen with

our perceptions of authenticity? Would we find that digital artifacts retain the sense of truth,

the aura, of traditional material artifacts?

My research will delve into the transition between the analog and the digital. In 2005, the

ruins of an old church were found next to the abbey in the small town of Varnhem, outside of

Skara in Sweden. What was found was the remnants of one of Sweden’s first stone churches,

and interest in the location spiked (see section 2.5). I will be creating digital representations

of these ruins as they might have looked like when they were originally built. These digital

representations will be tested to see if visitors/tourists associate them the authentic originals

and if, then it they are able to convey an aura of “truth.”. This will be done through a series of

interviews, both on location at the ruins where users will be shown a movie clip of the digital

representation, as well as off location, where users will be shown the same clip. Participants

in the experience will be recorded and studied, in combination with an interview.

- 2 -

2 Background

There are several different concepts to understand before one can create and test authentic

cultural heritage experiences.

To create an authentic experience, I will base my research on different categories of

authenticity, object-based, existential and staged authenticity, outlined further below in

section 2.2. Theorists like MacCannell (1976) and Wang (1999) have concretized and

categorized authenticity, specifically related to tourism studies. As my research specifically

focused on museum sites and visitor’s perception, research drawn from tourism studies is

essential.

Walter Benjamin’s concept of the aura is central to my research (1936). As my research

revolves around authenticity and how one can create authentic experiences aura will have a

central part in the results of this study. Applying Benjamin’s definition of the aura provides

measurable outcomes, and it will be a basis from which I can measure the prototype to see if

visitor’s perceive it as authentic. According to Benjamin himself a prototype such as this one,

a digital reproduction would be completely unable to have an aura as it is not the original

artefact. However scholars like MacCannell (1976) argue the exact opposite and claim that

when a reproduction is created then this is when the aura is generated. (This is outlined further

in section 2.3).

Other central terms for my research simulation and simulacra as referenced by Baudrillard in

his book Simulation and Simulacra (1981). Baudrillard refers to simulacra as a simulation of

something that does not, or no longer, exists. As the prototype to my research is a digital

representation of how historians believe the churches looked, no one can be certain exactly

how they did. In the prototype a high fidelity is always sought after but it is impossible to be

100 % correct. This is what makes the prototype a simulacrum.

2.1 Cultural heritage

Heritage stems from the French concept of patrimoine translated to heritage. From the 1790 when the term started being used it had symbolised the ceremony of handing down items and belongings from parents to children. (Vecco 2010). This later evolved into patrimoine culturel, or cultural heritage, which now involved the arts and national heritages as well. According to UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) the term encompasses several categories.

• Tangible cultural heritage

• Movable cultural heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts)

• Immovable cultural heritage (monuments, archaeological sites, etc)

• Underwater cultural heritage (shipwrecks, underwater ruints and citites)

• Intangible cultural heritage (oral traditions, performing arts, rituals) (UNESCO, n.d.)

UNESCO is an organisation whose purpose is, per them, “…to contribute to the building of

peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue

through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information.” (UNSESCO, n.d.)

Most famously known for their World Heritage List, UNESCO lists natural, cultural or mixed

locations of the world that are to be legally protected through international treaties.

- 3 -

My research takes place in the Immovable cultural heritage and its transition into the digital

media. Immovable cultural heritage refers to a location or a specific

monument/archaeological piece. In the case of this research the ruins of Varnhem is a good

example of Immovable cultural heritage. A more famous example of this is the Machu Picchu

in Peru or the Tower of London in England.

2.2 Authenticity

In tourism studies authenticity has held a central part in experiences related to historical

events and locations. Researchers like Rickly-Boyd (2012), Wang (1999) and MacCannell

(1976) have summarized and concretized the different kinds of authenticity and collectively

they provide several key definitions relevant to my research: objective authenticity, existential

authenticity, constructed authenticity and staged authenticity.

Wang (1999) points out that there are two separate issues within authenticity studies that are

often confused as one. A tourist’s experience and toured objects. While my research focuses

upon both of these, the experience is what I am most interested in, as it is the visitor’s

perception of the whole experience that I aim to test for authenticity.

Below I will detail three different concepts of authenticity from Wang (1999) and MacCannell

(1976): Objective, existential and staged authenticity.

2.2.1 Object based authenticity

Objective authenticity refers to the authenticity of originals. Correspondingly,

authentic experiences in tourism are equated to an epistemological experience

(i.e., cognition) of the authenticity of originals.

Wang (1999)

Object based authenticity is closely related to Benjamin’s definition of aura, outline below.

Object based authenticity focuses on the genuineness of objects, artifact and structures. For

example the ruins featured in my prototype would be object-based authenticity as they are

without a doubt historically accurate in that they are meant to represent the actual history of

the site. Visitors whose aim is to experience the ruins themselves will experience object-

based authenticity.

As with Benjamin’s aura, object based authenticity cannot be experienced in reproductions

as its “genuineness” is lost. It is the originality of an object, structure or location that

determines the experience of object based authenticity.

Boorstin (1961) call tourism a pseudo-event where tourist seek inauthenticity in response to

their inauthentic lives. He believed that tourists replace the authenticity with their own

provincial expectations. In relation to this, object based authenticity would be the authentic

experience in which a visitors experience is replaced by pseudo-event where they exchange

the experience with their own provincial affordances. MacCannell (1976) countered this with

his belief that visitors seek authenticity in response to their alienation to modernity. He

believed that there is a connection between the visitors expected authenticity and the actual

authenticity of the location. They can be two different things and what the visitor experience

may not be completely authentic but it is perceived that way. This is where objective

authenticity ends and staged authenticity begins. See section 2.2.3.

- 4 -

2.2.2 Existential authenticity

“…existential authenticity, unlike object-related version, can often have

nothing to do with the issue of whether toured objects are real. In search of

tourist experience which is existentially authentic, tourists are preoccupied

with an existential state of Being activated by certain tourist activities.”

Wang (1999)

Existential authenticity relates to a state of being, that is with a feeling or perception of

authenticity within the tourist themselves. A more philosophical version than previously

mentioned objective authenticity, existential authenticity relates to being true to oneself.

(Wang 1999).

According to Heidegger’s Being and Time (1962, Chapter 1) the concept of “being” is related

to authenticity. He explains that the essence of human being (or Dasein) lies in existence. And he divides these into inauthentic and authentic existence. He means that human beings can use their existence as their own authentic way or in something that is not their own, which then becomes inauthentic. In relation to tourism studies it is Heidegger’s definition of “being” that can be tied to existential authenticity. Wang (1999) separates existential authenticity into two different categories. Inter-personal and intra-personal. Intra-personal authenticity relates to ones own bodily feelings and self making. Examples of this could be relaxation, rehabilitation, recreation, adventure. This might be to go off the “beaten track” and to do something out of the ordinary, away from the monotony of everyday life. Inter-personal authenticity relates to ones own family ties and communities. Examples of this could be travelling as a family, together for holidays. Touristic communitas relates to liminality which, just like with self making, refers to something out of the ordinary. Something apart from everyday life, such as holidays, travelling together etc.

2.2.3 Staged Authenticity

“In highly developed tourist settings, such as San Francisco and Switzerland, every detail of touristic experience can take on a showy, back-region aspect, at last for fleeting moments. Tourists enter tourist areas precisely because their experiences there will not, for them, be routine [...] And once tourists have entered touristic space, there is no way out for them so long

as they press their search for authenticity. Near each tourist setting there are others

like the last. Each one may be visited, and each one promises real and convincing

shows of local life and culture.”

MacCannell (1973) P 601.

Staged authenticity is a concept that even for its creator has been equated with something

negative. It is when something is that is not authentic is viewed as authentic by tourists.

Arguably my research is strongly tied to staged authenticity as complete authenticity and

historical fidelity is impossible to achieve with the information that we have. However tourists

will view it as authentic, creating the “staged” authenticity.

MacCannell coined the expression of staged authenticity and used it in relation to something

that is “fake”. MacCannell argues that it is in the quest of object based authenticity that tourists

falls victim to the “staged authenticity”.

- 5 -

Just like with Boorstin’s pseudo-events MacCannell’s staged authenticity refers directly to

museums and object based authenticity. This refers to a touristic experience being

epistemological based, rather than experiential. However, most touristic experiences are more

completed than this; very few are completely black and white. According to Wang (1999)

authenticity is a wide spectrum. What academics and historians might view as inauthentic

might be viewed as authentic by tourists, such as Medeltidsveckan, or the “Medievil week”, on

Gotland. Historians knows very little about how people lived during the middle ages, but the

event claims to be authentic and is perceived that way by visitors. Aronsson and Larsson

(2002).

2.3 Aura

“Lying back on a summer’s afternoon, gazing at a mountain range on the

horizon or watching a branch as it casts its shadow over our reclining

limbs, we speak of breathing in the aura of those mountains or that

branch.” -Benjamin, W (1936) P 9.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) by Walter Benjamin details

his notion of aura and mechanical reproduction and his disapproval with the use of

reproduction in relation to authenticity and aura. Benjamin believed that the art of mechanical

reproduction not only lessened the aura of the actual object, but the replica produced will be

completely void of any aura from the artifact itself.

Benjamin believed that the authenticity of an object is tied to ritual and tradition. From the

authenticity of the artefact, an aura is born. He argues that the aura is tied to the experience,

the engagement with the artifact and its authenticity.

Interestingly, MacCannell (1976) argued that Benjamin inverted the ideas of aura and

authenticity.

‘‘He should have reversed his terms. The work becomes “authentic” only after the first copy

of it is produced. The reproductions are the aura, and the ritual, far from being a point of

origin, derives from the relationship between the original object and its socially constructed

importance.”

(MacCannell 1976) P 4.

What MacCannell means is that the reproduction is the aura, whereas Benjamin argues the

exact opposite: that is that a work loses its aura as soon as the first reproduction is made.

Many games today incorporate historical places and artefacts to appear more “tied” to modern

society. To help players become more “immersed” in the game. An example of a series who

have taken this to the extreme is the Assassin’s Creed games (2007-present). The latest

installment in the series, as of 2016, is Assassin’s Creed Syndicate. The game takes place in the

17th century London during the industrial revolution. Img 1 is a screen capture from the game

and illustrates one of the many streets of London.

- 6 -

Img 1 ”Assassins Creed Syndicate”

When the player walks around in the game, they are meant to experience similar feelings that

the people who lived during this time did. They can have similar affordances to places in the

game based on what they have experienced with the main character. People living in London

are able to recognize places and areas throughout the game world, enhancing the aura. This is

technically a mechanical reproduction, which according to Benjamin would be completely void

of any kind of aura. Although the aura might be different, it is still prevalent in the game.

2.4 Simulation and Simulacra

To discuss simulation and simulacra one must also understand the concept of “hyperreality”

that Jean Baudrillard (1981) references in his work Simulacra and Simulation.

“Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the

concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a

substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a

hyperreal.”

- Baudrillard, J. (1981 p1.)

Baudrillard writes at length about various descriptions of the second world war and how the

media chose to depict it. He argues that the hyperreality is not the reality of the war, but the

world that the media had created depicting the war. Similarily, Henry Jenkins (2006) speaks

of convergence culture in his book of the same name. In one of the chapters, aptly named

“Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community”, Jenkins describes the internet

community of fans of the specific TV show Survivor, and his description is connected to

Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality. It is a group of people from different corners of the

world creating a world within the internet to be able to, as Jenkins described, “spoil” Survivor.

It is also a good example of convergence culture and multiplatform media, as it stretches

beyond just the internet but also utilizes real world assets, such as users geographical position,

to solve the riddle of the future of the show. The “hyperreality” in this, being the socially

constructed groups on the internet using their constructed theories to tie into real world

experiences in their effort to “spoil” Survivor. Thus creating a fictional version of how they

believe the show will end. Possibly wrong, and possibly right, they will not know until the show

is aired and that “truth” that they have created described a “hyperreality”.

- 7 -

Baudrillard (1981) begins his book with a quote from Ecclesiastes:” The simulacrum is never

what hides the truth – it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is

true.”

This interesting quote hints at Baudrillard’s own ideas of hyperreality and simulation. He

describes vividly hyperreality and the simulacrum of the information spread by the media. In

the “The Gulf War will not take place” in a French newspaper called Liberation (1991),

Baudrillard also writes about the budding war at the time. During the same year, he published

two more essays with the same topic in the magazine, “The Gulf War is not really taking place”

and “The Gulf War did not take place”. In these three essays Baudrillard does not deny that

there is an actual war, taking place in the Gulf, contrary to the titles of the essays. However,

he claims that in essence, media’s representation of the war is a form of simulacra. He argues

that the media presented a different image of the war than in reality, specifically in relation

to the actual “fighting”. He refers to the fact that there were very little man versus man combat

but instead America relied on airpower, thusly suffering little casualties. The hyperreality

created by the media of the horrific war with hundreds and thousands of casualties is a

simulacrum. A reality that has no substance or truth

anchored in the “real world”. This would entail that a

simulacrum is something forged, or “fake”.

A more straightforward, as well as relevant for my project,

example of simulacra is the statue that stands in

Gothenburg, Sweden and is called “Poseidon” by Carl Milles

(1931). As Poseidon is, as far as we know, a fictional

character this statue is in essence a representation or

simulation of something that does not exists, thus it is a

simulacrum.

Img 2 “Poseidon by Carl Milles (1931)”

In conclusion:

Simulation: The representation or “simulation” of something that exists, something real.

Simulacra: The representation or “simulation” of something that does not exist, or no longer

exists.

2.5 The history of the ruins of Varnhem

Varnhem is a smaller village location outside of Skara in Västergötalands län in Sweden. It

houses the abbey that was built around 1100. During the 1920’s excavations around the abbey

something was found on the small hill just above it. However due to time restraints and budget

the finds were not excavated any further and the ruins location just below the ground had to

wait almost a hundred years before they saw the surface again. In 2005 the small hill was

finally properly excavated by archaeologists and what was found was something that no one

was expecting. Ruins dating back as far as to the 900’s was identified as a church. This might

not have been such a big deal if one did not take into consideration that this was during the

Viking age in Sweden. Swedes were not Christian in this area during this time. Or at least so it

- 8 -

was believed. However the finds in the ruins and around it pointed irrefutably to the early turn

of the century 950-1000.

What was found was the remnants of two chuches. The first was a smaller wooden church,

believed to have existed around the 950’s. It was then replaced by a bigger stone church around

1050. The church was commissioned by the owners of the private farm located there at the

time, Kättil and Kata. Interestingly both of their bodies were found to be rather intact buried

right next to the ruins. Especially Kata who was in a finer grave with a beturifully crafted lid

which had runes chiselled into it. “Kättil gjorde denna sten efter Kata sin hustru Torgils

syster”. Or ”Kättil made this stone after Kata his wife Torgils sister.” This proves that the

skeleton inside was indeed Kata and papers from the time also confirmed that she was the

owner of the farm during the time the stone church was commissioned.

This was the early 1000’s however and the art of building in stone had not yet been established

in Sweden. This meant that contractors from England was hired to come and build the church,

which suggests good relations between the two countries.

As only ruins remains of the churches it is impossible to know exactly how they looked like.

However, archeologists are able to make guesses based on existing churches and based on the

finds on the location they are able to paint a rather authentic picture of what it looked like.

Naturally they cannot be 100 % sure, which is were this research comes in.

- 9 -

3 Problem

According to Benjamin (1936) a reproduction cannot have an aura. Only the original artefact

can have an aura. This would mean that a simulacra can never have an aura. If an aura cannot

be perceived it is hard to deem the experience authentic. Herein lies the problem. The

prototype for my research is a digital representation (a simulacrum) of a pre-existing artefact

(the ruins). It is impossible to create a completely authentic digital representation as no one

knows exactly what the ruins looked like when they were whole. According to Benjamin it

would not then be possible for them to have an aura, or air of truth or authenticity, since

complete object-based authenticity is impossible to achieve in digital form.

In my research I will look into how one can construct authentic experiences using digital media

by reconstructing a form of aura that extends to the context in which the museum visitor is

located. My hypothesis is that the location of the experience is the key to maximising the effect.

For example I believe that the aura will be more potent if the participants are on location by

the ruins rather than if they participate in the experience on a different location. This is

relevant to the theme of object-based authenticity, and if one can enhance the connection

between the ruins and the prototype (see section 5) my hypothesis is that the aura will be

stronger.

Regardless of the location of the experience the fact remains that the prototype will have some

elements of staged authenticity. Viewed mostly in a negative light, my research will take

advantage of the stronger sides of staged authenticity. The ruins will be staged in as authentic

a way as possible, but it will be staged only to a certain degree. This however is countered by

the fact that the ruins themselves are completely authentic, and everything included in my

design is done in relation to them.

Today’s society is becoming increasingly digital and research surrounding this transition in

relation to cultural heritage and authenticity is important. It could be beneficial for

researchers to see if there is a possibility of creating an aura from a digital reproduction since

it is possible that this could benefit patrons’ experience with the artefact.

This leads to the primary question upon which I base my research: How can one create an aura

from a digital reproduction?

3.1 Method

To be able to understand how one can construct authentic cultural heritage experiences I aim

to test my prototype at two different locations.

There will be four different groups of testers. Two of the groups will view the artefact on

location at the ruins in Varnhem, and two of the groups will view the artefact on another

neutral location. Neutral here refers to a location that has no apparent connection with the

ruins in question. This to separate the experience of the digital reproduction from the original.

The first group testing on location by the ruins will be given a tour and a short presentation by

a historian that will tell them about the ruins and about the history of the place. This to set the

scene, as well as to create a feeling of authenticity by using a person presumed to have

authority and knowledge of the subject-matter, to provide a context for visitors by telling them

about the place and its history.

- 10 -

The second group that will view the artefact on location will not be given a presentation by the

authority figure. Then I will test to see if there is any difference in their perception of the

experience, particularly regarding it’s authenticity and connection to the locations referenced.

The third group will test at a neutral location, one with no ties to the ruins in Varnhem or to

any other type of cultural heritage. They will receive the exact same presentation as the first

group by the same person of authority, following the viewing of the artefact.

The fourth and final group will test on the same location as the third one, however without the

presentation. Excluding the presentation the test will be conducted in an identical way as the

previous group. Excluding the presentation will aim to test if there is any difference removing

the person of authority in the experience of the users. Will they view the experience as less

authentic when not being prefaced by a presentation?

Following each of the tests an interview will be conducted and the participants will take part

in a short survey to see how they perceived the experience. (See section 3.1.1)

I aim to see if there is any difference in the perception of the experience between the different

locations. If so it will confirm my theory that the ruins, ergo the object-based authenticity, will

create a stronger sense of aura. Each group will consist of approximately 5 participants. In

relation to focus groups Alan Bryman (2016) advises in his book Social Research Methods that

the size of the group should be between six to ten members. Considering that the method

utilized in this project is considered qualitative rather than pure focus groups, the goal will be

to have about 4-5 members in each group.

The entirety of the experience will be recorded so that it will be possible to study the

participant’s reaction with the location and with the prototype itself.

3.1.1 Interview

The interview will contain an individual session where I will take the participants one on one

and conduct an interview. Considering the time it will take to interview all of them, I will keep

the interviews very short. They will answer a few questions and then get to pick between the

words detailed below.

The model that is detailed below is loosely based on Lemay & Maheux-Lessard’s (2010)

Semantic Differential Model where they took two “extreme” emotions and put them on either

side of a spectrum where participants could choose a number closest to the feeling that best

symbolized their experience.

- 11 -

Img 3 Semantic differential question sheet by P.Lemay and M.Maheux-Lessard (2010) p96.

In this study the testing will be conducted similarly, but not identically.

I will sit the participant down and present them with 20 different words: 10 of which will

describe aura with Benjamin’s (1936) own words, and 10 of which will be the opposite of these

words.

Uniqueness Ordinariness

Connectedness Detachment

History Contemporary

Location Elsewhere

Authenticity Falseness

Presence Absence

Original Reproduction

Community/Inclusion Separation/Exclusion

Tradition New

Ritual Mundane

- 12 -

The green words are from Walter Benjamin (1936) and the yellow marked ones are from Ning

Wang (1999) in their work Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience in relation to

Benjamin’s notion of aura.

Participants will be given all these words in a different order and mixed so that they are not

able to directly see which one of the words are antonyms of each other. They will be asked to

choose 10 words out of 20 to describe the experience they had at the ruins with the

prototype/video.

The rest of the interview excluding the words portrayed above will be traditionally performed,

in line with Bryman’s (2016) writings. It will be semi-structured with a few questions detailing

interests of the participants and their background in the theme of the study. It will be recorded

and transcribed, see Appendix.

The main feature of the interview will be centred around choosing the words and their

discussion about the words that they picked. Hence the choice of having semi-structured

interview as it gives the possibility for follow up questions regarding their discussions.

The prepared questions of the interview are as follows:

What are your initial thoughts upon seeing this video?

(If they were introduced with the lecture) Did you connect the video and the lecture?

Do you see a connection between the ruins in Varnhem and this video?

What do you think about using a digital medium to reflect history and culture?

Do you think that a digital representation can give the same “feeling” as being by the original

artefact?

Do you think it is possible to get a “feeling” about the location just through watching this kind

of video?

Do you have any thoughts about the experience?

3.1.2 Design

The prototype, outlined in section 4, is design iteratively in close collaboration with the client,

Västergötlands museum. The Prototype itself will be an animated sequence showing the

different stages of construction the ruins have gone through over the course of history. During

the design of the sequence drawings and concept sketches have been made by the museum

curator to illustrate exactly how they wish the churches to look like. The client wants two

different iterations of the church: The first being a wooden church that was believed to be on

the location before the stone church, which has left the visible ruins; The second being the

stone church itself. The sequence is designed to show the different parts of the churches and

how they are constructed, meaning that the actual construction of the digital models have to

have a high historical fidelity.

- 13 -

Img 2 “The wooden church” by Göran Elisson 2016 Img 3 “The stone church-side” by Göran Elisson 2016

- 14 -

4 The Prototype

The prototype in it’s entirety consists of a video, around 2 minutes long. It features two

different buildings from two different time periods of the location previously mentioned as

Varnhem, just outside of Skara, Sweden.

The video starts of with a so-called establishing shot. A view from where the scene is set and

viewers are given a setting to where the video will take place.

Img 4 “Grass hills” Moa Andersson (2017)

The video then goes through to the top of the hill seen in Img 4, where the first building is built

up step by step.

The buildings, or churches, as they were, constructed in conjunction with strict measurements

from the ruins on location and drawings made by the museum. (See img 2 and 3. ) This means

that they hold a high historical fidelity which is important for this study as it is possible that

they are perceived as authentic.

The second church is seen in more detail as it is the church that has left ruins behind that are

still visible today. Viewers will travel into the church and even into the crypt below that is the

most preserved structure in the ruins.

The video ends at the same place that it started to ensure that it is loop-able since the end goal

is for it to play at the exhibition by the ruins themselves.

- 15 -

Img 5“The wooden church” Moa Andersson (2017) Img 6 “The stone church” Moa Andersson (2017)

- 16 -

5 Pilot study – testing the evaluation method

The pilot study’s goal is to test the evaluation method to see if it is able to somehow measure

such an illusive concept as an aura, according to Benjamin’s definition (1936). Because of time

restrictions, the pilot is conducted over the internet, where participants only get to view an

early draft of the prototype, as the final product is not finished at the time of the testing. They

will then be given the 20 words described in section 3.1.1 and will be choosing 10 of these to

describe the video they just saw.

A detailed interview will not be conducted in this pilot study as the goal is to evaluate if the

method previously outlined is suitable for this type of testing. The goal is not to truly test the

research question but merely evaluate the means to be able to do so.

There are four different participants in this study: Three males and one female with a similar

familiarity with Swedish history and 3D art. The interview is conducted and recorded over

Discord, a chat program on the computer that allows for long distance calls.

Pilot study results

The pre-study shows that the method in itself works. It also brought to light a few interesting

key points: 100 % of testers chose both “authenticity” and “history” todescribe the experience,

and three out of four chose “reproduction.” This is interesting since Walter Benjamin (1936)

identifies reproduction as the main enemy of aura. He claims that a reproduction can have no

aura since it lacks objective authenticity. However the testers of the pilot identified

authenticity and history as well as reproduction. This indicates that they must have

experienced some sort of authenticity in the experience. Herein lies a problem however. As

previously described authenticity can be divided into several different categories. Object

based-, existential- and staged- authenticity (Wang 1999, MacCannell 1976). It would be

interesting to find out what type of authenticity the participants perceived, but that might be

very hard to identify. Arguably one would assume that they would fall into the category of

existential or staged authenticity rather than object based. As the video lacks any real objective

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 17 -

authenticity (Wang 1999) it would then be reasonable to assume that their experience of

authenticity, as the result of the pilot shows that they did, would fall into the category of either

existential or staged. My belief is that as the experience is staged as authentic their perception

would be that of a staged authenticity. They perceive the experience as 100 % authentic even

though it might not be. As full authenticity is impossible when only ruins remains of the actual

buildings it is impossible to have a complete historic fidelity.

This would also be interesting since Benjamin’s (1936) description of authenticity falls under

the category of object based authenticity (Wang 1999). The pilot shows that the words related

to aura dominated the study. All of the participants chose more words related to aura than

words not related to aura. This would mean that they did feel some sort of affect of the video

that could be described as an aura. It will be interesting to see if this will be effected, negatively

or positively, by watching the video on location or off location. As the main focus of this study

is to see if there is a difference in the perception of aura if the object is present whilst watching

a reproduction the result of the pilot is not completely viable. It was also done over the internet

as the goal was not to test the aura, but to test the method. However it is very interesting to

see that an aura can be perceived through such a crude version of the finished product. It

presents high hopes for the future finished prototype and the future tests.

My theory is that the location will enhance the aura as it ties into the object based authenticity,

but the initial thought from this pilot was shock as I did not believe that such a high number

would be produced just from the video alone. The video presents a staged authenticity that

presumably did convince testers that the work was authentic. I do believe that this would be

even more apparent if one would watch the video right next to the ruins themselves. You would

then see the actual outline of the buildings and be able to compare it to the buildings in the

video, hopefully realizing that they are indeed the same structures. My belief is that this would

increase the feeling of authenticity and tie the reproduction, which according to Benjamin

(1936) would be devoid of any aura, to the actual object, which according to Benjamin (1936)

would have an aura.

Another interesting point was the words that were not used by any of the participants.

Falseness, new and mundane. Their counterparts however were used by 50 % and more of the

testers, authenticity, tradition and ritual. Particularly when looking at authenticity vs falseness

100% of users picked authenticity and 0% picked falseness. A clear indicator that they all

perceived some sort of authenticity which would lead one to believe that the perceived an aura.

The result of this pilot study shows that the method is suitable for the main part of this

research.

- 18 -

6 The study

The complete testing consists of four different sessions. Two sessions on location in Varnhem

at the ruins to tie into the object based authenticity (Rickly-Boyd (2012) Wang (1999)), and

two sessions away from the location to see if the video can replace this authenticity and to

measure how the aura will differ with different variables. One session on location and one

session off location with feature a short lecture to give a context to the video, again to tie in to

the location and the authenticity of its history. This would theoretically make the video seem

more authentic and would hence give a stronger aura, (Benjamin 1936).

6.1 Session One – off location, without lecture

Session one was conducted with four participants in their home. The participants were of

different ages with similar background and interest in history. Two males and two females.

The four participants viewed the video in silence, with no context what so ever about what they

were watching or any background history of the location of any kind.

After viewing the video the were each given a sheet containing the 20 different words (detailed

above in section 3.1.1) and were told to pick 10 that best described their experience with the

video. Upon completion they were each taken aside to ask a few questions in a premade semi

structured interview that was recorded.

The answers to the question were not surprising. The hypothesis of this leg of the testing were

that the participants would experience the least amount of aura in comparison with the

remaining three sessions. Two of the participants were adamant that it was not possible to get

the same question from a digital reproduction as being by the original artefact, and two were

unsure. One of the participants answered: “Well, not the same feeling. But one could so to say

recreate the feeling still. Somehow…” (appendix p. 39 session 1, participant 4)

The results of the words are tallied below.

Session one – off location, without lecture words results

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 19 -

Session one – off location, without lecture words percentages

Although the words not related to aura was shown to an extent it was the words related to aura

that showed in a higher quantity. In contrast with the pilot study the word authenticity was

not highly represented. Only one of the participants chose the word, while two of the

participants chose reproduction. None of the words were mentioned before or during the test

to ensure not to affect the testers in any way when they chose their words.

6.2 Session Two – off location, with lecture

Session two was conducted identically to session one with the exception that a short lecture

was added before showing the video. The lecture was pre-recorded and told of the history of

the location and the connection between the video and the ruins on location. After seeing the

lecture the participants, two males and two females of different ages, were shown the video.

They were silent through the watching, with one or two gasps of recognition in between.

Upon completion of the two minute long video they were given the 20 words and told to pick

10 of them. One after the other was taken aside and asked the same questions as the previous

group, and these interviews were recorded.

The two younger participants, one male and one female, asked a few questions and referred to

the technology of the video, during the interview. Both replied more in favour to the

technology, rather than the history of the artefact, and reflected upon what type of changes

one could made in the technology to better immerse viewers. This in contrast with the two

older participants who answered purely in relation to the history and the effigy of the churches.

The result of the words were in conjunction with the first session, with a few differences.

62%

38%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 20 -

Session two – off location, with lecture words results

Session two – off location, with lecture words percentages

The presence of the words related to aura is staggering above the words not related to aura.

The difference to the previous session is a whopping 10 % in favor to aura. Adding a

background and an authentic lecture to the experience seems to have added to the aura.

6.3 Session Three – on location, with lecture

Session three was the first of the four groups that were conducted on location. The participants

arrived at the ruins together, and got to see the exhibition together. They were given a tour

and an identical amount of information as group two, as to ensure that the circumstances were

as similar as possible aside from the location variable.

The group was interested and excited during the tour, asked questions which were answered

if relevant to the information provided to the previous group. Upon completing the tour

around the ruins, where a physical model of the churches as they may have looked like

(identical to the digital representations in the video) were also displayed, the participants

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

72%

28%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 21 -

viewed the video together. They were told not to reflect openly and to, upon completion of the

video, pick the words individually.

The results are detailed below.

Session three – on location, with lecture words results

Session three – on location, with lecture words percentages

The words chosen were distinctly in favor to aura, with the highest representation so far. The

words chosen from the words not related to aura were contemporary, reproduction, new and

mundane. Some of which can be attributed to the technology and its properties rather than

the experience itself.

The interviews reflected the results of the words as the participants were positive towards the

inclusion of digital media in cultural heritage. One participants answered: “Yes it shows that

it can actually eh almost… go straight into your heart.” (appendix p. 51 session 3, participant

3) When asked if they had anticipated that before watching the video they replied with a firm

no.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

80%

20%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 22 -

6.4 Session Four – on location, without lecture

Session four had to unfortunately be slightly different that the other three. Two of the

participants did not show up for the test, so only two of the four planned participated. This

means that the data collected from this session is not as strong as the other three and the group

will therefore be treated more as a control group.

This session also posed a difficulty in that the participants were supposed to be given as little

background as possible, to mirror the first session. However surrounding the ruins there is an

exhibition with text and information about the history. Because of this the participants were

instructed to not read any of the text, but to only view the ruins and take in the atmosphere.

Having completed this task they viewed the video and picked their words.

Session four – on location, without lecture words results

Session four – on location, without lecture words percentages

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

75%

25%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 23 -

As there were fewer participants in this group in comparison to the others the data collected

in this session is not as strong as the others and can because of this not be compared to the

same degree with the other sessions. However the data points to a lesser degree of aura than

the previous session with the lecture included. This mirrors the results from session one and

two, but the variable of the location appear to have strengthened the aura somewhat.

- 24 -

7 Analysis

The results of this study is quite exactly in conjunction with the hypothesis. I believed that

adding the variable of the location to the experience would add to the aura, and even more so

when providing a historical background. It relates to the concept of authenticity, (Wang 1999,

Rickly-Boyd 2012, MacCannell 1976). Object based authenticity, as Benjamin (1936) described

to be the only type of authenticity that could create an aura, is in this case the ruins themselves.

They are the artifact, and the video is a simulacrum (Baudrillard 1981) of them. A simulacrum

is, as previously mentioned, a simulation of something that does not, or no longer, exists. It is

impossible to know exactly what the ruins looked like when they were buildings as there are

no photographs, and no one alive who saw them in their prime. One can make an educated

guess and it is very likely that the result of the digital representation is very similar to the

buildings that were there, but we will never know if this is true. Because of this the video in

itself cannot have an object based authenticity. This means that according to Benjamin (1936)

it would technically not be able to have an aura. However I believe that the authenticity in this

video is related to staged authenticity, (Wang 1999, Rickly-Boyd 2012, MacCannell 1976).

Staged authenticity, as previously mentioned in section 2.2.3, is something that appears to be

authentic, even though it might not for whatever reason be. It is this type of authenticity that

viewers of this digital representation is experiencing. They perceive the buildings to be

authentic, and are therefore able to get an aura from them. Adding the possibility to view the

ruins, the object based authenticity, along with the video, the staged authenticity, would

logically prove to enhance the notion that the video is authentic and therefore produce a higher

aura.

The results of this study support this. Session three showed the highest percentage of aura,

with 80% and session one showed the least percentage of aura, 62%.

Session 1 – Off location, without lecture Session 3 – On location, with lecture

These were also the sessions with the biggest amount of differences in between them. Session

one had no background, no history, just the video with no context. Session three had not only

the video, but also the location itself, the object based authenticity in the ruins, and the

heightened sense of staged authenticity in the lecture tying everything together.

The decision to include varying ages in the groups was interesting as it did show some

indication of the prioritizing among the ages. For example in session two, when asking if they

had anything to add about the experience the younger participants referenced how exciting it

was to see the technology and that they were impressed with it. The older participants were

far more impressed with the buildings and the history itself, rather than the means of showing

them.

62%38%

Words related to aura

Words not related to aura

80%

20%

Words related to aura

Words not related to aura

- 25 -

Younger male: ”No, not really… think it was good… since I know how long it takes to do these

things I think it was a good job.” (Appendix p. 41 Session 3 Participant 1)

Older male: ”No, it was interesting? Always fun to… how it was a long long long time ago and…

one thinks of what they could… how they could do things.” (Appendix p. 46 Session 3

participants 4)

Here the contrasts becomes apparent where the younger male talks about the actual

technology whereas the older male talks about the construction of the buildings and the

history of the message of the video.

This theme did shine through in the other sessions to a varying degree. The third session

featured two younger participants and two older ones. The younger reflected on the use of a

digital medium in a historic session and how that could benefit learning and the feeling of

authenticity. “It’s a very god way to be able in an easier way show how it looked like, how it

could build up and things like that. Good medium that could be used for more things in the

future.” (Appendix p. 49 Session 3 Participant 2) Whereas the two older participants were

surprised, bordering on shocked to see such a medium being effective in this settings. “…And

then when you come in and look at lots of stones, then it wouldn’t be… when someone has

worked with how that actually looked. Then you put the rocks in that context, and then it get’s

bigger.” (Appendix p. 51 Session 3 Participant 3) Note here how the older participant reference

to the history, and how the technology is being used to enhance the history, whereas the

younger participant merely reference the digital medium.

Another important thing to note about this video, and something that could have potentially

affected the aura it the fact that it is in some ways narratively driven. It starts of with an empty

hill, it then builds up the first church piece by piece, deconstructs that and makes way for the

bigger church. The camera then goes inside the church to show the inside, down into the crypt

and then up to the ceiling to show the construction. It would have been interesting to see if

there was any difference to the perception of aura if removing the animation and just having

the churches as still images. See section 8.3 for more ideas about this.

If one were to look at the most frequent words picked by participants the winning words by

far are history and location. Both unsurprising considering that the video is portraying history

and a location.

The words Number of times mentioned

History/ Location 14

Connectedness/ Tradition 11

Uniqueness/Original 10

Presence/Reproduction 9

- 26 -

Authenticity 8

Going down the list though, things get more interesting. Authenticity, being the strongest

word tied to aura is “only” mentioned 8 times during all of the tests. This in comparison to

reproduction which was mentioned 9 times. However to put it in perspective the max number

of times the words could be picked would be 14. So 8/14 is still over 60 % of the times.

The results do show that the impact of the testers was bigger when they were on site, rather

than off site. Although not surprising it is interesting so see the response that they had. When

looking at the responses of the participants, with the mindset of comparing the on/off location

aspect, the first thing I noticed was that generally speaking the ones who where on site had

more to say. Many of them made more correlations to their own interest and seemed more

engaged in general.

For example when asked if they believe it to be possible to receive a “feeling” about the location

through only watching a video a participant on the location answered:

“No, I would not have”… “And I view mostly the construction, you know. You know, people

around… it might not be so interesting.” (Appendix p. 53 Session 3 Participant 4) Note here

that they immediately referred to their own interest and made the correlation between

themselves and other viewers. In contrast a participant who were not on the location, when

asked the same question, answered:

“If it is very well done then one could probably get a could view into it. But it is probably not

comparable with reality.” (Appendix p. 37 Session 1 Participant 2) They do not stray from the

question, nor do they make any correlations or connections with anything else other than the

question asked. This pattern is repeated mostly throughout the first two sessions, whereas

during session two and three when they were on location participants became more engaged

and more likely to answer more elaborately. It could of course be due to differences in

personalities, but it is slightly too consistent to be disregarded completely.

The results speak for themselves when looking at what session created the biggest aura.

However, it is hard to know what component of that session is that enhanced the aura the

most. Is it the location? The video? The lecture? What I can say is that the video, in itself

without any background (session one) resulted in 62 % aura. The video in combination with a

lecture (session 2) resulted in 72 % aura. The video in combination with the location (session

four) resulted in 75 % aura, although not as reliable data because of lesser participants. And

finally the video in combination with the location and a lecture (session three) resulted in 80

% aura. Here it is apparent that the video in itself resulted 62 %. But it is hard to say what

exactly led to 80 % in the third session. Yes, the object based authenticity, in the ruins, made

the aura more potent but by how much? And yes the lecture enhanced the feeling of

authenticity when putting the ruins and the video in a historical context. But which one of

these gives the most? It is very likely that they effect each other, but in what way and by how

much? It is hard to say without further testing. But one way to find out would be to see how

much aura just viewing the ruins would be, without the lecture and without the video. And

then also just viewing the lecture, without the video or the location. Then one would be able to

see how much aura they each yield by themselves. I believe that they affect each other and

strengthen each other. It is when all three are together the aura is the most potent. I do not

- 27 -

believe that the ruins themselves would result in as much aura as they would in combination

with a lecture or background to put them in a historical context.

This entire study comes down to authenticity. The perception of authenticity is tightly tied to

aura, according to Walter Benjamin (1936). The three concepts of authenticity previously

discussed, in section 2.2, are object based authenticity, staged authenticity and existential

authenticity. The object based authenticity in this research are the ruins themselves.

Previously also called the location. It is this kind of authenticity that Benjamin (1936) believed

was the only kind of authenticity able to create an aura. This study does show that this type of

authenticity without a doubt enhances the aura, but not that an aura cannot exist without it.

This study evaluates the presence of aura in the two other types of authenticity. Staged and

existential. The staged authenticity is present in the fact that the reproduction cannot be 100

% true. The final authenticity, being existential as been previously left out but is without a

doubt very present in these sessions. Especially the two final ones.

“…existential authenticity, unlike object-related version, can often have

nothing to do with the issue of whether toured objects are real. In search of

tourist experience which is existentially authentic, tourists are preoccupied

with an existential state of Being activated by certain tourist activities.”

Wang (1999)

A quote previously used, but is relevant here as well. The perception of aura is a feeling,

something that is philosophical and very hard to measure. It is something that we experience

within ourselves. Therefore this experience and this research also falls into the category of

existential authenticity and I believe that it has as much a contribution to the overall sense of

aura as the object based authenticity has. I believe that this is one of the reasons that the final

two sessions resulted in a higher sensation of aura. When visiting the location the experience

becomes more of just that, an experience. Participants have to travel to a location, walk up the

hill and see the location from afar before having the privilege of coming inside. It is impossible

to know how big a role this type of authenticity has, as previously discussed it is impossible to

know what components of the experience did exactly what. But the fact that it played its part

is without question.

- 28 -

8 Conclusions

8.1 Summary

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?

This research shows that it is possible to do in a varying of ways with a varying of results. The

way to relay an aura with the most transmissible aura is to make use of both object based

authenticity and staged authenticity. Combining a digital reproduction with the original object

would thusly ensure that the aura shines through the reproduction as well. Even if the

reproduction is a simulacrum of what the artefact itself might have looked like. However, this

does not mean that an aura cannot exist without the artefact presence, or without object based

authenticity. Aura is still potent in a staged authenticity setting, as long as the reproduction

appears authentic. Although not as strong this study proves that it is still there.

Further testing is necessary to see the different tones and how much narrative can be used to

heighten or alternatively lessen the sense of aura.

This research shows that it is the combination of different kinds of authenticity that results in

the highest amount of aura. It was when combining the video (staged authenticity) with the

location (object based authenticity) and the lecture (object based authenticity) that they all

together created an existential authenticity in the experience. However further testing is

required to fully understand how much each of the different components actually added to the

aura individually.

Using these concepts that I have found to be effective, combining different kinds of

authenticity, in a museum environment could prove effective to the overall experience of an

exhibition. Using digital representations to set a scene and to show what the artefacts could

have looked like has heightened the knowledge of visitors and would bring to a higher level of

satisfaction.

The hypothesis previously described, the location being the key, is more complicated than so.

The location has a smaller impact than I first believed, it is the object based authenticity, the

artefact themselves, that provided this basis. However that is not to say that an artefact is

needed to be able to perceive an aura from a reproduction. This research clearly proves that.

8.2 Discussion

Work in relation to aura has so far been limited within digital studies. Benjamin’s The Work

of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) is an older work that does not relate to

digital culture in any way, as it was not invented at the time. It is hard to say what Benjamin

would think about a digital reproduction, however it is unlikely that it would change his notion

completely. Later in life, upon reflecting and gaining more experience, Benjamin did change

his mind somewhat during his later years, but could unfortunately not elaborate on this fully

before his death, (Rickly-Boyd 2012).

The debate between Walter Benjamin (1936) and MacCannell (1976) is interesting in relation

to this particular work as it is in relation to the reproduction of the original artefact. Benjamin

believed that a reproduction could not have an aura, whereas MacCannell claimed that it is

the reproduction that is the aura. This research does not firmly state that either of these

- 29 -

researchers were wrong, however it sheds some light in the grey areas in-between the two

extremes.

The simulacrum of a reproduction I find is an important distinction in this research. A

simulation of an artefact is just that. A 100% accurate simulation of something that exist and

that we know most things about, at least visually. This would be a mechanical reproduction

which according to Benjamin (1936) would not have an aura, but according to MacCannell

(1976) would have an aura. However the concept of a simulacrum strays even farther from the

object based-authenticity of a simulation, and more into the staged authenticity. A simulacrum

is a simulation of something that does not, or no longer exist. The particular reproduction in

this study is a simulacrum, in that it is a simulation of something that no longer exists. It

cannot be 100% authentic. This would mean that it would stray even farther away from the

object based authenticity and the original artefact, which would in theory lessen the aura even

further. The results of this study however proves that even though the aura might have

lessened, it is still there as long as the work is viewed to be authentic. This means that a

simulacrum can have an aura.

The work around authenticity has in contrast been far more vast and detailed, with researchers

such as MacCannell (1976), Wang (1999) and Rickly-Boyd (2012). It is through these

researchers and their theories that my work could take place, as it uses the concept concretized

by these researchers.

A big part of this particular study has been its use of the digital medium in relation to

authenticity and aura. The addition of digital on top of the mechanical reproduction should in

theory take viewers one further step away from the original. Something that Benjamin (1936)

would argue void of any aura. This study shows however that that is not the case. The digital

factor in this study dig not remove the aura, however it is hard to know if the aura would have

been greater if the reproductions had been done in the real world.

8.3 Future Work

Further testing is completely necessary to determine how authenticity and aura can be utilized

in digital reproductions. Although this work confirms that it is more than possible, the nuances

require further studying. More group sessions with different ages would be interesting to see

if different ages respond differently to the experience. And if this would impact the aura. This

study shows, at least through the interviews, that there is quite a big contrast between the

intentions and interest of young people contra older people, in regards to history and culture.

It would be interesting to see if this is a measurable difference in the aura.

A note about the actual video that the participants in this study got to view is that it can be

considered narratively driven. This is something that could in theory affect the aura, and

further testing would be necessary to find out if this is indeed the case. As the video transitions

between different stages in history it builds up, albeit subtly, the presence of a story. This could

be seen as something that would enhance the authenticity as well as the aura. Testing still

pictures and then different iterations between still images and the final video would be

interesting to measure if the aura changes throughout the different stages.

Another testing method would be to evaluate how big an impact the location had. In this

research testing was limited to either off location or on location. Perhaps one could add a step

- 30 -

in-between this, such as a museum environment. This would theoretically enhance the aura

further than a location with no relation to the artefact at all.

Breaking down the sessions that I have created into even smaller components could also prove

advantageous in our understanding of aura. For example, testing each of the components

individually would be interesting to see how much impact they each have on the overall

experience. Testing just the artefact, without a lecture or reproduction, and testing only the

lecture. Each of these could provide more of an answer to what resulted in the most amount

of aura. Was it the artefact (object based authenticity), was it the reproduction (staged

authenticity)? Was it the lecture? (Arguably a mix of all three kinds of authenticity, as it is an

experience and would therefore also fall into the category of existential authenticity). Or was

it a combination of all three, creating an experience (Object based, staged and existential

authenticity)? Unfortunately, this is a question that this research, in its current iteration, was

unable to answer. Therefore, further testing is necessary.

Testing to see if there is any difference in using a pure mechanical reproduction, such as a

sculpture or something similar, instead of the digital reproduction presented in this study

could also prove interesting as it would show if the digital factor increases or decreases the

authenticity and aura.

- 31 -

References

Aronsson, P. & Larsson, E. (2002). Konsten att lära och viljan att uppleva. Historiebruk och

upplevelsepedagogik vid Foteviken, Medeltidsveckan och Jamtli. Växjö: Centrum för

kulturvetenskap.

Baudrillard, J (1981) Simulacra and Simulation. The university of Michigan Press

Benjamin, W (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Penguin Books

Ltd

Bolter, J D., MacIntyre, B., Gandy, M., Schweitzer, P. (2006) Convergence Sage Publications.

London

Boorstin, D. J. 1964. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York:

Atheneum. Heidegger, M. 1962.Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press Lemay, P. & Maheux-Lessard, M., 2010. Investigating Experiences and Attitudes Toward

Videogames Using a Semantic Differential Methodology. In: R. Bernhaupt, ed. Evaluating

Using Experience in Games. Concepts and Methods. London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 89-106

MacCannell, D. 1976.The tourist: A new theory for the leisure class. New York: Schocken Books

MacCannell, D. 1973. Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.

American Journal of Sociology 79:589–603.

MacCannel, D. (1973) Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.

The University of Chicago Press.

Rickly-Boyd, J.N. (2012). “Authenticity & Aura: A Benjaminian Approach to Tourism” in

Annals of Tourism: A Social Science Journal, Vol. 39, Nr. 1, pp.: 269-289. New York:

Pergamon Press.

UNESCO (2016) What is meant by Cultural Heritage?

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-

property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-

questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/ Retrieved [2017-02-15]

UNESCO (2016) Introducing UNESCO: what we are

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/introducing-unesco/

Retrieved [2017-02-21]

Vecco, M.2010. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangiable to the intangiable.

Journal of Cultural HeritageVolume 11, Issue 3, July–September 2010, Pages 321–324

- 32 -

Wang, N. (1999) Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Annals of tourism Research

No. 2, pp.: 349-370. New York: Pergamon Press.

- 33 -

9 APPENDIX

9.1 Statistics

9.1.1 Session One- off location, without lecture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

62%

38%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 34 -

9.1.2 Session Two – off location, with lecture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

72%

28%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 35 -

9.1.3 Session Three – on location, with lecture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

80%

20%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 36 -

9.1.4 Session Four – on location, without lecture

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

75%

25%

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

- 37 -

9.2 Interviews

9.2.1 Session 1 Participant 1

Interviewer: Så… Då har jag lite frågor efter denna traumatiska händelse.

Participant 1: Ja (skämtsamt)

Interviewer: Och den första är att, vad är dina initiala tankar efter att ha sett den här videon?

Participant 1: Intitiala…?

Interviewer: Mmm

Participant 1: Vad är det?

Interviewer: Dina förta tankar. Det första som faller dig in efter att ha sett filmen.

Participant 1: Det var vad ensligt allting är…

Interviewer: Mmm (skriver ner svaret)

Eh… Och de här.. ah det har jag inte nämnt ännu… är ju en koppling mellan verkliga ruiner.

Kan du se den kopplingen nu när du vet om det.

Participant 1: Ja (Bestämt)

Interviewer: Eh, hur tycker du, vad tycker du om att använda ett digital medium för att

återspegla historia och kultur? Hade du hellre sett liksom en fyfisk grej eller hade du hellre

varit på platsen?

Participant 1: Jag hade hellre varit på platsen.

Interviewer: Hade hellre varit på platsen…

Tror du att en digital representation kan ge samma ”känsla” som att vara vid de originala

verket?

Participant 1: Nej.

Interviewer: Nej… Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla över huvud taget från en sån här

video?

Participant 1: Nej inte samma.

Interviewer: Nej. Har du några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 1: Tyckte den var väldigt fin.

Interviewer: MM. Tack. Det var mina frågor.

Participant 1: Det var det hela?

Interviewer: Det var det hela.

- 38 -

9.2.2 Session 1 Participant 2

Moa: Okej! Då ska vi se här, jag har bara några få frågor efter denna otroligt traumatiska

upplevelse.

Participant 2: Mm.

Interviewer Eh… Vad är dina initiala tankar efter att ha sett den här videon?

Participant 2: Eh.. hur menar du..

Interviewer: Dina förta tankar. Vad var det första du tänkte på efter att du sett den.

Participant 2: Min första tanke var evolution eller någonting. Hur någonting byggs upp och

fortsätter. Började med en kulle och sedan gick det uppåt och utvecklades till någonting. Som

framgång i verkligheten.

Interviewer: Mm. Eh… Kan du se en kopling mellan ruiner, eller kan du se att den här videon

eller innehållet i videon kan baseras på faktiska ruiner?

Participant 2: Ja det kan jag förstå faktiskt. När man såg bit för bit när allting var tomt eller

religöst. Jag fick intrycket av att detta var…

Interviewer: Religöst?

Participant 2: Ja lite det intrycket fick jag faktiskt. Hur det var något kyrk aktigt. I början var

det ett hus och sedan blev det kyrk aktigt.

Interviewer: Eh… Vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla

digital och kultur?

Participant 2: Väldigt praktiskt.

Interviewer: Tror du att en digital representation kan ge samma känsla som att vara vid det

originella verket?

Participant 2: Nej det kan jag inte.

Interviewer: Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla av platsen bara genom att titta på en

sån här video?

Participant 2: Om den är väldigt bra gjord så kan man nog få en bra inblick i det. Men det går

nog inte att jämföra med verkligheten.

Interviewer: Mm. Har du några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

*tystnad

Är det något du vill tillägga eller någonting?

Participant 2: Nej, jag kommer inte på något där.

Interviewer: Nej. Strålande. Det var mina frågor.

- 39 -

9.2.3 Session 1 Participant 3

Interviewer: Nu ska vi se! Eh, vad är dina intiala tankar efter att ha sett videon? Vad var det

första du tänkte på efter att ha sett den här videon?

Participant 3: *Tystnad Fint gjort?

Interviewer: Fint gjort? Eh, om jag säger att den här eh… byggnadena i videon är baserade på

verkligen ruiner. Kan du se en koppling mellan ruinerna och videon?

Participant 3: *tystnad Njaa (mer åt ja hållet) Ja det gör jag

Interviewer: Mmm. Eh, vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att

återspegla historia och kultur? Alltså en sån här digital representaiton som detta då var.

Participant 3: (Skrattar lite nervöst)

Interviewer: Eller hade du hellre varit på platsen? Hade du hellre upplevt det på platsen?

Participant 3: Ja… Det är nog på platsen i så fall.

Interviewer: Mmm. Tror du att man kan få samma känsla eh av en eh digital representation

som en sån här video, som att faktiskt vara på platsen vid det originala verket?

Participant 3: Mja. (Åt Ja hållet)

Interviewer: Mm. Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla om platsen bara genom att titta på

en sån här video?

Participant 3: *tystnad Skrattar nervöst.

Interviewer: Det är jätte konstiga frågor jag vet (skämtsamt)

Participant 3: Skrattar Ja.

Interviewer: Men det är väldigt intressant för mig.

Participant 3: Jaa. Eh… Ställ frågan en gång till.

Interviewer: Eh Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla om platsen bara genom att titta på

en sån här video?

Participant 3: Ja.

Interviewer: Har du något att tillägga? Några tankar om upplevelsen på något sätt? *tystnad

Man behöver inte, men man får!

Participant 3: Nej (skrattar)

Interviewer: Nej! Strålande, då tackar jag så jätte mycket!

- 40 -

9.2.4 Session 1 Participant 4

Interviewer: Då ska vi se. Vad är den första tanken som faller dig in efter att du har sett detta?

Participant 4: Spel.

Interviewer: Ja.

Participant 4: Eftersom ni håller på med det.

Interviewer: Eh Om jag säger att detta är baserade på verkliga ruiner, dem här byggnaderna i videon.

Kan du se kopplingen mellan ruinerna och videon?

Participant 4: Vad sa du?

Interviewer: Om jag säger att eh, dem här byggnaderna i videon är baserade på verkliga ruiner som har

funnits kan du se kopplingen mellan videon och ruinerna?

Participant 4: Ja.

Interviewer: Mm

Eh vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla historia och kultur? Alltså

tycker du att det är bra att använda sig av datorer…

Participant 4: Ja

Interviewer: …Och 3d animerade grejer eller är det bättre att vara på platsen eller att se på fysiska

grejer?

Participant 4: Både och.

Interviewer: Både och…

Tror du att en digital representation, som detta då är, eh, kan ge samma känsla som att vara på platsen?

Participant 4: Alltså inte samma känsla. Men man kan så att säga återskapa känslan ändå. På något sätt

*skrattar

Interviewer: Mm.

Eh tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla bara genom att titta på en sån här video?

Participant 4: Ja det beror på hur videon är uppbyggd förstås ju.

Interviewer: Mm.

Eh har du några tankar eller något att tillägga om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 4: Nä.

Interviewer: Nej?

Participant 4: Näej faktiskt inte.

Interviewer: Det behöver man inte!

Participant 4: Nä…

Interviewer: Sådär!

- 41 -

9.2.5 Session 2 Participant 1

Interviewer: Okej! Då har jag lite frågor här. Vad är din initiella tanke efter att ha sett den här

videon?

Participant 1: Eh… ja du… Vad kan det vara…?

Interviewer: Ja?

Participant 1: Eh… ja… Jag har ju själv hållt på med alltså 3d design och sådär lite grann. Och

jag vet hur mycket tid det tar! Även fast det inte ser ut att vara så mycket så tycker jag ändå att

det är bra jobbat!

Interviewer: Ja.. tack!

Participant 1: Vilket program använder ni förresten?

Interviewer: Maya!

Participant 1: Ah det är det, ja.

Interviewer: Det är därför playblasten ser… inte jätte snygg ut… För det är maya…

Participant 1: Ja men det blir ju så. Det är ju klart. Det tar tid liksom.

Interviewer: Ja det gör ju det.

Kopplade du samman videon och föreläsningen?

Participant 1: Näej det gjorde jag väl inte riktigt kanske. Kan ha varit också på grund av att jag

blev distraherad av Eddie men… (Eddie är deras hund som var närvarande under testningen)

Interviewer: Jaja (skämtsamt) Det är lätt hänt.

Participant 1: Ja.

Interviewer: Hundar är hundar. Eh kan du se någon koppling mellan ruinerna som dem

pratade och den här videon?

Participant 1: Ja det skulle jag nog kunna göra. Man fick ju en bild på det hon pratade lite

grann så. (Hon var föreläsaren)

Interviewer: Mm. Vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla

historia och kultur?

Participant 1: Det tycker jag är jätte bra! Det… är lite roligare än bilder. Eh ååå, text är inte lika

roligt som ah, nånting som är visuellt.

Interviewer: mm! Tror du att en digital representation, som detta då är, kan ge samma känsla

som att vara vid det originella verket?

Participant 1: Hade man kört det i VR (Virtual reality) så tror jag det!

Interviewer: Mm!

Participant 1: Och eh ah som du sa renderat ut det helt och hållet kanske.

- 42 -

Interviewer: Mm

Participant 1: Och med eh… jag vet inte, lite ljud kanske. Att man hör fotsteg när man går in i

den här…

Interviewer: Kyrkan?

Participant 1: Kyrkan där ja precis.

Interviewer: Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla med platsen, om platsen bara genom att

titta på en video?

Participant 1: Ja, det tror jag. Beroende på,

Interviewer: *Drar in luft

Participant 1: Ja förlåt om jag avbröt dig där.

Interviewer: Nej då! Det är ingen fara!

Participant 1: För mig så krävs det rätt stor skärm och ha lugnt runt om kring mig för att kunna

känna av det lite så då.

Interviewer: Bli verkligen immersed.

Participant 1: Ja exakt.

Interviewer: Mm. Några tanker eller ideer om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 1: Näe inte egentligen… Tycker bara det var bra alltså… i och med att jag vet hur

lång tid det tar och göra sånt här så tycker jag det var bra jobbat.

Interviewer: Ja, tack!

Frågor om tekniken runt videon fortsatte efter intervjun.

- 43 -

9.2.6 Session 2 Participant 2

Interviewer: Så! Ehm min första fråga är… Vad är dina initiala tankar efter att ha sett den här

videon?

Participant 2: *tystnad Ja vad man kan bygga upp men gamla, ja ritningar eller om det är

någon fff… ja det måste ju bli ritningar eller vad man hittar.

Interviewer: Ja ritningar.

Participant 2: Eller skrifter, ja. Det är ju spännande.

Interviewer: Kopplade du samman videon och föreläsningen?

Participant 2: *tystnad Jaa, jo men det får jag nog säga ja i alla fall. Fast jag minns ju inte exakt

allt vad hon sa men.

Interviewer: nej nej.

Participant 2: Det hade ju med det att göra.

Interviewer: Mm. Ser du en koppling mellan ruinerna som hon pratade om och videon?

Participant 2: Jo men det måste man ju göra.

Interviewer: Mm, vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla

historia och kultur?

Participant 2: Ja men det är ju jätte smart.

Interviewer: Mhm?

Participant 2: Det visar ju enkelt alltså… lätt att förstå.

Interviewer: Mm.

Participant 2: Och se hur det var, om man tittar på gamla Ramna kyrkan där bak också (hon

pekar på en tavla som hänger bakom intervjuaren)

Interviewer: Ja precis!

Participant 2: Alltså.

Interviewer: Det är väldigt likt!

Participant 2: Ja men kan ju lättare förstå då och så 3 dimensionellt hur det… ja.

Interviewer: Tror du att en representation som det är här kan ge samma känsla som att vara

vid det originella verket?

Participant 2: Nä det tror jag ju trots allt inte. Men ett långt avstånd kan ju göra att jag ju i alla

fall kan få se det så verkligt som möjligt utan att vara där.

Interviewer: Mm.

Participant 2: Istället för att titta på bara bilder.

- 44 -

Interviewer: Ja precis.

Participant 2: Ja.

Interviewer: Eh Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla om platsen bara genom att titta på

en sån här video?

Participant 2: Jaa, det kan det ju bli.

Interviewer: Mmm.

Participant 2: Om man jämför med att åka roller coaster.

Interviewer: Ja men precis!

Participant 2. Ja faktiskt!

Interviewer: Eh några andra tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 2: Näe var ju stor skillnad på första kyrkan och den andra kyrkan. (skrattar) I

storlek och sånt.

Interviewer: Jaa.

Participant 2: Men ja… Nä annars så… Det var väl det jag reflekterade över så…

Interviewer: Mm! Strålande!

- 45 -

9.2.7 Session 2 Participant 3

Interviewer: Då är min första fråga - vad är dina initiala tankar efter att ha sett den här videon

Participant 3: Oj eh… äh men att datorer är coolt liksom typ man kan göra mycket häftiga saker och få

förståelse för i det här fallet då liksom något som gammalt från länge sen, kan man liksom återskapa

det är ju häftigt och bra liksom ah

Interviewer: Kopplade du samman videon och föreläsningen?

Participant 3: Ja alltså jo Jag eh… det hon pratade om var ju den här platsen och den här kyrkan så

sätt. Sen kan jag väl erkänna att jag inte riktigt registrerade allt hon sa kanske.

Interviewer: Men det gör man ju inte om man bara lyssnar igenom det en gång.

Participant 3: Men man förstod ju att de hängde ihop. Det tyckte jag verkligen.

Interviewer: Då ser du alltså en koppling mellan ruinerna och videon?

Participant 3: Ja det tycker jag verkligen.

Interviewer: Vad tycker du om att använda sig av digitalt medium för att återspegla historia och kultur?

Participant 3: Det är väl jätte bra! Alltså idag är det ju… ja men det är ju liksom nutiden och det är

framtiden och inte för att det är på något sätt är lätt att göra den här grejerna i datorn men det är ju på

något sätt ett smidigt sätt tänker jag mig i alla fall som får se det. Sen är det ju en massa jobb bakom

såklart.

Interviewer: Jo men det går ju snabbare än att bygga upp en helt ny kyrka.

Participant 3: Ja det är ju lite så. Samt att det är ju fantastiskt

Interviewer: Samt att det är ju inte lika mycket folk som behöver göra det. Det räcker med en människa

liksom.

Tror du att en digital representation, som detta då är, kan ge samma känsla som att vara vid det

originella verket?

Participant 3:

inte riktigt men nästan, definitivt. Alltså jag tänker mig om man alltså skulle som du sa när man har

fixat till den ordentligt…

Interviewer: Mm precis.

Participant 3: så ser det säkert jätte verkligt ut och tänker man sig en stor bilds alltså projektor och att

man står där och att man lägger till ljud alltså verkligen, det tror jag!

Interviewer: Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla av platsen bara genom att titta på en sån här

video? Kanske med de medel då som du tidigare nämde.

Participant 3: Ja absolut.

Interviewer: Några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 3: Nej mer att jag nog tycker det är häftigt! Impad liksom!

Interviewer: Mmm, kul! Det var allt!

- 46 -

Participant 3: Va bra!

- 47 -

9.2.8 Session 2 Participant 4

Interviewer: Min första fråga är: Vad är dina initiella tankar efter att ha sett videon?

Participant 4: Ja det handla ju om kyrkobygge vad jag förstår? För länge länge länge länge sen.

Och jag tycker det är fantastiskt att man kunde bygga så på den tiden.

Interviewer: Ja från himmelen så bara! (skämtsamt)

Participant 4: Ja det var ju det allra bästa! Behövde inga människor, det bara kom!

Nämen att de kunde. För det var la… allt såg la ut så?

Interviewer: Ja det gjorde det

Kopplade du samman videon och föreläsningen?

Participant 4: Jaa? Det gjorde jag. Hon pratrade ju om det innan då att de börja bygga i trä

och sedan bygga i sten och…

Interviewer: Mmm? Ser du en koppling mellan ruinerna i Varnhem och den här videon?

Participant 4: Ja.

Interviewer: Mmm? *tystnad

Vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla historia och kultur?

Participant 4: Det är ju jätte bra!

Interviewer: Jätte bra?

Participant 4: Jaa

Interviewer: Tror du att en digital representation, som detta då är, kan ge samma känsla som

att vara på platsen?

Participant 4: Kanske inte riktigt… men nästan! Inte riktigt men nära på!

Interviewer: Tror du att det är möjlgit att få en känsla bara genom att titta på en sån här video?

Participant 4: Ja det tror jag.

Interviewer: Några andra tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 4: Näe det var la intressant? Alltid roligt å… hur det var förr för länge länge länge

sen å… man tänker på vad de kunde och… hur det gick att göra grejer

Interviewer: Ja eller hur!

Participant 4: Ingenting är nytt egentligen! Vi tycker det är så modernt nu allting men de

kunde jätte mycket redan då. Bättre nästan!

Interviewer: Ja det var ju mer kärlek med i arbetet tror jag.

Participant 4: Ja just det. Och det höll!

- 48 -

9.2.9 Session 3 Participant 1

Interviewer: Så! Då ska vi se du valde autenticitet, historia, närvaro, original, plasten,

reproduktion, samhörighet, tradition och nyhet?

Participant 1: Mm

Interviewer: Just autenticitet… Kände du att detta var någontin som var…

Participant 1: I alla fall försökte vara autentiskt. För… det är väldigt svårt att veta exakt hur

var saker på den tiden. Men man kunde ju försöka och jag fick känslan av att den här försökte

vara någorlunda eh autentisk. Liksom att den först visar upp träkyrkan och sen visar den upp

stenkyrkan.

Interviewer: Historia, närvaro, original… Du använde också reproduktion? Du valde

reproduktion. Mm? Känner du då att en reproduktion faktiskt kan vara autentisk?

Participant 1: Eh… det är ju det som är den svåra frågan. Hur man ställer autenticitet. Jag tror

att det kan gå? Att man försöker verkligen såhär eh representera någonting till den grad att

till vad man vet liksom är originalet. Men sen är det ju det svåra att det saknas fortfarande

information. Man vet inte riktigt exakt hur… Jag tror att man kan försöka men eh… till 100 %

säkerthet går ju inte.

Interviewer: Mm! Vad är de första tankarna. Det första du tänker på efter att du har sett den

här videon?

Participant 1: Eh… Jag, jag tänkte autenticitet. För det var liksom det första… jag fick in där.

Sen var det liksom såhär… försökte komma ihåg vad som sas där inne och sånt liksom. Ehm,

å liksom såhär kolla runt lite, men eh och sen försöka hitta lite andra ord. Jag tyckte det var

ganska svårt å ta 10 totalt. För vissa av dem var såhär… svåra? Eh… och så… Men eh…

Interviewer: Eh, men ser du en koppling mellan den här videon och dem ruinerna som vi

faktiskt står vid nu?

Participant 1: Tja, en viss del i alla fall… eh… sen vet jag ju inte om du kanske har slängt in

någont falskt där. Som inte jag har tänkt på? Ehm… men… ja…. Jag vet inte. Jag såg en

koppling av det. Kanske just för att man såg kullen och man såg liksom platsen och så.

Interviewer: mm, Men vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att

återspegla historia och kultur?

Participant 1: Eh, jag tycker det är bra! Jag tycker det finns definitivt liksom en såhär

använding av det. Sedan går jag ju Serious Games också så jag är ju personligen också.. har ju

uppenbarligen…

Interviewer: Lite partisk

Participant 1: Ja lite partisk där… Att eh… annars hade jag blivit väldigt ledsen att tänka på

där gneom min utbildning… Eh

Interviewer: Tror du det är möjligt att få en känsla om platsen om du bara hade sett videon

och inte varit vid platsen här?

- 49 -

Participant 1: Mmm… det är svårt att säga… jag tror att det hjälper. Att man har varit där inne

och liksom sett det här… Fått en rundtur och liksom hade kunnat läsa runt och saker där. Eh…

så jag tror nog att den här videon behövs vara sammankopplad till åtminstone informationen

om platsen. Eh kanske inte bara liksom såhär en bild och liksom såhär dyks nånting upp och

såhär en ny grej upp. Eh… Jag tror… ja det behöver inte vara på platsen men jag tror definitivt

mer information om vad som händer är… krävs.

Interviewer: Några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 1: Ehm… jag tyckte den var bra.

- 50 -

9.2.10 Session 3 Participant 2

Interviewer: Så, ska vi titta lite grann på orden du valde här? Annorstädes, autenticitet,

Platsen, samhörighet… Mmm! Du valde autenticitet…? Kände du att det här var autentiskt för

dig?

Participant 2: Ja det känns verkligt eller… det kändes riktigt. Som det kunde ha varit för sin

tid.

Interviewer: Absolut… Bra! Vad är dina initiala tankar efter att ha sett den här videon?

Participant 2: Roligt att se vad för historia vi hade och hur kyrkorna också från den tiden såg

ut.

Interviewer: Ser du en koppling mellan den här videon och de här ruinerna som vi nu står vid?

Participant 2: Ja! Jag tycker… så det kunde ha sett ut.

Interviewer: Vad tycker du om att använda av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla historia

och kultur?

Participant 2: Det är ett jätte bra sätt att kunna på ett lättare sätt visa hur det såg ut, hur det

kunde byggas upp och sånna grejer. Bra medium som skulle kunna användas för mer saker i

framtiden.

Interviewer: tror du att en digital representation, som detta är, kan ge samma känsla som att

vara här inne och titta på det i person?

Participant 2: Jag tror att det blir en bra koppling eller en bra grej att använda tillsammans.

För att ge och… både se och både se hur det såg ut på den tiden. Bygger upp varandra på ett

bra sätt.

Interviewer: Några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 2: Roligt att se våran histora.

- 51 -

9.2.11 Session 3 Participant 3

Interviewer: Och du har valt autenticitet historia närvaro nyhet original tradition… Mmm! Du

valde autenticitet?

Participant 3: Identitet?

Interviewer: Autenticitet.

Participant 3: *Försöker uttala ordet.

Interviewer: Autenticitet.

Participant 3: Ah jag tror inte att jag bryr mig om… ja!

Interviewer: Kändes det här som att det var något autentiskt? Den här videon?

Participant 3: Ja det gjorde det! Ah det kändes som att… nästan så att man skulle kunna gått

och filmat. När det hände. Ja!

Interviewer: Du valde samhörighet. Du kände en… en slags samhörighet mellan plats och…

eller hur kände du det?

Participant 3: Jag vet nästan inte riktigt hur jag tänkte men jag… jo men det kändes som att…

ja… lite… uuuhh. Går det att spela in gester? (deltagare gör gester för att visa hur hon menar,

för ihop händerna för att visa en samhörighet.)

Interviewer: Hon gör väldigt eh, sammankopplande gester med händerna.

Participant 3: Ja men jag tänkte att eh, ja men det stämmer liksom. Kopplar ihop verkligheten

med… det jag ser här.

Interviewer: Spännande. Mmm. Vad är dina initiala tankar efter att ha sett den här videon?

Participant 3: *suckar betänksamt. Sicket jobb det ligger bakom. Ja…

Interviewer: Det stämmer.

Participant 3: Så det var sant va?

Interviewer: Ja det var sant.

Participant 3: Och sen tänker jag ju, just för att vi faktiskt också varit inne i huset och sett

vilken spännande grej! Vilken spännande grej! Tänk att få vara med om detta va! Kul! Så kände

jag!

Interviewer: Så då ser du en koppling mellan videon och de här ruinerna ?

Participant 3: Ja absolut! Absolut!

Interviewer: Det känns som att det finns en…slags samhörighet där?

Participant 3: Ja

Interviewer: Ja samhörighet där kom det igen.

- 52 -

Participant 3: Där kom det.

Interviewer: Vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium, som detta är, för att

använda, för att återspegla digital kultur. Eller kultur i almänhet? Och histora…

Participant 3: Ja det visar sig ju att att det kan faktiskt eh nästan… typ gå in i hjärtat på en.

Interviewer: Hade du tänkt innan du

Participant 3: Nej! Det hade jag inte tänkt! Utan det är mera när jag ser hur det gör det.

Interviewer: Häftigt

Participant 3: Det var lite intressant.

Interviewer: Ja kul! Tror du att en digital representation som detta är, kan ge samma känsla

som att vara där inne och titta på ruinerna?

Participant 3: Det är ju lite svårt att svara på egentligen eftersom vi både var inne och har sett

filmen. Så det ena speglar det andra.

Interviewer: Känns det som att det kanske… är en bra grej?

Participant 3: Ja, tror jag. Tror jag.

Interviewer: Att det ena kan förstärka det andra.

Participant 3: Ja det tror jag! Och sen man kommer och tittar på en massa stenar och så. Så

blir ju inte det, när någon har jobbat med hur det där faktiskt såg ut på riktigt. Så sätter man

ju stenarna i det sammanhanget, och då blir det större. Häftigt.

Interviewer: Tror du att det är möjligt att få en känsla om platsen, om du inte hade varit här,

och bara sett på videon, tror du att det här skulle vara möjligt att få en känsla av platsen då?

Participant 3: Lång paus… Ja det tror jag.

Interviewer: Du tror det?

Participant 3: Fast kanske inte riktigt så! Jag tror ju att att ha varit här förstärkte rätt mycket.

Men ja jag tror också att det skulle… man skulle kunna sitta och tänka oj… vad häftigt! Ja tror

jag!

Interviewer: Och sista frågan är… några tankar i allmänhet om upplevelsen? Som så?

Participant 3: Nej jag… ja! Det är inte så mycket tankar om själva upplevelsen som så, utan

mer… oj! Var det så det var? Ja lite så. Och det är inte det en utsällning ska vara till?

Interviewer: Man tycker det. Man ska gå med någon slags känsla av att jag har lärt mig mer.

Participant 3. Ja oj!

Interviewer: Det var häftigt.

Participant 3: Ja precis just så! Ja.

- 53 -

9.2.12 Session 3 Participant 4

Interviewer: Då ska vi se. Du valde… historia, närvaro, nyhet, original, platsen, reproduktion,

sammankoppling, tradition, unikhet och vardag.

Participant 4: Var det min lapp du fick där?

Interviewer: Vad sa du?

Participant 4: Var det min lapp du fick där?

Interviewer: Det är din lapp där ja!

Participant 4: Ja det eh… det stämmer.

Interviewer: Du valde, tradition, unikhet och reproduktion. Tror du att en reproduktion kan

ha en tradition?

Participant 4: ja… jag tänkte inte riktigt på. Men det… repoduktion är ju att göra något

gammelt… till något nytt.

Interviewer: Mm, absolut. Absolut. Eh vad är din första tanke efter att ha sett den här videon?

Participant 4: Det var eh… fascinerande hur byggnadsverket. Få upp detta. Med kyrkerna då.

I och med att… jag jag ser ju mest på konstruktionen då. Vad som är gjort om en säger så va.

Att de har kunnat hitta rätt på detta och fått alla sammanfogningar och sånt då.

Interviewer: Ser du en koppling mellan den här videon och ruinerna som vi kollade på idag?

Participant 4: Ja det, det finns en koppling. För det är ju på det viset de får reda på, när de

börjar gräva och hittar saker och sånt då.

Interviewer: Vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla historia

och kultur?

Participant 4: det är ju… det är ju fel att inte göra det. För att… vi får ju reda på mycket mer

om man säger så.

Interviewer: Kan se saker som man kanske inte kan se i verkligheten.

Participant 4: Näe.. utan det är ju… du kan ju använda det till exempel när man ska göra en

konstruktion om man säger så va. På datorn kan du ju få fram en ritning så du får samma

hållbarhet på sig… så så…

Interviewer: Absolut, Man kan ju stresstesta och alltihopa.

Participant 4: Det var ju… när de var på Egypten på museet. Och fick se alla de här

guldsmyckena och så. Jag frågade då guiden om de hade hittat några verktyg och sånt. Men

det hade de inte hittat några alls så.

Interviewer: Inga verktyg?

Participant 4: Nej…

- 54 -

Interviewer: Då har de gjort det med stenar alltså…

Participant 4: Ja det är ju med stenar och sånt då va.

Interviewer: Helt otroligt.

Participant 4: Det var ju samma som vi har ju hittat lite grand hemma. Stenbitar till stenyxor

och så.

Interviewer: Ja precis.

Participant 4: Så man kunde se formerna på ett ungefär.

Interviewer: Man ser verktygs… eller avsaknaden av verktygen.

Participant 4: Så att det… en ser ju mycket… på formerna och sånt också då.

Interviewer: Tror du att en digital representation kan ge samma känsla som att vara här vid

ruinerna? Och titta på dem i person?

Participant 4: Nej det tror jag inte riktigt. Utan det få se på platsen! Och speciellt eftersom att

de har byggt helt nytt uppe om man säger så. I gamla metoder då. Det går ju aldrig att få på en

bild eller… utan det ska upplevas i så fall.

Interviewer: Tror du att det är möjligt, om du bara hade sett videon och inte varit här på

platsen, tror du att du hade fått en känsla från videon då?

Participant 4: Nej det hade jag inte fått.

Interviewer: Nej? Men just sammankopplingen här mellan videon och ruinerna så få du det?

Participant 4: Och jag tittar ju mest på konstruktionen om man säger så. OM man säger så,

folk runt i kring och sånt… det kanske inte är så intressant.

Interviewer: Man har ju olika mål och intressen. Så klart.

Participant 4: Ja det är ju som i och med att jag har jobbat i alla år med byggnadsverskamhet

då va. Så blir det ju då att den biten tittar man på mer då va.

Interviewer: Jo det är klart. Några tankar och ideer om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Participant 4: Näe, det var bara väldigt intressant. Jag såg att… hur man kan få fram penga till

sånt här också. I dagens… det är fascinerande också.

Interviewer: Det är många som har samarbetat för att göra detta möjligt.

Participant 4: ja… det tänker ingen på egentligen att det…

Interviewer: Men bara överbyggnaden var ju… det tog 12 år. Innan de kunde bygga den.

- 55 -

9.2.13 Session 4 Participant 1

Interviewer: Ehm, du har valt autenticitet, histora, närvaro, original, platsen, samhörighet…

du har valt både autenticitet och reproduktion. Tror du att en reproduktion kan ha

autenticitet?

Participant 1: Alltså jaa? Det tror jag. Jag menar med tanke på att det är skapat efter alltså…

det är skapat efter någonting autentiskt. Så eh alltså, Så har det ju ändå en viss kvalitet av det

autentiska. Känner jag.

Interviewer: Du har också valt samtid och tradition? Kan samtiden vara en del av en tradition?

Participant 1: Alltså, ja i allra högsta grad. Jag menar det är ju alltså samtiden skapas ju ändå

i… om inte så liksom på grund av traditionen i alla fall i samspel med traditionen.

Interviewer: Vad är din intitiala tanke efter att ha sett videon? Om vi bortser från orden här.

Participant 1: Ehm… min första tanke var att det var snygga texturer.

Interviewer: *skrattar* grafiker.

Participant 1: Nej men eh den, den kändes, det kändes intressant att se den typen av arkitektur

på någonting som eh som man fått för sig är vikingatid. Liksom. Ehm och det… jaa… Vad ska

man säga… den kändes liksom eh… det kändes intressant att se hur det byggdes upp liksom

steg för steg till den, vad ska man säga, det slutliga alltså eh, produkten eller nånting. Och det

eh… ja men det var intressant! Det kändes som att det var en kul liksom rundvandring i vad

som kan ha varit liskom.

Interviewer: Så då ser du en koppling mellan ruinerna här då och videon?

Participant 1: Ja… jo men det gör jag. Eh dels så känner jag igen byggnaderna som vi såg här

inne. Och sen så får man väl anta att det är det som det handlar om när vi liksom åkt hit för

att kolla på det. Jag menar du hade ju kunnat dragit oss i benet tänkte jag säga, liksom och

spunnit iväg någon helt annan stans det hade ju varit roligt. Men eh… det var nog delvis

antaganden och delvis att jag kände igen själva modellerna.

Interviewer: Vad tycker du om att använda sig av ett digitalt medium för att återspegla historia

och kultur?

Participant 1: Jag tycker att det är ett jätte bra verktyg. För att se, för att det är så tillgänligt

och det skapar en helt annan förståelse för hur nånting kan ha sett ut än vad till exempel ett 2

dimensionellt medium kan göra. Så jag eh, jag tycker att det känns eh väldigt, väldigt bra. Det

känns som en del av framtiden liksom.

Interviewer: Tror du att en digital representation kan ge samma känsla som att vara här vid

det originala verket?

Participant 1: Mjaoa jag vet inte. Nej jag tror inte riktigt det. Jag tror inte riktigt det. Eh, det

skulle alltså inte ens om man skulle göra en helt virtuell, I vr (virtual reality) liksom så tror jag

inte att det skulle vara riktigt samma känsla för det här det är någonting annat att vara här och

liksom kolla på dem stenarna som ligger upplagda och det liksom kroppen som ligger där inne.

Så det, inte riktigt samma men det alltså det är ju ett bra substitut om inte annat.

- 56 -

Interviewer: tror du det är möjlgit att få någon som helst känsla från en video så här?

Participant 1: Ja. Någon det tror jag ju. Men jag tror inte att det liksom går att riktigt jämföra

med samma som man får på platsen.

Interviewer: Har du några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet?

Karonlina: Näej inte sådär. Jag tyckte det var intressant ehm och som någon som har gjort

undersökningar från liksom studenter av liksom olika grad så känns det som att det var inte

den var liksom inte så eh… vad heter det… eh… genomskinlig? Jag hade liksom ingen, jag

visste inte riktigt vad jag skulle förvänta mig från början till slut liksom. Och det kändes ju

väldigt bras för din del, liksom du som ska få datan så sett. Så det kändes som att det var en

bra upplagd och väldigt intressant!

- 57 -

9.2.14 Session 4 Participant 2

Interviewer: Då tänkte jag vi skulle börja med att titta på vilka du valt. Det var lite svårt? Att

välja ut 10 ord av de 20? Men du har valt autenticitet, historia, närvaro…. Du har valt både

autenticitet och reproduktion? Tror du att det kan finnas autenticitet i en reproduktion?

Participant 2: *Tystnad* Ehm man kan väl kanske tänka sig att man har eh att man är

autentiskt i alltså… *tystnad* Baserat på vad man observerar så kan man ju göra en autentisk

konstruktion eller en falsk medvetet då. Sen är det ju klart att eh det kan vara svårt att eh veta

exakt hur det var. Var det jag ville försöka förmedla.

Interviewer: Absolut. Det är helt sant. Det är ju omöjligt eftersom man inte var där. Det är ju

1000 år gammalt så! Eh vad är din initiala tanke efter att ha sett videon?

Participant 2: *tystnad* Ehm… *tystnad* Under videon så tänkte jag väldigt mycket på såhär

eh… vad är poängen? Med att se videon? Så… ska jag komma ihåg att det var två byggnader.

Ett som stod där innan, ska jag komma ihåg hur de såg ut? Ska jag komma ihåg hur många

stenar som låg utanför? Det var typ så. Det var dem tankarna jag hade där. Och eh… direkt

efteråt så alltså i samband med det och efteråt så reflekterade jag väl mest över vikingatiden

och den tron dem hade. Och eh att det då byttes ut åt en nyare tro då.

Interviewer: Ser du en koppling mellan videon och de här ruinerna som finns här inne?

Participant 2: *tystnad* Ruinerna tänker jag är kvarlevor från alltså både den först och den

andra byggnaden. Till viss mån. Sen kanske man tänker sig att det finns fler spår ifrån den

andra byggnaden då. Eh man kanske lätt tänker astt när man kommer hit att eh det bara har

stått en byggnad här. Men eh poängen med videon är ju att visa då att det finns förankrat

längre bak i början liksom.

Interviewer: Tror du att en digital representaiotn kan ge samma känsla som att vara här vid

det originala verket?

Participant 2: *tystnad* Mmm… det här kanske inte är riktigt det du är ute efter men känns

ändå relevant liksom, vi pratar om känslor. Jag upplever att eh när jag stod på glaset där, så

eh så kändes det lite jobbigt faktsikt. Vilket jag inte hade förväntat mig. Sen kan man ju

argumentera för att eh vr (virtual reality) kan ge den känslan. För all del. Eh

Interviewer: Men det är, det är en speciell känsla att vara här.

Participant 2: Ja precis, vi kan fokusera på det du är intresserad av istället.

Interviewer: Nej det är…

Participant 2: För vertigo känslan där.

Interviewer: Jaha! Den läskiga känslan ja.

Participant 2: Ja det var den jag syftade på ja.

Interviewer: Jag förstår.

Participant 2: Alltså jag tror att det, nu har ju inte jag reflekterat över det här så länge liksom

eh. En spontan tanke är ju att jag föredrar att se saker i verkligheten så att säga. Eh visst man

kan ju ändå liksom lära sig viss fakta. Gneom att antingen läsa eller uppleva någonting digitalt.

- 58 -

Men det känns som att det är lättare kanske? Att manipulera den faktan. Digitalt. Än att det

är att vara här..

Interviewer: Tror du det är möjligt att få någon som helst känsla av en digital representation?

Participant 2: Att få någon känsla… alltså… ja…

Interviewer: Mm, något intryck någon känsla av… autenticitet som vi pratade om innan.

Participant 2: Det tror jag. Sen är det kansek en dyrare investering än att eh åka hit liksom.

Eller ja… Vänta…

Interviewer: Några tankar om upplevelsen i allmänhet? *tystnad* Det behöver man inte ha,

men om man har det så…

Participant 2: Mm, jag tänker att… det jag kommer på nu har jag delat med mig av. Sen

kommer jag säkert på mer så fort vi är klara här. Så brukar det ju också vara…

Interviewer: Så brukar det vara.

9.3 Lecture

Det ni nu kommer att få se är en digital representation av de faktiska ruinerna i Varnhem som

först upphittades i 20-talet, men inte grävdes ut ordentligt förrän i mitten av 2005. Vad som

fanns då var tydliga väggar av en stenkyrka, med tillhörande krypta, något som var oerhört

ovanligt. Kyrkan daterades redan till början på 1000-talet, men det finns även tydliga tecken

på att det troligen stod en träkyrka på platsen redan så tidigt som på 900-talet. Detta är

revolutionerande eftersom att detta är Vikingatiden i Sverige, och svenskar troddes inte ha

blivit kristna ännu.

Konsten att bygga i sten var också oerhört ny i Sverige på den här tiden och visar på goda

relationer med England då det är troligt att de som byggde kyrkan anlitade hantverkare

därifrån för att bygga denna byggnad.

Och just de som byggde kyrkan är en annan unik pusselbit i den här historian. Det är nämligen

så att vi fann tusentals skelett på platsen. Detta var ju trots allt en kyrka och hade därför en

tillhörande kyrkogård. Oerhört välbevarade skelett från Vikingatiden vilket egentligen är

ganska ovanligt. Vi undersökte drygt 300 av skeletten men det var ett av dem som stod ut

tydligt från de andra. Detta skelettet hade nämligen en oerhört väldekorerad gravsten. Och på

gravstenen kunde man läsa i runskrift, ”Kättil gjorde denna sten till sin fru Kata.” Detta

betyder alltså att skelettet i graven faktiskt var Kata. Dokumentering som tillhörde gården och

dess ägare visar att Kata ägde gården runt den här tiden och det är väldigt troligt att det var

hon och hennes man Kättil som lät bygga just den här stenkyrkan som vi ser i ruinerna.

Videon som ni strax ska få se är en digital representation av de faktiska ruinerna. Byggnaderna

är gjorda efter exakta mått tagna på platsen och konstruerade efter beskrivning och ritningar

från arkeologen som hade hand om utgrävningen. Ni kommer att se de två olika stadierna som

byggnaden går igenom. Först den mindre träkyrkan och sedan stenkyrkan som fortfarande

delvis finns kvar!

- 59 -

Tack för er uppmärksamhet och njut av videon!