Live Interpretation of Heritage

Live variant of Heritagehistoric Sites, M consumptionums and G whollyeriesLive recitation of HeritageIntroductionOver the past fewer decades inheritance and culture has be occur an important part of peoples life, especially in reckon of their leisure and turningist activities (Boyd 2003, p.1). This is particularly accepted in the campaign of tourism, where the historic demand for tourist and leisure activities leave waned in favour of those filled with more than than cultural component parts. There is an change magnitude desire to call back historic sites, museums and galleries in an attempt by the unmarried to learn more ab emerge their hereditary pattern and those of other cultures and social groups. At the same eon, todays inheritance visitor has produce more discerning about the look that these locuss present inheritance open got to them (Boyd 2003, p.2). In essence in that respectfore, heritage give notice be seen to relate to historical aftermaths a nd settings and the visitor wants to grow those historical experiences as an al or so physical event.However, despite the many researches and survey results that rents this change in the visitor demand, there is quiet cause that a subprogram of heritage sites, museums and galleries be failing to counterbalance positively to these findings (B inadequacy 2005, p.10), which in many cases has resulted in a drop in visitor numbers at these venues. This placement tooshie cod real consequences, especially for those heritage sites that rely upon entrance fees to bridge the gap between aver funding and the running costs of the venue. Even where this not the case, for example where political relation funding is used to get out free admission, much(prenominal) venues be still account adequate to(p) to the state and need to prove that their establishment is de spankingring to the needs of the usual, which a reduction in visitor numbers leave al hotshot not achieve. In an ef fort to address this problem the last two decades gain seen an subjoin in literary works related peculiar(prenominal)ally to the manner in which heritage is presented and portrayed to the visitor, creating a new discipline under the general call of heritage definition.Heritage rendering relates equally to the sense of the site or objects paradeed for the visitor and the motivation determinant and needs of that visitor (Blockley and Hems 2006, p.1). Until recently, some(a) academics go for that heritage interpretation has been the least developed aspect of the venues promotion to the visitor (Boyd 2003 and Blockley and Hems 2006). Interpretation forms and integral part of the visitor experience and allow for influence the experience that they take away from the visit (Boyd 2003, p.193). Therefore, it follows that understanding what motivates a visitor or group of visitors give enable the museum, impulsion or heritage site to be better able to display and promote their product (ibid 2003, p.64). For about visitors that motivation will be to ready enjoyment and learning from the object or activity macrocosm displayed.In about cases, as Blockley and Hems (2006, p.10) suggest in their research the motivation for the visit is to fulfil the individuals need for pleasure and leaning and if the heritage venue or object does not achieve this the visitor will leave dissatisfied. In fact, the visitor has come to enquire to be greeted with ocular views, and animated displays when visiting heritage sites (Dicks 2003, p.17). Thus it is all-important(a) for the venue managers to escort their destination and its contents meet these requirements.One aspect of interpretation that has come to the fore in the minds of the visitor during recent long time, and an survey that academics agree is an essential part of interpretation, is the take aim of interaction that exists between the visitor and the heritage venue or object. A recent ontogeny in this resp ect is the change magnitude use of various forms of lead interpretation within the heritage display and other venue activities, and it this area of interpretation that will form the focal level off for this study.Live InterpretationLive interpretation of heritage is the most direct form of interaction between the visitor and the artefacts and events that are cosmos represented at heritage sites and venues. Visitors and tourists today foreknow to see cash in ones chips heritage and cultural displays rather than inanimate objects displayed in empty or one dimensional building and display boxes. For example, visitors to industrial museums have come to expect to be treated to visual and moving displays of historical machinery and even to tang the experience through a living example of the society of the time (Dicks 2003, p.29).The process of prevail interpretation can be de go throughred in a number of formats. One early example of live interpretation was achieved by allowing t he visitor to interact with working models, which enabled them to better interpret the processes that were involved with that models available purpose. As the process of interpretation continued to evolve, these working models were enhanced by the inclusion of audio and visual interpretation methods, which research indicated were perceived to be more rewarding for the visitor than written text material, such(prenominal) as leaflets and books (Boyd 2003, p.231). The use of info and communication technology is another area of live interpretation that can prove eventive, through a process of interactional involvement or displaying films and holographic images (Atkinson 2007). As Atkinson (2007) report hike up explains, by using ICT it is possible for the heritage site management to be able to personalise and tailor exhibits and experiences to the individual or specific groups needs.However, today the most direct form of live interpretation is deemed to be that which involves physi cal face to face interaction between the visitor and a representative or group of representatives directly involved with the heritage site, each on a voluntary or employmented basis (Blockley and Hems 2006, p.184), which most researchers identify as an part. As these authors point out face to face interpretation is seen as the best form of enlivening the visitor experience and certainly make them canvas that it is time closely washed-out. One important aspect needs to be mentioned in respect of the actions of the interpreter. This relates to their level of competence and course of competence. As Boyd (2003, p.195) explains, Whilst live interpretation is deemed the most telling form of interaction between visitor and the heritage object, suffering quality in live interpretation is worse than nothing.However, the degree to which the interpreter brings the heritage experience to life will depend upon the venue and its content. For example, they can range from the inclusion of a tour guide to fancy upd characters who re-enact the accounting and culture that the heritage site is promoting. This degree of variation and the appropriateness for the heritage venue will be further addressed in the adjacent sections of this study.Museums and GalleriesA number of researches have been conducted with the intention of discovering how much time visitors spent in museums and to what extent the format and display of the exhibits influenced the length of visit. One such survey, conducted for the research carried out by Boyd (2003, pp.77-78) found that there was a point of time at which visitors interest in the exhibits began to wane and the inclination to mental capacity for the exit began to dominate their thought processes. This was especially found to be authorized where the interpretation of the exhibits relied solely upon the basic strategy of display. For example, unless the visitor has a specific historical or academic interest in the specific artefacts bei ng displayed within the venue, which only relates to a small segment of the population, after a while one exhibit, be that a painting, vase or another material body of inanimate object, all began to look alike to the visitor. At that stage the pleasure and learning draw ined from the experience began to deteriorate.There still exists the purist view that will moot against the penetration of live interpretation has no place within museums and galleries. Their abstract thought is that the visitor should be allowed to interpret the exhibit free from the influence of what those who kick in this judgment perceive to be external interference. However, although as stated previous this might be relevant for those who have a dedicated soil for visiting the museum or galleries it was becoming apparent to the mangers of these venues that this was not concurred with by the legal age of visitors upon whom these museums and galleries depended. Therefore, remedial and innovative action wa s seen to be required if the decline in visitor numbers was to be reversed.It became apparent that some of the key qualities that visitors anticipate to experience from viewing a particular exhibit were clarity, poignancy, attractiveness unneurotic with a dynamic presentation (Boyd 2003, p.224). However, in the case of many visitors it proven difficult achieve the satisfaction of many of these qualities unless the object or exhibit was appropriately interpreted in the first place. This did not mean that the museums and galleries had to give away moving or highly interactive interpretation process for all of their exhibits. In many instances it was simply a question of introducing a tour guide (Dicks 2003, p.171). This would involve employing a person who had fitted k directlyledge and experience about the exhibit to be able to provide an appropriate interpretation, which the visitor could consider and come to their own informed opinion. An example of where such a tour guide is f requently used is in the Royal heritage. ofttimes professional interpreters are used to bring the heritage to life, as is the case with the royal palaces (Blockley and Hems 2006, p.45). To of importtain the dignity of these historical sites it would be inappropriate to slip in some of the more technological based live interpretation methods, such as videos, films and other gadgetry. In such cases indeed, the tour guide will be employed to act as the face-to-face interactive interpreter. The heritage visitor or tourist would not expect any great level of interpretation in such delicate and reverent historical surroundings, and the same reasoning would be applied to heritage sites of religious significance, such as historical churches and cathedrals.Nevertheless, there are other museums and galleries where the more proactive and interactive live interpretation methods are useful in improve the visitor experience. Providing visitors with a method that allows personal live interpre tation, for instance by using computer generated informational processes that explain the origins of the object or gives more information relating to its original use and purpose, can enhance the benefits that the visitor receives from viewing the object. another(prenominal) method that is being used more frequently within the museum and heading surroundings is to make the object or artefact live by introducing information and communication technology process that allow it to move and react (Atkinson 2007, p.7). Black 2005, p.264) promotes the increased use of files within the museum, arguing that this manner of interpretation is more likely to enable the visitor to experience the object as a living thing, thus creating a psychological connection. One area of museums where these methods have proven to be particularly successful is in the field of inwrought science. For example, presenting the dinosaur animal generation in an interactive and live interpretation method provides the visitor with a better idea of the size, power and a concept of the physical damage that such creatures could cause.Another recent development within the museum sector of heritage is the evolution of the open-air museum (Boyd 2003, p.224). Because of the difference of the purlieu for the exhibit, these venues have developed an interpretation process that is furthest more pore on its live element. In effect the visitor can or so touch a living exhibit and, through the detailed live interpretation process, is transported back to the historical times during which the object was created. In fact, by the use of costumes and special effects often in these cases the visitor will feel as if they have had a personal connection with these events. query has shown that, where museums and galleries have pick out some of these live interpretation measures within their venues, and to provide a better understanding of the exhibit, this has resulted in a positive effect on the length of a visit ors stay (Black 2005, p.257). Furthermore, it has besides had a positive impact in that visitor numbers have seen improvement in many instances.Historic sitesAs Jane Malcolm-Davies (2003, p.1) mentions in the introduction to the process of using costumed robes for live heritage interpretation, historic sites are finding it increasingly difficult to survive in the competitive environment of the leisure and tourism industry, not least because of the reduction in judicature funding, but too because of the impact of competing sites. As a result they have to furbish up to new and innovative measures for interpreting theirs sites in a manner that will increase visitor numbers. To stand out from the crowd and gain a competitive advantage that will lead to an increase in visitor numbers, live interpretation of the heritage value of these sites often has to resort to making the historical event come alive, a process that is most commonly referred to as re-enactment.These live interpretat ion events can take a number of forms. Some of the best known would be the re-enactment of historical complaisant wars, with authenticity attempted in every aspect of the actors costumes and equipment, accompanied by the possible noise of battle. In other cases, the event might involve a live reconstruction of a dwelling house or village as the actors perceived it to be in historical times. Alternative versions of these occur where industrial processes, plants, and retail business environments are make to resemble how it might have looked in yesteryear. In a number of cases there is an invitation for the visitor to join in with the experience, creating for them a unique retentiveness of the occasion.However, as with the use of live interpretation developments in museums and galleries, there has been some intense disagreement inn the past between academics and members of the historical heritage groups regarding the use of re-enactment and the use of costumes, with the opponents considering it to be fake (Sansom 1996, p.134). Indeed, many of those who hold this opinion consider this rise little more than theatrical nonsense. It is probably partly because of this reaction that it took until the latter part of the 1980s before heritage sites began to employ paid, permanent, costumed staff as an integral part of their daily interpretation activities (Hicks 1994, p.9).The difficulty was that, before the employment of professional interpreters or actor there could be said to be some truth in the oppose argument. However, to the extent that these objectors delayed the introduction of a more professional approach to the live interpretation, it could be said that they contributed to the poor standard of interpretation that antecedently existed. In his dissertation thesis in 1990, Robershaw (1990, p.31) found from his research into the situation with regard to costumed interpreters that whilst it had the cosmetic effect of creating a more realistic atmosphere, th is was not at that time communicated to the visitor. The same author quoted other literature that, like his own, concluded that visitors were demanding that the historical site managers should deliver a more interactive experience, which was clearing not happening at that time. It was also concluded that because of the educational leanings, the resultant experience lacked any element of fun and entertainment.The unprecedented thing is that, since the introduction of live costumed and professional methods of interpretation (Sansom 1996, p.122 and Malcolm-Davies 200, p.9), this element of interaction and increased in the value of entertainment and fun has become more evident. The improvement has led to a situation where it has been found to the level of recall and understanding that is experienced by the visitor. Most academics, including Black (2005, p.117) and Dicks (2003, p.49) are now firmly of the opinion that historic and cultural sites that tangle the live approach to interp retation and encourages interaction with the visitor, even to the extent of re-enacting historic events, do find that it leads to an increase in visitor numbers. Furthermore, it leads to a greater degree of satisfaction of their need for enjoyment and learning.The proponents of live interpretation for historical sites lay out that these re-enactments, especially now that they are more professional in nature, can be considered to be displaying an improved and closer depiction of the actual event, and therefore should be viewed as being more authentic. Furthermore, they will also argue that these events are serving to deliver to the main demands of the visitor, in that they provide a much greater depth of learning, whilst at the same time substantial the visitor demand for them to include an element of fun and entertainment.The managers of these historical sites will also argue that, the inclusion of live interpretation and re-enactment within the promotional element of the destinat ion, such moves are also serving the objectives of the destination, which are a) to last out self-sufficient in terms of funding and b) to assist the destination in achieving a competitive advantage over other similar destinations. They would further argue that the reported visitor number increases for the industry sector as a whole, and many of the destinations individually, support their choice of interpretation methods.ConclusionAs has been mentioned in the introduction section of this research, over the past few years there has been increasing pressure exerted upon the managers of historic sites, museums and galleries to become self sufficient and accountable for the value achieved as a result of the limited resources provided to them from the ordinary purse. It is natural that, in order to meet these conditions, the managers of these sites have been forced to consider a more innovative solution to promoting their destinations (Dicks 2003, p.122). An increasing number have tur ned to the use of live interpretation as a agent of providing a resolution to the problems they have been facing.In the past there may have been some merit to the argument raised by opponents to live interpretation. These might have been justified especially where those elements of this process went as far as the inclusion of costumes and re-enactment. This justification can be linked with the lack of professionalism that existed at that time. However, in most cases that position has changed and the introduction of professional actors, directors and costume designers have dramatically improved this element of live interpretation.However, in the concluding analysis of the appropriateness of these methods of live interpretation it is the results produced that determine their success or failure. When one poses the question whether the adoption of these new approaches to interpretation have had the desire effect in terms of increasing the numbers of visitors being seen at historic s ites, museums and galleries, the external researches studied by the author all support a positive response. Similarly, looking at it from the viewpoint of the other main stakeholder, the heritage visitor, the question to be asked is whether live interpretation promotional methods have improved their enjoyment of the experience and is more completely meeting their demands and needs. Here, again, period research and survey results confirm that this is the case. In fact, as Hunt (2004, p.387) states in his detailed research on heritage and interpretation., acting the part has now become almost essential, as most visitors have come to expect itIn conclusion therefore, it is found that live interpretation is more effective as a method of education and learning, and as a mover of visitor entertainment, than has been the case with most of the other methods of destination promotion adopted by historic sites, museums and galleries in the past. It is therefore recommended that those destina tions that have yet to adopt these methods, and are experiencing difficulty in meeting financial or public accountability standards, should seriously considered following the example of the many institutions that have benefitted from live interpretation.BibliographyAtkinson, S (2007) The value of information and communications technology in natural heritage interpretation Scottish Natural Heritage. Retrieved 8 August 2008 from http//www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/ReportNo218.pdfBlack, G (2005). The Engaging Museum Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. Routledge, Abingdon, UKBlockley, M and Hems, A (eds) (2006). Heritage Interpretation Theory and Practice. Routledge, Abingdon, UKBoyd, S and Timothy, D (2003). Heritage Tourism. Pearson Education, Harlow, UKDicks, B (2003). Culture on Display. Open University Press. Maidenhead, UK.Dray, C (1999). History as Re-enactment R.G. Collingwoods Idea of History. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UKHicks, D. (1994). The use of living history events at historic sites and buildings, masters thesis, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, fall in Kingdom.Hunt, S.J (2004). Acting the part living history as a serious leisure pursuit. Leisure Studies, Vol.23, No.4, pp.387-403Malcolm-Davies (2003). Borrowed Robes The educational value of costumed interpretation at historic sites. Retrieved 8 August 2008 from http//www.esade.es/cedit2003/pdfs/malcomdaviesjm.pdfRobertshaw, A. (1990). Acts of imagination. Museums journal, Vol. 3, pp.30-31.Ransom, E. (1996). Peopling the past current practices in archeological site interpretation. In Archaeological displays and the public methodology and interpretation (McManus, P. Ed.), pp.118-137, instal of Archaeology, London