(IN)TANGIBLE HERITAGE(S)

Abstract

Before discussing further the validity of digital technology applied in the heritage field, a reflective discussion on how well the parameters of existing architectural heritage are sought and registered in conservation authentically along with proper assessment on their contexts. Especially in architectural heritages that are not monuments, the distinction between the tangible and the intangible is questionable, and it is hard to assess their existential value. Is architecture tangible or intangible?
What if the complicated interplay between tangible and intangible is triggered by distinction, no matter what virtual reality is or not? Also, the tangible could be merely an instrument to secure the intangible. The effort to the tangible conserved in a perfect condition aims to entertain the present generation or tourists? As digital technology amplifies the degree of integration, can it be a tool to increase accessibility to the heritage for ordinary people? Without the proper knowledge, the tangible heritage can be manipulated as an ideological tool. Though built forms comprise various factors, the intangible and the tangible, is it certain that all built form factors conserved equally in VR simulation that relies heavily on one sense, a vision? Can experiencing heritage be unfolded in VR, as Elia Rasmussen questioned the plan and section in experiencing architecture? The heritage is perceived as an object cut out of its cultural, geographical, and transitory context by omitting data set in VR.
Experiencing time on and where heritage stands still as a part of time-space in the given geographical context would be actual and real with oddments that cannot be predicted and generated by digital technology. It would be an act of integrating the tangible and intangible of the past and the present digitally and manually. Alternatively, it will generate a new data set, memory in odds and ends as one proceeds.