|
|
|
| A Study of Design for Digital Cultural Innovation under the Integration of Culture and Technology: A Knowledge Graph Analysis Based on Citespace |
| Guo Yinman, Ji Tie, Tian Qijun |
| School of Design, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In recent years, various government ministries and commissions have successively issued relevant opinions and proposals, constantly emphasizing the supporting role of technology in cultural construction to release new drivers of Chinese culture through the integration of culture and technology. In consideration of the importance of cultural heritage in cultural value and the urgency of protection, it is usually the primary application object of digital methods. Based on the current overall development trend, this field has gradually shifted from digital preservation to digital cultural innovation, and the latter has also become an important task in China’s medium and long-term development plan. Adopting the research method of bibliometrics, combined with the results of literature research and typical cases in the industry, this paper sorts out the development context and perspective of digital cultural innovation, and clarifies the role and task of design in innovation.Firstly, from the literature review of cultural heritage digitization in the past twenty years, the changing role of design can be concluded as from the edge to the center. There are three stages in the digital field of tangible cultural heritage, which are the datalization of cultural heritage, the development of digital technology and data display, and the multiple data forms and in-depth data mining. There are four stages in the digital field of intangible cultural heritage (ICH), which are on-site field study and digital archiving of ICH, co-construction and dissemination of network-based digital platform for ICH, digital interactive experience of ICH based on kinesthetic and somatosensory technologies, and reflection on ICH digitization and research on sustainability. Taking these two fields into consideration, with the help of technology, digital culture has achieved remarkable results in three aspects: digital reconstruction technology, cultural big data stock, and digital innovation tools and platforms. On this basis, digital culture urgently needs a leap forward from quantity to quality, and tap the social application potentials more deeply. Under this goal, the application advantages of design are becoming more and more obvious. Its main fields of participation include applying immersion technology to improve the accessibility of digital culture, carrying out collaborative cooperation to promote the reuse of digital culture, and mobilizing public participation to promote the reflection of digital culture. Design has become an important part of participation in multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaborative innovation.Secondly, design engagement drives a shift in the perspective of cultural concerns from objects to connections. According to bibliometric analysis, design participation in digital cultural innovation mainly includes six aspects. From the perspective of design innovation of the cultural experience for mass users, it includes three aspects: digital heritage information system design for differentiated user behavior, offline multi-sensory and cross-media interactive experience design of digital heritage, and IoT-based intelligent space design for cultural heritage. From the perspective of promoting the development of digital cultural ecology by design, it includes three aspects, namely, the digital narrative of cultural heritage based on community and history, the cultural consumption and digital marketing of digital heritage, and the evaluation and reflection of digital cultural value driven by technology. Through the processing and utilization of cultural data, the design enhances the creation of phygital experience integrating online and offline, and promotes the dual-track innovative development of digital culture between industrial and public through reasonable cultural value evaluation. Compared with many disciplines involved in the cultural heritage digitization, design participation is not only concerned with the value of cultural heritage as objects, but more importantly, with the creation of multiple connections around it, including the connection between cultural objects and historical background and contemporary society, the connection between physical objects and digital contexts, and the connection between different cultural subjects.
|
|
Received: 24 July 2022
|
|
|
|
1 Pietrobruno S.， “YouTube and the social archiving of intangible heritage，” New Media & Society， Vol. 15， No. 8 （2013）， pp. 1259-1276.
2 Koutsabasis P. & Vosinakis S.， “Kinesthetic interactions in museums： conveying cultural heritage by making use of ancient tools and （re-）constructing artworks，” Virtual Reality， Vol. 22， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 103-118.
3 Bie B.， Zhang Y. & Fu R.， “Study on display space design of off-line experience stores of traditional handicraft derivative product of ICH based on multi-sensory integration，” in Marcus A. ＆ Wang W. （eds.）， Design， User Experience， and Usability： Users， Contexts and Case Studies， Cham： Springer， 2018， pp. 459-470.
4 di Franco P.， Winterbottom M. & Galeazzi F. et al.， “Ksar Said： building Tunisian young people’s critical engagement with their heritage，” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 5 （2019）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1373.
5 Bakr A. F.， Robinson M. & Samadi Z. et al.， “The role of ‘sense of place’ in the revitalisation of heritage street： George Town， Penang， Malaysia，” Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal，Vol. 6， No. 18 （2021）， pp. 305-312.
6 Kim S.， Im D. & Lee J. et al.， “Utility of digital technologies for the sustainability of intangible cultural heritage （ICH） in Korea，” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 21 （2019）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6117.
7 Giaccardi E. & Iversen O. S.， “Heritage inquiries： a designerly approach to human values，” https：//doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858258， 2022-07-18.
8 King L.， Stark J. F. & Cooke P.， “Experiencing the digital world： the cultural value of digital engagement with heritage，” Heritage & Society， Vol. 9， No. 1 （2016）， pp. 76-101.
9 Nguyen H. H.， Beel D. & Webster G. et al.， “CURIOS mobile： linked data exploitation for tourist mobile apps in rural areas，” https：//doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15615-6_10， 2022-07-18.
10 Walsh D.， Hall M. M. & Clough P. et al.， “Characterising online museum users： a study of the National Museums Liverpool museum website，” International Journal on Digital Libraries， Vol. 21， No. 1 （2020）， pp.75-87.
11 Gomez-Oliva A.， Alvarado-Uribe J. & Parra-Mero?o M. C. et al.， “Transforming communication channels to the co-creation and diffusion of intangible heritage in smart tourism destination： creation and testing in Ceutí （Spain），” Sustainability， Vol. 11， No. 14 （2019）， https：//www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3848.
12 Huang H. & Ng K. H.， “Designing for cultural learning and reflection using IoT serious game approach，” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing， Vol. 25， No. 3 （2021）， pp.509-524.
13 Smith W.， Lewi H. & Nichols D.， “‘PastPort’： reflections on the design of a mobile app for citizen heritage in Port Melbourne，” Australian Historical Studies， Vol. 49， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 103-125.
14 Yelmi P.， Ku?cu H. & Yanta? A. E.， “Towards a sustainable crowdsourced sound heritage archive by public participation： the Soundsslike project，” https：//doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971492， 2022-07-18.
15 Giglitto D.， Lazem S. & Preston A.， “A participatory approach for digital documentation of Egyptian Bedouins， intangible cultural heritage，” Interaction Design and Architecture（s） Journal， No. 41 （2019）， pp. 31-49.
16 杨琳、刘阁、翟宏英： 《面向用户体验设计的科学博物馆用户接受智能互动式展览的影响因素研究》，《工业工程设计》2021年第6期，第10-22页。
17 Azevedo A.， “Using social media photos as a proxy to estimate the recreational value of （im）movable heritage： the Rubjerg Knude （Denmark） lighthouse，” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management， Vol. 33， No. 6 （2021）， pp. 2283-2303. |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
