So many people wish to see the past reconstructed as virtual reality.

John Soane's draughtsman Joeseph Gandy was producing exquisite drawings of imaginary (ancient) buildings in the late 18th century as part of the Greek revival.

The Gillierons and Piet de Jong (architect again) were instrumental in creating a visual identity for Arthur Evans's Minoan Crete through their watercolors.

Hollywood built life size models - not so virtual.

Gladiator takes you in a helicopter over the Colloseum.

3D architectual rendering is already easy - from AutoCad through 3D Studio to the on-screen walk-through. We see it everywhere. I hate it because it says that photographic reality IS. And it isn't. OK there is a lot of information there in a photograph, but how much does it tell you?

An old distinction I have used a lot is very relevant here - between naturalism and realism. Naturalistic representation is not necessarily realistic, though it may well look more like what we see.

Lynn Meskell recently came to Stanford (see my blog entry [link]) and told of her computer science colleagues who are working on the Stanford site of Monte Polizzo. They have a scanner that shoots its laser at architecture, generates terabytes of spatial data that can be used to create an incredibly detailed 3D model of the object or building. (Stanford Computing used similar technologies in the Digital Michaelangelo project.)

What for? What is the result? A lot of information about stuff that doesn't matter. And a vision of reality that is hopelessly nineteenth century in its photographic metaphors.

Never mind the fact that archaeology is not about discovery of the past (in whatever degree of photographic detail), but is a process of working on what is left. Where is the process in a 3D model? The response evoked is awe and wonder at the technology - ooh look how we can spin it round.

The ugly textual mess of a wiki like Traumwerk is far more realistic than a beautifully rendered VR model.