AccScience Publishing / AC / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AC026220040
Cite this article
2
Download
35
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Temporal continuity and cultural preservation: Philosophical frameworks for digital heritage engagement

David Radović1*
Show Less
1 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Received: 30 May 2026 | Revised: 6 July 2026 | Accepted: 24 August 2026 | Published online: 5 August 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

The digitization of cultural heritage through virtual reality, augmented reality, and three-dimensional reconstruction technologies has transformed how societies preserve, access, and experience architectural legacies. Yet, theoretical frameworks for understanding the temporal, experiential, and participatory dimensions of digital heritage remain underexplored. Early 20th-century philosophical aesthetics, particularly concerning time, perception, and cultural expression, offer valuable insights for contemporary digital preservation practices that have rarely been applied to this domain. This article examines how Henri Bergson’s concept of durée and Bernard Bosanquet’s theory of aesthetic experience provide analytical frameworks for digital cultural heritage engagement, and investigates how early cinematic innovations in The Golem (1920) and Metropolis (1927) prefigured contemporary concerns about technological mediation of cultural memory and architectural representation. Employing philosophical hermeneutics and comparative cultural analysis, this research applies Bergson’s Introduction to Metaphysics (1913) and Bosanquet’s Three Lectures on Aesthetics (1915) to contemporary digital heritage case studies and immersive heritage platforms. The research illuminates how digital platforms collapse temporal boundaries, enabling simultaneous experience of past architectural states and present reconstructions, and how individual subjective experience and universal cultural themes explain participatory preservation practices. On the other hand, early cinema’s spatial construction techniques directly parallel contemporary virtual reality/augmented reality methods for creating immersive cultural environments. These early modernist frameworks remain critically relevant to digital heritage practice, providing conceptual foundations for temporal fluidity in virtual environments, participatory preservation models, and ethical considerations in digitally mediating cultural memory.

Keywords
Cultural heritage
Aesthetic theory
Immersive environments
Temporal fluidity
Collective memory
Photogrammetry
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
  1. Bergson H. Introduction to Metaphysics. Macmillan and Co.; 1923 (Original work published 1913).
  2. Bosanquet B. Three Lectures on Aesthetics. 3rd print. G. P. Putnam’s Sons; 1918 (Original work published 1915).
  3. Wegener P. The Golem: How He Came into the World [Film]. Universum Film; 1920.
  4. Lang F. Metropolis [Film]. UFA; 1927.
  5. Clarke JR. Expressionism in Film and Architecture: Hans Poelzig’s Sets for Paul Wegener’s The Golem. Art J. 1974;34(2):115-124. doi: 10.1080/00043249.1975.10793667
  6. Spiro M. Containing the monster: The Golem in expressionist film and theater. Space Between. 2013;9(1):11-36.
  7. Huyssen A. The vamp and the machine: technology and sexuality in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. New Ger Crit. 1981;(24/25):221. doi: 10.2307/488052
  8. Ruppert P. Technology and the construction of gender in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Genders. 2000. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://www.colorado.edu/gendersarchive1998-2013/2000/11/01/technology-and-construction-gender-fritz-langs-metropolis
  9. Münsterberg H. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study. D. Appleton and Company; 1916.
  10. CyArk. Petra Project. CyArk Digital Heritage Archive. Accessed March 13, 2026. https://www.cyark.org/projects/petra-ad-deir/overview
  11. Cook L. Leaving a trace. Vassar Q. Fall/Winter 2023. Accessed July 27, 2026. https://digital.vassar.edu/vq/fall-winter-2023/leaving-a-trace/
  12. Sylaiou S, Liarokapis F, Kotsakis K, Patias P. Virtual museums, a survey and some issues for consideration. J Cult Herit. 2009;10(4):520-528. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2009.03.003
  13. New Palmyra Project. New Palmyra. Accessed March 13, 2026. https://newpalmyra.org/
  14. Aljaafreh A, Garaj V, Choi Y. Using a digital participatory approach to facilitate inclusivity in Jordanian heritage sites: Stakeholders’ requirements and a proposed system. Archit Pap Fac Archit Des STU. 2023;28(3):3-9. doi: 10.2478/alfa-2023-0014
  15. Jokilehto J. A History of Architectural Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999.
  16. Kalay YE, Kvan T, Affleck J, eds. New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. Routledge; 2008.
  17. UNESCO. Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage. UNESCO; 2003. Accessed February 5, 2026. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/charter-preservation-digital-heritage
  18. Institute for Digital Archaeology. The Million Image Database. Published 2015. Accessed March 15, 2026. http://digitalarchaeology.org.uk/projects/
  19. Díaz-Andreu M. Introduction to the themed section digital heritage and the public. Int J Herit Stud. 2017;23(5):404-407. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1286780
  20. Li W, Xie Q, Ao J, et al. Systematic review: a scientometric analysis of the status, trends and challenges in the application of digital technology to cultural heritage conservation (2019–2024). npj Herit Sci. 2025;13(1):90. doi: 10.1038/s40494-025-01636-8
  21. Letellier R. Recording, Documentation, and Information Management for the Conservation of Heritage Places: Guiding Principles. Getty Conservation Institute; 2007.
  22. Witcomb A. The materiality of virtual technologies: a new approach to thinking about the impact of multimedia in museums. In: Cameron F, Kenderdine S, eds. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. MIT Press; 2007:35-48. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262033534.003.0003
  23. Foni AE, Papagiannakis G, Magnenat-Thalmann N. A taxonomy of visualization strategies for cultural heritage applications. J Comput Cult Herit. 2010;3(1):1-21. doi: 10.1145/1805961.1805962
  24. Champion EM. Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage. Routledge; 2015.
  25. Marto A, Gonçalves A, Melo M, Bessa M. A survey of multisensory VR and AR applications for cultural heritage. Comput Graph. 2022;102:426-440. doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2021.10.001
  26. Jiang L, Li J, Wider W, et al. A bibliometric insight into immersive technologies for cultural heritage preservation. npj Herit Sci. 2025;13:126. doi: 10.1038/s40494-025-01704-z
  27. Google Arts & Culture. Open Heritage: 3D Preservation. Published 2018. Accessed March 20, 2026. https://artsandculture.google.com/project/openheritage
  28. Smithsonian Institution. Skin and Bones [Mobile Application]. National Museum of Natural History; 2016.
  29. Latham KF. The poetry of the museum: a holistic model of numinous museum experiences. Mus Manag Curatorsh. 2007;22(3):247-263. doi: 10.1080/09647770701628594
  30. Tiribelli S, Pansoni S, Frontoni E, Giovanola B. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for Cultural Heritage: Opportunities and Challenges. IEEE Trans Technol Soc. 2024;5(3):293-305. doi: 10.1109/TTS.2024.3432407
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing