April 17, 2017
Ever visit a historic site and wish that you could see just a little bit more of what things were really like? Thanks to the work of Greg Werkheiser and his partners at ARtGlass, that will soon be possible. Listen as Nick and Greg discuss the future of augmented and virtual reality in historic preservation and heritage tourism, as well as Greg’s pioneering work as a cultural heritage lawyer. You don’t need VR goggles to get the full experience, just press play and listen to PreserveCast!
[Nick Redding] The future is augmented reality and soon the same will be said of how we understand the past, according to our guest this week, Greg Werkheiser. Greg is involved in all kinds of ground-breaking work in historic preservation from providing legal representation to helping integrate new technology like augmented reality into historic and heritage sites. You won’t need VR goggles for this episode, so stick around for PreserveCast.
[SPONSOR] This episode of PreserveCast is brought to you by Howard Bank. Howard Bank, we’re not just your branch, we’re your roots!
From Preservation Maryland Studios in the historic podcast district of Baltimore, this is PreserveCast!
[Nick Redding] Greg Werkheiser is a lawyer and entrepreneur who builds ventures that connect the lessons of our past to the leadership of our future. Greg believes that solving critical societal challenges requires leaders who draw on wisdom and strategy from across time, culture, sector, industry, and ideology. He is the co-founder of Cultural Heritage Partners, the premier law, government affairs, and business strategy firm serving exclusively heritage-mission clients including governments, professional associations, museums, tribes, preservation organizations, private businesses, families, and individuals. As well as working with ARtGlass, a wearable augmented reality company helping cultural sites and museums create mind-bending experiences for visitors. Today, I understand you’re joining us from Richmond. Is that right, Greg?
[Greg Werkheiser] That’s correct, Richmond, Virginia.
[NR] And we’re going to talk to you about a wide variety of different topics. It sort of seems like you’re the jack-of-all-trades when it comes to historic preservation, and we want to talk about, in particular, your work and how it has intersected with technology and historic preservation. So why don’t you give us a little bit of a snapshot of who you are and how you found your way to historic preservation?
[GW] Well, sure. Well, I grew up in the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania where my uncle frequently took my brother and I out into the Pennsylvania woods to observe all kinds of evidence of cultures that lived before us. So I always had a passion for the mysteries of history. Then ultimately decided that I would go to law school. And while I did not – and was not aware – during law school that I would eventually be interested in historic preservation law.
Soon after I graduated and took my first job for a very big law firm in Washington, D.C., I was asked to take on a pro bono case representing a Native American tribe in New Jersey in a matter that involved attempting to preserve from the threat of destruction about forty acres of culturally and archaeologically significant land called the Black Creek Site. And my understanding, when I was asked to take on the case, was that it would be a week-long, one-hearing matter. As it turns out, as is now I know frequently the case, it was a six-year, 20-plus court appearance commitment. The end of which, thankfully, we prevailed and the site became a National Register site and a state park. And by that point, I was hooked on the concept of using the law, and public policy, and media relations, and other tools in the entrepreneur’s toolbox to try and advance the cause of preserving history. I’ve always been interested in leadership and public policy from a future-orientation. What I think I understood early on was that an essential piece of being prepared to do better in the future than we’ve done in the past is making sure that we preserve the lessons of the past so that we can both mimic them when they’re good and avoid them when they’re bad. So that’s how I got started.
[NR] So, practically, what does that mean now? How do you make a living? What is it that you do?
[GW] So my wife, Marion, who is also my long-time collaborator and I have a number of business ventures that we pursue. The primary one is a law and public policy firm called Cultural Heritage Partners and we’ve been around for six years. And early in our careers we were told when we threw out the hypothesis that we should start a law firm focused on this topic, we were told by a lot of folks that it was impossible to make a living just doing cultural heritage law. And, indeed, in the six years that we’ve been running it, we haven’t found any other firm in the world that does this full-time on the law and the policy side. There are plenty of really amazing legendary attorneys that do art law or other forms of preservation law, but almost always they do it as a side practice to something else that’s a more common, less niche area of the law like commercial practice.
[NR] Right. Yeah. I worked for Civil War Trust for awhile and we had good relationships with a lot of luminaries in preservation law, but I think you’re right. They all had sort of a different day job or sort of fell back on a broader for-profit practice that wasn’t just about historic preservation so that is unique.
[GW] It is. And in the first couple of years, we were not sure that we weren’t wrong because we had to, in many cases, we had to create an expectation in the market that you could, in fact, afford a high-quality lawyer for organizations that traditionally were used to kind of scraping along without good counsel. But things started to take off, and tribes came in, domestic and foreign governments came to us, museums, and associations of professionals. So by year four and five, things were stable enough that we could begin to expand. And then last year in our sixth year, I think we kind of tripled in size. And our team involves certainly, I hope, some good lawyers but also some folks who are good public policy analysts. We have some non-lawyers including archaeologists and historians. But the combination of those allows us, we hope, to bring some value to the field.
So that’s our primary venture, but as you kind of hinted at in your first question, we also dabble in other areas. So we’ve got a consulting business that deals with leadership, development challenges. And then increasingly we’re focused on the deployment of augmented reality technology within the heritage preservation space. So we’ve got a lot going on but it’s… What we felt comfortable with over time is that having a number of different tools in the toolbox all aimed at the central mission which is, “Let’s be entrepreneurially-groundbreaking within the broad space of the cultural heritage preservation movement.” And so those firms are the sharpest tools that we have, we think, to kind of advance the ball.
[NR] So that all makes a lot of sense and it all kind of connects to each other. I would say from the outside looking in, the idea that doing lobbying work, and public policy, and the law, those all play nicely together. And then you throw in this piece about augmented reality. So how does that – I mean, from the outside looking in, that is sort of the one piece doesn’t look like the other. How does that connect to all of this? What got you guys interested in augmented reality and how is that advancing this mission that you’re focused on?
[GW] Well, look. At the end of the day if someone says what are you, I would probably say entrepreneur or a social entrepreneur – I think Marion would say the same thing – before we even say we’re lawyers or lobbyists. Social entrepreneur [is] a fancy way of saying, “You’re a problem solver that thinks outside of the box in a way where you measure both your social impacts and your financial sustainability.” Right?
So no one wants to live in their mother’s basement. Everyone wants to do right by their family and be a good businessperson. But the things that we want to achieve in the field of cultural heritage are things that we think have a significant social value in the end. And so when we looked out at the landscape of how we wanted to change the trajectory of the cultural heritage movement domestically and internationally, one cannot ignore that the exponential growth in technology across a number of fields, but especially with respect to artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality, that those can and should play transformative roles, not just in our day-to-day lives, but in the context of preserving history of making it more accessible to a greater number of people, of making the lessons that you extract from it more dynamic and digestible, and as a consequence more useful to us as people who live in the modern age. I mean we’ve always thought of historic preservation not as a side hobby of well-off people who have the luxury of being interested in obscure historical topics. We view it as an essential ingredient in planning for a better future for everybody. And so in that context, it doesn’t seem to us to be inconsistent to think about historic preservation from the context of the modern technologies that are now emerging and emerging so quickly that they’re making people’s heads spin.
[NR] So let’s talk about that. So when it comes to the actual technologies themselves, you threw out a couple different ones. You said augmented reality, virtual reality. Why don’t you sort of define some of those things for us and then maybe give us a sense for what you guys are working on right now?
[GW] Sure. Well, just to step back for a second. One of the big consulting agencies, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PWC think is what they call themselves these days.
[NR] Yeah, the guys who ruined the Oscars.
[GW] That’s exactly right. When they weren’t ruining the Oscars, in the past two years, they’ve done an inventory of all the emerging technologies in the world. There was something like 150 or 180 of them, and then they ranked them according to the ones that were most likely to fundamentally alter the daily lives of people. And among the top five were three that I think are particularly interesting. The other two are so complicated, it’s hard for me to even understand it myself, let alone describe them to other folks. So let’s just focus on those three.
Number one was artificial intelligence. The basic concept there is that we are now programming computers that, independent of their programming, can identify and solve problems and, eventually, will be able to invent their successor technologies. Once you get to that threshold, the way in which we have thought about human progress in a kind of linear way since we were carving stones into wheels, that suddenly becomes disorienting because now the growth in computing power that used to rely on the computing power of brains, now is exceeded or soon will be exceeded by the computing power of the machines that we’ve created.
[NR] Yeah, that’s pretty intense.
[GW] It is pretty intense and the reaction that people have when I go down this road is half of them are really excited and interested. The other half look at me like I just came from a Star Trek convention and I’ve lost my mind. But I don’t know of any field, including historic preservation, that won’t be fundamentally transformed in the next fifteen to twenty years by artificial intelligence. Now, the two other technologies I’ll mention, virtual reality and augmented reality, are probably a little bit more in everyone’s lexicon. I’m interested in augmented reality and I’ll tell you the difference. Virtual [computer noise] – sorry.
[NR] It’s okay.
[GW] The funny thing was that sound interrupting us in the background was my Alexa [laughter] produced by Amazon, who I must have said a word that sounded like Alexa. As a consequence, this pseudo-artificial intelligence woke up and started to speak to me [laughter]. So it’s the perfect –
[GW] I’ve unplugged her now but –
[NR] Actually, you know what? We probably should just leave all of this in.
[GW] Leave it in?
[NR] Leave it in. This is perfect. Yes, okay.
[GW] So, for your listeners, we were talking about technologies being smarter than us, and we were interrupted in the background by such a technology. Perfect metaphor. So virtual reality is a closed environment where you put on goggles and you don’t walk around anywhere because you can’t see beyond the goggles. But what you see in the goggles can be any scenario, visually, that computer folks can create anywhere in the world.
So you’re sitting on your couch and you’re touring the pyramids of Egypt. It’s amazing and transformative. The only technology that is going to surpass it and dwarf it, in terms of the amount of money that people like Mark Zuckerberg and others are putting into it over the next couple of years, is augmented reality. And augmented reality means you’re out in the world. You’re either using a handheld device, but what we’re really interested in is wearable augmented reality where you’re wearing a pair of glasses. You can see through the glasses because they’re clear lenses. You can walk around in the real world. You can be at places. But layered over that real-world image is whatever data, information, entertainment, augmentation that creative minds can come up with.
The reason that we’re interested and are launching businesses in the augmented reality space is because, as people who care about history, we believe that place still matters. That being in the physical location, or approximate to a physical location, is still an essential ingredient to learning. It doesn’t mean that there’s no value in the cultural heritage context of a 100 percent-simulated virtual reality. I could talk all day about the great value that brings to the field. There are millions of people who will never be able to afford or have physical access to going to the pyramids of Egypt. But augmented reality, for the rest of the world, allows you to be in a physical place and to experience it, but also to take that experience to the next level so that’s why while all of these technologies will be impactful in the field of heritage preservation and heritage tourism, our bet is on the augmented piece and that’s where we’re putting most of our experimental efforts at this point.
[NR] Well, that’s really interesting. Well, we’re going to take a quick break here and when we come back we’re going to kind of dive into what exactly that means for your work and what you’re experimenting with and perhaps what we can expect to see from the mind of Greg Werkheiser in the future. We’ll be right back on PreserveCast.
[Stephen Israel] All this technology stuff is fun but there’s nothing I love more than some good old-fashioned old-time Appalachian bluegrass music. Of course, folk music in America doesn’t belong to any one state; influences come in from all over the place but you can trace bits. And one little bit that can be traced back to Maryland is the popularity of the banjo.
Today, the banjo is basically the poster child for Appalachian old-time and bluegrass music but the truth is the history of the banjo is much more complicated and culturally-diverse than that image implies. Folk music in America derived from a number of different sources. European settlers brought melodies and lyrical ballads with them from their homes to the new world. Songs used for storytelling, remembrance, and of course, for dancing. But these cultural artifacts passed down from ear by generation to generation did not exist in a vacuum. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Whites lived alongside, enslaved and free Africans. And as various European and African music cultures mixed, a new uniquely American folk tradition began to form.
I know what you’re thinking. Where’s the banjo? You might be surprised to hear that the banjo, in fact, has its roots among the enslaved African populations transplanted to the Americas. Early banjos were made by using a hollow gourd body, a simple wooden neck, and stretching animal skin over the body to create a distinct sound from the resonating membrane. As a matter of fact, instruments of a similar build to the banjo like the kora are still prominent in West African musical traditions. No one is even 100 percent sure where the word banjo came from. Some think it’s from either the West African Yoruba or Kimbundu languages, and others think it might be Portuguese. Based on recorded references, the banjo as banjar as another spelling to the instrument’s name in journals and letters. Some experts believe that the Chesapeake region of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia may have had the highest concentration of African-American banjo players in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. And, of course, Baltimore was a major port of entry for African people at the time.
Because the early banjo was so easy to build, it started to grow in popularity among White, rural populations in Maryland and the rest of the country. It’s much easier to build a banjo in your backyard than a fiddle or a piano. Over time the banjo broke into White musical performance in a bunch of ways. In public performance, the banjo was often seen as a staple of blackface minstrel shows that were popular across the country in the 19th century. But in private, especially in poorer rural homes, it continued to grow in popularity for reasons that were less racially-charged. It was an easy and practical instrument to maintain.
As the banjo’s popularity grew, the demand for quality instruments for minstrel performers and for people to play at home grew as well, and Baltimore became home to the first known commercial banjo producer in the world. William Bushey, a German immigrant to the United States, set up shop in Baltimore when he was contacted by Joel Sweeney, a minstrel performer, who was one of the first White people to play banjo in public on record. The choices Bushey made in producing his banjos influenced the instrument to this day. Bushey was one of the first to use a circular wooden frame instead of a gourd as the body of the instrument, probably because he was already in the business of making drums. His banjos were extremely widespread in the mid-nineteenth century, and some survive to this day as valued collector’s items. I could, of course, talk for hours about the banjo, but I don’t want to keep you from PreserveCast.
Do you have questions? We may have answers. If at any point during this podcast you’ve thought of a question that you have for us or maybe one of our guests, we’d love to hear about it. You can send an e-mail to email@example.com, and we’ll try and answer it right here on the air on the next episode of PreserveCast.
[NR] You’re listening to PreserveCast. This is Nick Redding and we’re joined with Greg Werkheiser, who is speaking to us from Richmond, Virginia today. We were just having a conversation about the difference between virtual reality, artificial intelligence, augmented reality. And I have to mention, Greg, that we had on Rob Shenk, who is the vice president of visitor services and visitor experience at Mount Vernon. And they were talking about how they’re now beginning to throw some funding at looking at augmented and virtual reality there and actually having a virtual tour of George Washington’s Mount Vernon at some point in the near future. So obviously, it’s something that is beginning to proliferate out through the heritage field. What does that mean for you? What is ARtGlass? And what are you working on? And how soon could your version of augmented preservation reality be a reality?
[GW] Sure. One, I’m grateful to hear that Mount Vernon is doing what we expect of Mount Vernon, which is to push the envelope. It sounds like I’ll be giving them a call. I’m a Virginian, at least for the past 25 years, and I think we have so many great assets here that could be transformed, and I’m glad to see that those kinds of institutions are, as they should be, pushing the envelope.
In our day job, through Culture Heritage Partners, we have relationships with, gratefully, some of the leading institutions in the United States and around the world who are cultural heritage institutions, museums, governments, etc. And they’re used to dealing with us around public policy and law and sometimes creative business strategy. What that’s allowed us to do is to very quickly also begin a conversation with them and take the trust that we hope we’ve earned as collaborators on those more traditional fronts and say, “Hey, take a look at what we’re doing on the augmented reality side.” So we’re really just trying to catch up with the long list of invitations that we’ve got to come experiment with augmented reality at some of these locations.
ARtGlass is the international company that we and our colleagues have launched first in Europe, and so we have augmented reality tours launched at twenty premier cultural heritage sites in Europe, including, for instance, the Tower of Pisa Square, the Formula One Racetrack at Monza, and a number of other places that would be familiar, especially to your listeners that have been in that part of Europe, especially around Italy. We launched in Europe, in part, because we knew that there was a demand for envelope-pushing technology over there, and because we had strong relationships over there. And in roughly the past 18 months, we’ve had about a quarter of a million actual users use our software-designed tours at these sites. Typically, they use hardware that look like glasses, regular glasses, with a little computer on the side. Those are produced by Epson, the printer company. We are a couple of days away from launching ARtGlass in the United States, and at that point, we will be talking with as many folks as are interested in bringing our proof of success from Europe over to the United States.
[NR] Well, the next time you are a little bit farther north and in Baltimore or anywhere in Maryland for that matter, we would love to test it out and actually, then, do a review on PreserveCast. I mean, this is the preservation podcast that looks at the intersection of historic preservation and technology. What better place to have a good review in the U.S., right?
[GW] We promise you guysthe first opportunity to give an official review of our technology, and we’d love your feedback. I was astounded at the numbers that came back from the users in Europe. We’ve got a 98 percent client/customer-user satisfaction rate, which kind of blew my mind.
[NR] What is the cost associated with it for a viewer? I mean, if you’re at the Formula One Race Track, what do you expect to pay?
[GW] If you were to go to the Formula One Racetrack on a typical, hot July day when there’s no racing going on and take their un-augmented reality tour, you might pay like $12.50. If you want to take the ARtGlass-enhanced tour, you might pay $22.50, so another $10. What you get for that is you get a pair of glasses that comes with a little mini-computer and an audio guide. And then you walk out onto the three boxes where the race winners would typically stand. You stand on the top one, raise your arms as if you just won the Formula One, and over this empty track is projected the sounds of screaming fans, the sounds of race cars whipping by. Afterwards, you can walk into the media room where, of course, there’s no one there. But it feels and looks, as soon as you walk in, as if you’re surrounded by 100 reporters shouting questions at you, so for $10 extra, or in some cases $10 is all the fee is – if a place wasn’t kind of used to charging for these tickets – you get a pretty transformative experience, and that is adaptable from everything from racetracks to house museums to the locations that the Smithsonian runs. So we’re excited, and we’re especially excited, because for at least a limited time, I think we’re outpacing major players, for instance, like Google that are trying out augmented reality in the cultural heritage space, but it’s on handheld devices where you’re walking around with a special phone that you rent and the augmented experience is captured in that phone, so you’re always looking down, as opposed to what we prefer, which is looking up and forgetting about the handheld device, having hands-free, and being as close to the experience as you can. So we’re going to try our best to stay ahead of the big boys in the field, but for a short period of time, we think we’re the only company in the world that has actual users in the field using this technology so –
[NR] So that’s a pretty bright and really even more optimistic future than I expected to get out of this interview. It’s pretty cool. What are the big challenges with it though? I mean, obviously, it’s not all perfect and it’s not all coming together perfectly. What is the difficulty in bringing it on really fast? Is it cost? Is it people just don’t understand what it is, the people who are running these sites? Or what’s the big challenges that you’re up against right now?
[GW] Sure. Well, you know, leadership at a particular cultural institution matters. So it’s harder to walk into a place, an institution, that’s been doing things successfully – moderately successfully, successfully enough – for 25 years, and doesn’t necessarily feel or appreciate the competitive pressure to continue to innovate and suddenly convince them that augmented reality experimentation is the way to go. Luckily, we could spend ten years just going through the list of prospective client locations that have come to the realization that they’ve got to continue to push the envelope and make the visitor experience powerful and transformative if they want to compete for those visitors.
[NR] So it’s really not even just a – it’s not really so much like many things in technology. It’s not a tech issue, it’s the leadership issue. It’s the human side of it. It’s getting people to adopt things, which we saw firsthand here. And we haven’t really pulled back the curtain and talked a lot about PreserveCast on most of our [laughter] episodes. But I mean there was a sense, I know, from some folks where, “Well, no preservation group has a podcast. Why do you need a podcast?” Right? And just because your peers aren’t there doesn’t mean it’s not a place that you should be exploring and seeing if it works for your organization. But that takes a sort of a different way of looking at technology and embracing new things and new concepts and there’s sort of a different view on some of those things. So it’s sounding like it’s like that with this as well, where you just need to find people who are willing to sort of take that jump.
[GW] You always need leadership. You always need a little bit of courage, a little entrepreneurial spirit. I don’t want to undersell the fact that the technological puzzle that the tech folks who are on our team are struggling with is easy. It would be easy for me to say that as the lawyer and not the technologists on our team. Those guys have it easy, right?
Some of the most skilled folks out there are trying to crack this, and it’s not just one problem. If you’re dealing with a pair of augmented reality glasses you have the question of, for instance, how does the tour speak to the glasses? Do you use a GPS-derived system? Do you use a series of beacons? How do you use the camera in the glasses to help guide the tour? Can you have motion sensitivity so if you wave your hand in front of the glasses you can impact and interact with these virtual objects? Then it gets even down to the question of you’re wearing these glasses in the heat, someone’s sweating on them. How do you deal with the fact that you’ve got to keep the hardware clean [laughter] so that you don’t give it to someone else, right?
So everything from hygiene to really high-tech questions about programming software, that whole panoply of stuff that we have to tackle. And we have to step into the role of the person on the tour and the leader of the institution that’s experimenting with this and is usually trying to experiment with a limited experimental budget, right? So how do we make that work? What we’ve found so far is that this is scalable so that a location that has 500,000 visitors versus, say, a Smithsonian branch that has 7.5 million, it’s scalable to the point where we can get a product in the field in front of users in a short period of time, and then we can certainly tweak it relatively easily as time goes on.
[NR] That’s really phenomenal and really exciting as well. So we are drawing to our conclusion here, and we don’t really let anyone leave an interview without asking them about a favorite preservation project or a favorite building that they’ve been associated with or had the pleasure to work on, so we’ll throw that question out to you. Favorite project or building or something that you’d like to share with the audience?
[GW] Wow, we have really been lucky in the past couple of years to be invited to be a participant in some big and challenging cases on the international level. The question of how groups like ISIS are leveraging the illicit trade in antiquities to fund terror is kind of a mind-expanding challenge in terms of how we can help some of our clients disrupt that illegal trade as a way of fighting terror. Something that when I was in law school and had some glimpse of what cultural heritage law was, I never conceived that I’d be in conversations around battling ISIS [laughter].
[GW] And so, so in that sense, that feels fun and important. But the story I kind of started with early on about the case in New Jersey is probably, for me, always going to be my favorite case. My clients were 3,500 Native Americans. They were fun to work with, are fun to work with. In fact, fifteen years later, I still represent them. And the outcome was completely unpredictable. And probably, we overcame a lot of obstacles to get the site preserved. New Jersey is not an easy place in which to deal with the political side of preservation, but we managed to get through. And as a consequence, this 40-acre site which has in the ground an archeological record that spans 10,000 years of human occupation through 500 generations of people lived on these forty acres and left their cultural evidence there. I mean, that’s preserved and we can learn from that for generations. And so I’m just incredibly grateful that I accidentally fell into this field and that, in a modest way, we’ve been able to play a role in advancing it. So that would be my answer, the Black Creek site in New Jersey of all places.
[NR] Well, that’s great. Well, I mean, you’re grateful that you fell into the field and we’re grateful to have had the opportunity to talk with you today. If people want to get in touch with you or there’s a site out there that is interested in embracing technology and wants to be one of your guinea pigs, how do they get a hold of you or anyone else at Cultural Heritage Partners?
[GW] Sure. Well, whether is law or policy matter or if it’s a augmented reality or some other matter, people can reach me and my colleagues directly through our website at CulturalHeritagePartners.com, and all of us, the e-mail naming mechanism is simply our first name. So, in my case, Greg@CulturalHeritagePartners.com. We’d love to hear from folks, and let me say also, congratulations to you all on really doing something valuable for the field and pushing the envelope and I look forward to continuing the dialog offline and following the great work that you guys are doing through this podcast.
[NR] Well, [we] appreciate that, Greg. Thank you, and I think we may – you opened our eyes, too, in a way, to the whole fight with ISIS, and we may have to have you back for a whole separate podcast just on that. I think that that would be of great interest to our listeners so –
[GW] I’d be more than happy to suggest one of my intellectually superior colleagues to [laughter] come on and tell you about that. My hero in this field, really, is my spouse. She just runs circles around everybody in terms of her ability to think outside of the box, and so I’m sure Marion would love to chat with you guys at some point. But thanks again for the opportunity.
[NR] All right, that sounds great. Thank you so much for being with us on PreserveCast.
[GW] Thank you, take care.
This podcast was developed under a grant from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, a unit of the National Park Service. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Preservation Maryland and the Maryland Milestones Heritage Area and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Park Service or the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training.
This week’s episode was produced and engineered by Ben and Stephen Israel. Our executive producer is Aaron Marcavitch. Our theme music is performed by the band Pretty Gritty. You can learn more about them at their website: PrettyGrittyMusic.com, on Facebook, or on Twitter @PG_PrettyGritty.
To learn about Preservation Maryland or this week’s guests, visit: PreservationMaryland.org. While there, you can check out our blog and learn about what’s current in historic preservation. We’re also on Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and Twitter @PreservationMD. And of course, a very special thank you to our listeners. Keep preserving.
At Preservation Maryland’s Old Line State Summit, Greg Werkheiser of Cultural Heritage Partners and ARtGlass presented the awesome opportunities that preservationists have to shape the telling of history well into the future – if, we tap into trends afoot in augmented reality, drone imaging and 3D printing, and artificial intelligence. If you missed it, we have a recording on the Preservation Maryland blog.