Before launching this tool, the museum had some fears and reservations regarding the necessity and the purpose of this device. Wouldn’t it trivialize history? Would VR be in the forefront instead of the authentic place? Would people be interested in the story behind it? Levien explained that they were afraid that people would not visit the museum anymore if the VR looks more realistic and offers a more accurate insight of Anne Frank’s life. But it seems to be the opposite. It acts as a teaser for visitors. After experiencing the VR, they want to see the real place. This tool brings new ideas and questions for the future: could it be used in classrooms? How should students be prepared? What to do afterwards? One of the problems posed with this device is that it can only be used by one student at a time. Levien and the educational team of the Anne Frank House don’t yet have an answer concerning potential use of the VR in schools, but they are thinking about the scope of possibilities for this tool in the future.
During the discussion, the question of whether it could be applied to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum was asked. What would be appropriate to show? The director of the International Center for Education about Auschwitz and the Holocaust, Andrzej Kacorzyk, answered that he would not exclude any new project or idea but that he was very cautious about virtual reality. The Museum already had a lot of proposals among which realistic visions like a Kapo hitting or shooting a prisoner were reproduced. The use of VR for this goes too far. No proper way to use this technology has yet been found. Dr. Piotr Trojański agreed: “What can be shown and what cannot be? Where is the border? […] I wouldn’t go into the reproduction of reality. I would prefer not to reproduce sounds and noises. We are so cautious, being afraid of VR, but we are not afraid of watching films which are equally realistic, where we see the gas chamber or the last film about the Sonderkommando. So why, in the case of a feature film, do we not raise these problems and these objections, but in the case of this device we do? Films are also regarded as a didactic means to help us to educate people. This is just a reflection, but most probably you will agree with us that there are people with disabilities who are unable to see everything and there are people who cannot go to Auschwitz from very distant places. So this device could be used by our Museum. It is only a question of thinking how to use the device and sooner or later this will happen, but I would not reject the idea completely.”
One last question was raised by a Dutch participant, Sten Juffer: “The programme is called ‘Education in authentic memorial sites’ and I see great possible use for technology like this, but still, it is not authentic, it is still virtual of course. Have you thought about the possible danger that people are going to do the virtual tour and then think “well, I have had the authentic experience?” For now, the Anne Frank House doesn’t have enough hindsight to answer this problem, but Semra thinks that “those who have the intention to visit, will visit no matter what”.
Other former concentration camps are already using virtual reality such as Bergen-Belsen and Westerbork. According to Semra, VR offers a broader chance to adapt to visitors’ needs and expectations: “Some of them want to experience the personal experience of the camp, others want to have a tour guide who is going to share personal stories and have human contact.” As Levien suggested, the difference with these memorials is that a lot of authentic buildings and artefacts are still upright in Auschwitz, so maybe this kind of imagination is not needed here. In any case, it was concluded that VR would be a good tool to preserve temporary exhibitions and make them virtually available for a longer time.
The virtual tour of the Anne Frank House is also available online by clicking on the following link: https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/secret-annex/