Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound: An Art-Anthropological Cross-Cultural Analysis of Architectural Form, Symbolic Ornamentation, and Public Perception

Abstract

This study presents a cross-cultural comparison of two fortified residences—Palazzo Farnese in Italy and Dong’s Fortified Compound in China—through a triadic analytical framework encompassing architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception. By combining field observation, iconographic interpretation, and digital ethnography, the research investigates how heritage meaning is constructed, encoded, and reinterpreted across distinct sociocultural contexts. Empirical materials include architectural documentation, decorative analysis, and a curated dataset of 4947 user-generated images and 1467 textual comments collected from Chinese and international platforms between 2020 and 2024. Methods such as CLIP-based visual clustering and BERTopic-enabled sentiment modelling were applied to extract patterns of perception and symbolic emphasis. The findings reveal contrasting representational logics: Palazzo Farnese encodes dynastic authority and Renaissance cosmology through geometric order and immersive frescoes, while Dong’s Compound conveys Confucian ethics and frontier identity via nested courtyards and traditional ornamentation. Digital responses diverge accordingly: international users highlight formal aesthetics and photogenic elements; Chinese users engage with symbolic motifs, family memory, and ritual significance. This study illustrates how historically fortified residences are reinterpreted through culturally specific digital practices, offering an interdisciplinary approach that bridges architectural history, symbolic analysis, and digital heritage studies.

1. Introduction

Fortified residences—structures combining residential, defensive, and symbolic functions—have emerged across civilisations throughout history. Among them, the bastioned palaces of Renaissance Italy, such as Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola, and the fortified compounds of northwestern China, like Dong’s Fortified Compound in Wuzhong, offer culturally distinct yet functionally comparable examples. These dwellings not only provided strategic defence and domestic shelter but also conveyed family status, political legitimacy, and cosmological significance.

In the digital age, historic architecture has become a frequent subject of photography and dissemination on social media. Whilst this visibility increases access, it often results in a form of ‘visual consumption’, where images circulate detached from their cultural and historical contexts. Such fragmentation challenges established interpretive frameworks in both architectural history and art anthropology [1].

Previous studies have explored symbolic or defensive elements [2,3,4] and digital representations of heritage through user-generated content (UGC) [5,6,7], but these aspects are usually addressed in isolation and within a single cultural context. Recent frameworks have leveraged UGC for heritage monitoring and community engagement [8], and digital storytelling has also been applied to enhance cultural tourism experiences [9]. However, none of these approaches systematically integrate architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception into a cross-cultural architectural comparison.

This study addresses this gap by comparing Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound—fortified residences that are typologically comparable yet culturally distinct—through a triadic framework integrating architectural analysis, iconographic interpretation, and multimodal UGC modelling.

It explores how digital media reshape the interpretation of historic architecture by posing three core questions:

• How do different cultures encode hierarchy and authority into architectural form?
• In what ways can architectural analysis incorporate symbolic imagery, user narratives, and patterns of visual engagement?
• How do ordinary users contribute to architectural meaning through their interactions on digital platforms?

To address these questions, this study proposes a three-part analytical framework—architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception—rooted in art-anthropological theory. Its contributions span three key dimensions.

First, the study draws on spatial politics and image anthropology to examine how architectural features convey social hierarchy, ritual logic, and cosmological thought [10,11].

Second, methodologically, it combines field observation, iconological interpretation, and digital modelling. Techniques such as CLIP-based image embedding and BERTopic topic modelling are employed to trace semantic links between user-generated texts and visuals [12,13,14].

Third, on the applied level, the study quantifies how culturally distinct users engage with architectural elements online. These insights reveal how cognitive framing shapes visual focus and inform future strategies for heritage interpretation and communication [7,15,16].

In this context, public perception is operationalised through digital ethnography, which interprets user-generated content as a lens into how individuals and communities reframe built heritage through platform-based narratives and imagery.

As a whole, the study advances a shift from static typological description towards a more dynamic and culturally responsive understanding of public perception and visual meaning-making. By exploring how architecture is interpreted both on-site and online, the study expands the methodological scope of art anthropology within architectural research. These inquiries also serve a broader objective: to reposition fortified residences within contemporary media ecologies and cross-cultural discourse.

2. Literature Review and Analytical Framework

This section reviews research on fortified residences, spatial power, and digital heritage, situating the Farnese–Dong comparison within a broader theoretical and methodological framework.

2.1. Cross-Cultural Approaches to Fortified Residences

Fortified residences in Renaissance Italy, such as Palazzo Farnese, integrated military symbolism with geometric order and visual hierarchy through pentagonal plans, axial layouts, and fresco programmes [2,3,17,18]. Related spatial strategies appear in European sites like Prószków Castle and Farnese Castle in Piacenza, now digitised for educational use [19,20].

In northwestern China, fortified compounds such as Dong’s Compound combined defensive features—rammed-earth walls, corner towers—with Confucian spatial ethics and courtyard-based ritual order [4,21,22]. Existing Chinese scholarship largely focuses on historical narratives or material typology, yet lacks comparative approaches and standardised classification [23,24]. Despite differing symbolic systems, both traditions employ linear spatial defences to link architecture with protection and authority [25]. However, cross-cultural research that integrates spatial politics, ornament, and public perception remains scarce.

2.2. Theoretical Foundations of Spatial Politics and Symbolic Structures

The spatial triad—perceived, conceived, and lived space—offers a conceptual framework for analysing how architecture encodes power and cultural meaning [10]. In fortified residences, axial layouts and controlled transitions make spatial hierarchy visible and experiential.

Spatial design also guides visual behaviour. Studies have shown that built features influence gaze and movement through perspective, rhythm, and enclosure [26,27]. Although eye-tracking methods are rarely applied to heritage contexts, they reveal architecture’s capacity to structure perception across cultures.

At the symbolic level, ornament serves as a visual language of authority. In Renaissance sites, fresco programmes and heraldic emblems narrate cosmology and dynastic identity [3,17]. In traditional Chinese compounds, brick carvings, timber inscriptions, and poetic couplets express Confucian ethics and ancestral order [4,21]. In both cases, ornamentation transcends aesthetics to function as a medium of encoded cultural value.

2.3. Public Perception and Re-Narration of Architecture

With the rise of UGC, social media platforms have become key sites for public engagement with architectural heritage [1,8,28]. On platforms such as Instagram and TripAdvisor, users emphasise aesthetic framing and monumentality through hashtags and filtered photography [5,6,29]. By contrast, content on Weibo and Xiaohongshu often focuses on symbolic detail and narrative memory, reflecting culturally distinct modes of visual and textual interaction [30,31].

Art anthropology offers a multi-layered approach to interpreting ornamentation via formal recognition, narrative logic, and symbolic context [11]. Digital ethnography extends this model by capturing online sentiment and symbolic positioning through textual and visual traces [12,13,32,33,34]. While UGC has been widely applied in tourism studies, its integration into architectural interpretation remains limited, particularly in cross-cultural contexts.

Recent advances in multimodal tools have improved the precision of digital ethnography. CLIP (Contrastive Language–Image Pretraining) enables semantic image embedding guided by textual prompts, allowing visual clustering without manual annotation [35]. For text analysis, lightweight embeddings—such as text2vec-base-chinese and all-MiniLM-L6-v2—provide contextual representations of multilingual content [36,37]. When integrated with BERTopic and HDBSCAN [38], these embeddings enable unsupervised topic modelling across large datasets.

For sentiment detection, domain-adapted models such as Erlangshen-RoBERTa and twitter-roberta-base-sentiment are used to map emotional responses to specific architectural features [39,40]. These tools facilitate a scalable, cross-platform analysis of perception, allowing researchers to trace how digital audiences resemanticise built heritage across cultures.

In this study, digital ethnography under an art-anthropological lens refers to decoding how users reinterpret architectural heritage through platform-based practices. UGC is treated not merely as data but as evidence of cultural meaning-making.

2.4. Analytical Framework: Architectural Form, Symbolic Ornamentation, and Public Perception

This study adopts a three-part analytical framework integrating architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception. It addresses persistent limitations in the study of fortified residences, including the absence of cross-cultural comparison, limited digital integration, and insufficient attention to public perception. These concerns align with recent scholarship emphasising that heritage value is culturally constructed rather than inherently fixed.

Contemporary theory now regards authenticity as plural and context-dependent, encompassing material integrity, ritual continuity, symbolic recognition, and experiential relevance [41,42]. Conservation philosophy has increasingly shifted toward participatory and negotiated understandings of value, beyond material preservation [43].

Against this background, the proposed framework comprises three interrelated dimensions. Architectural form refers to typology, spatial hierarchy, and constructional adaptation; symbolic ornamentation examines ethical, aesthetic, and cosmological meanings embedded in decorative systems; and public perception captures how users reshape heritage meaning through UGC, including images, captions, and affective responses. Together, these dimensions offer a transferable model for interpreting how built form acquires meaning across physical and digital spaces.

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a mixed-method approach combining fieldwork, iconographic analysis, and digital ethnography to investigate fortified residences from three complementary perspectives: architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception. Each dimension corresponds to a distinct methodological pathway—on-site spatial documentation, interpretation of visual motifs, and semantic modelling of UGC. These approaches collectively support the comparative analysis and perception mapping outlined in the following sections (Figure 1).

3.1. Research Subject Selection

This study compares two culturally distinct but functionally parallel fortified residences: Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola, Italy, and Dong’s Fortified Compound in Wuzhong, China. Although structurally divergent, both were designed to integrate spatial control, symbolic articulation, and residential use within a fortified enclosure. Their selection reflects not typological equivalence, but the opportunity to compare different cultural models of architectural authority.

Palazzo Farnese exemplifies the Renaissance ideal of scenographic space. Its pentagonal layout, axial geometry, and fresco programme articulate hierarchical ascent and dynastic imagery. Initially conceived as a fortress, it was later transformed into a residence with retained defensive symbolism. Dong’s Compound reflects a pragmatic fusion of military defence and Confucian ethics, structured through a three-row, two-depth courtyard system and Hui ritual orientation.

The two sites also offer contrasting yet complementary digital footprints. Palazzo Farnese is frequently featured on international platforms such as Instagram and TripAdvisor, while Dong’s Compound is represented on Xiaohongshu and Weibo. This dual presence enables a cross-cultural digital ethnographic analysis of how fortified heritage is perceived, narrated, and reinterpreted through user-generated content.

3.2. Architectural Survey and Spatial Analysis

This study began with on-site observations and photographic documentation to compare the spatial characteristics of the two selected fortified residences. The investigation focused on site conditions, overall layout, structural systems, and functional organisation. Archival materials, including historical plans and cartographic records, were also consulted to support the analysis.

The research focused on architectural form by examining axial alignments, courtyard progression, and enclosure strategies. Observations covered wall thickness, material types, bay divisions, and vertical distribution. Instead of precise measurements, the study relied on photographic documentation and site observation to identify recurring spatial patterns and formal logics.

The notion of spatial encoding is used here to explain how specific architectural elements—such as gateways, corridors, and courtyards—go beyond functional roles to express social and symbolic meaning through spatial arrangement. In this context, spatial encoding refers to the way built forms articulate ritual hierarchy, visual access, and cultural narratives. Although not a fixed term in architectural theory, this concept builds upon the idea of symbolic space [44] and the broader understanding of architecture as a socially constructed and ideologically charged medium [10].

This spatial perspective forms the basis for analysing symbolic ornamentation in the next section, where physical structure and decorative expression are understood as intertwined components of architectural meaning.

3.3. Interpretation of Symbolic Ornamentation

This section adopts an art-anthropological lens to interpret the ornamental systems found across both sites. Drawing on iconological and semiotic approaches, the analysis examines visual elements including murals, brick reliefs, and timber components. All materials were documented via high-resolution field photography, without physical sampling or measurement.

Visual motifs were analysed following Panofsky’s three-tiered iconographic method, comprising pre-iconographic description, iconographic interpretation, and iconological synthesis [11]. This model enabled the connection of decorative forms to broader cultural narratives and ethical frameworks.

Particular focus was placed on architectural components such as gate towers, screen walls, bracket sets, and plaques. These elements often encode messages relating to lineage, political authority, or cosmological order. Their spatial placement—especially along axial routes or transitional thresholds—was interpreted as part of ritualised movement or hierarchical control.

A structured visual database was developed using semantic annotation, linking symbolic content to specific spatial contexts. This enabled thematic categorisation of ornamentation, which later informed cross-referencing with public perception patterns. This stage acts as a bridge between architectural layout and user engagement, anchoring symbolic ornamentation within the broader framework of architectural form and public perception.

3.4. Public Perception Modelling Through Digital Ethnography

This section examines how UGC reflects contemporary public interpretations of fortified heritage. In this study, public perception is examined through the lens of digital ethnography, which treats online narratives and images as proxies for collective meaning-making and emotional engagement. By combining digital fieldwork theory [12] with multimodal tools, this section investigates how users perceive and resemanticise fortified architecture across platforms.

The UGC dataset reflects platform-specific user groups. Posts on Xiaohongshu, Weibo, and Ctrip are predominantly from domestic Chinese users, while content related to Palazzo Farnese on Instagram and TripAdvisor mostly originates from international or pan-European tourists. Although the study does not further disaggregate user demographics, it captures broader patterns of perception shaped by platform cultures and regional visibility. Future research could build on this by incorporating stratified sampling or interview-based audience studies.

• Data Sources and Collection. UGC were collected from Chinese platforms (Weibo, Xiaohongshu, Ctrip) and international ones (TripAdvisor, Google Maps, Instagram), including user-posted photographs and comment texts. Data were acquired using web crawlers and APIs, then filtered and encoded for analysis. The data collection period for this study was set from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024, to ensure temporal consistency across pre- and post-pandemic UGC. However, significant disparities exist between the two sites in terms of platform origin and user base, which may introduce sample bias. As an internationally recognised Renaissance heritage site, Palazzo Farnese is frequently featured on global platforms such as Instagram, TripAdvisor, and Google Maps, which attract high levels of user activity and visibility. In contrast, UGC related to Dong’s Fortified Compound was primarily sourced from Chinese-language platforms such as Weibo, Xiaohongshu, and Ctrip, where user demographics and platform algorithms differ markedly from their international counterparts.
• Text Analysis. For Chinese texts, we applied Jieba segmentation and sentence embeddings using a pre-trained MacBERT-based model (text2vec-base-chinese), followed by BERTopic modelling and sentiment analysis using Erlangshen-RoBERTa-330M-Sentiment. For English texts, sentence embeddings were generated using the all-MiniLM-L6-v2 model, with BERTopic used for topic modelling and cardiffnlp/twitter-roberta-base-sentiment for three-class sentiment classification. Cross-lingual data were processed into structured themes based on frequency and sentiment classification.
• Image Analysis. Image data were processed using the pre-trained CLIP model (ViT-L/14@336px) for semantic embedding, followed by UMAP for dimensionality reduction and HDBSCAN for unsupervised clustering. This configuration enabled high-resolution visual encoding and cross-image semantic grouping, allowing us to detect dominant visual patterns in UGC. Clusters were manually annotated and categorised by type and frequency. Word clouds, tag histograms, and SVG bar charts were generated for visual representation. This workflow has been validated in prior studies on community image classification and visual-semantic clustering [14].
• Tools and Methodological Roles.

  Table 1. Tools and Methods Used in Digital Ethnography.

  Tool/Program	Function	Application	Version/Reference
  Social Media Crawler	Extracts images and comments	UGC perception collection	Custom script/by authors
  Jieba + TF-IDF	Chinese word segmentation and keyword mining	Chinese comment preprocessing	Jieba v0.42.1/stopwords [45]
  text2vec-base-chinese (MacBERT-based)	Sentence embedding for Chinese text	Chinese topic modelling input	shibing624 (2023) [36]
  Erlangshen-RoBERTa-330M-Sentiment	Sentiment analysis for Chinese text (3 classes)	Chinese sentiment classification	IDEA-CCNL (2023) [39]
  all-MiniLM-L6-v2	Sentence embedding for English text	English topic modelling input	Reimers & Gurevych (2019) [37]
  twitter-roberta-base-sentiment	Sentiment analysis for English text (3 classes)	English sentiment classification	Cardiff NLP (2020) [40]
  BERTopic + HDBSCAN	Topic modelling and unsupervised clustering	Both Chinese and English topic extraction	BERTopic v0.13.0 [38]
  WordCloud Generator	High-frequency word visualisation	Topic keyword mapping	wordcloud v1.8.2 [46]
  CLIP (ViT-L/14@336px) + UMAP + HDBSCAN	Semantic embedding and clustering of images	Visual interest point detection	OpenAI CLIP [47], umap-learn v0.5.7, hdbscan v0.8.40
  Manual Annotation + Statistics	Semantic interpretation and categorisation	Visual cognition analysis	Custom/by authors
  Matplotlib + Seaborn	Data visualisation (bar charts, heatmaps)	Visualising themes, sentiment distribution	matplotlib v3.7.1, seaborn v0.12.2
  pandas + tqdm	Data handling and progress tracking	CSV input/output and processing feedback	pandas v2.1.0, tqdm v4.65.0

  summarises the key tools used in digital ethnography and their analytical functions.

3.5. Data and Code Availability

The datasets and source codes used in this study are archived on the Science Data Bank (https://www.scidb.cn/en/s/uyueIj, accessed on 2 July 2025) and available upon request for academic use.

3.6. Ethical Statement and AI Disclosure

No ethical approval was required for this research, and all data were collected from publicly accessible platforms in accordance with their terms of use. Generative AI (ChatGPT 4o) was used solely to assist with language refinement and Python code debugging. No AI-generated content, data, or interpretations were included in the research findings or conclusions. All analytical decisions and textual content were authored and verified by the researchers.

4. Analysis and Discussion

This section conducts a comparative analysis of Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound through the three analytical dimensions of architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception. It begins by examining how architectural form and spatial layout reflect each site’s geographical conditions and cultural imperatives.

4.1. Architectural Form Analysis

4.1.1. Structural Logic and Site Strategy of Palazzo Farnese

Palazzo Farnese stands in the hilltop town of Caprarola, Italy, commanding the route to Rome from the north—a site of strategic importance since the Middle Ages (Figure 2). Initially designed as a fortress by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (1521–1534), it was reimagined by Vignola in 1559 under Cardinal Alessandro Farnese as a palazzo in fortezza, blending military form with aristocratic residence. Completed in 1573 and expanded with gardens by 1586, it now appears on the UNESCO Tentative List under “Villas of the Papal Nobility” [48].

The building follows a pentagonal bastion plan centred on a 20-m-wide circular courtyard (Figure 3). Perimeter walls, over 1.2 m thick, were constructed from volcanic tufo and peperino stone. This form embodies the late Renaissance synthesis of geometric rationality and military pragmatism [3]. The main façade employs a classical tripartite order—Doric, Ionic, Corinthian—stacked vertically. Above the second level, planar walls and evenly spaced windows reinforce symmetry and ideological hierarchy.

The Scala Regia, a monumental spiral staircase, forms the vertical axis of the building (Figure 4). It rises from the carriage ramp to the piano nobile and rooftop terrace, supported by paired columns and crowned by a dome bearing the Farnese crest, Latin maxims, and allegorical frescoes—most notably Virtus securitatem parit (“Virtue brings security”). This ascent symbolises a ceremonial progression of movement, reflection, and elevation [49].

To address the site’s rainfall and drainage needs, the palace integrates a concealed system beneath the courtyard, including a central manhole and surface grates (Figure 5). These measures prevent water accumulation and protect the foundations.

The palace is spatially connected to Caprarola’s main square through a coherent system of terraces, stairways, and axial streets, forming a continuous urban ensemble. As demonstrated in Figure 6, this integration of architectural form, urban alignment, and surrounding landscape contributes to the site’s visual unity and civic presence.

Compared to Farnese Castle in Piacenza, a star-bastioned fortress built by Pier Luigi Farnese (1547–1553), Palazzo Farnese retains the pentagonal scheme but shifts emphasis from military function to symbolic articulation. While the Piacenza castle prioritises defence with minimal interior ornament, Caprarola combines spatial geometry with frescoed narratives to create a scenographic experience [20].

4.1.2. Spatial Configuration and Adaptive Strategies of Dong’s Fortified Compound

Located in Jinji Town, Wuzhong City, Ningxia, Dong’s Fortified Compound sits on the Hetao Plain near the middle reaches of the Yellow River (Figure 7). The low-lying terrain and arid continental climate—marked by wind erosion, temperature swings, and dust storms—shaped its defensive strategy. Designed for clan security and local governance, the compound adopts a spatial layout defined by enclosure, vertical hierarchy, and environmental responsiveness.

Built between 1902 and 1905 under the direction of General Dong Fuxiang, a former Qing military commander known for his role in suppressing the Dungan Revolt, the compound embodied both political authority and Confucian familial ethics [25]. Covering about 16,000 square m, the site features a moat, outer walls, nested courtyards, and residential buildings. Its near-square plan (130 × 120 m) is enclosed by 8.5-m-high and 4.5-m-thick rammed-earth walls, topped with battlements, patrol paths, and angled gates for enhanced defence (Figure 8a). In 2006, it was listed as a nationally protected heritage site, with restoration commencing in 2007 [50].

Internally, the compound follows a “three-row, two-depth” courtyard system aligned along a strict north–south axis (Figure 8b). The principal courtyard was used for gatherings and guest reception, while secondary courtyards accommodated women, staff, and religious activities. This layout reflects the hierarchical logic of northern Han Chinese official residences while integrating Hui Muslim spatial customs. Notably, the westward orientation of the courtyards aligns with Islamic ritual practice [4]. Transitional corridors connect the spaces vertically, establishing both physical circulation and symbolic sequencing.

The building materials demonstrate careful regional coordination. Timber was sourced from the forests of Gannan, stone was transported from Southern Shaanxi, iron fittings were crafted by artisans in Baotou, while bricks, tiles, and mortar were produced locally. The enclosing walls were constructed using a triple-layer composite of rammed earth and brick. The roof structure follows a traditional tie-beam and column system, topped with grey ceramic tiles that enhance both thermal insulation and resistance to strong winds.

Given the site’s low elevation, the builders raised the ground level through repeated tamping and installed drainage wells and water-guiding channels within the courtyards (Figure 9a). A subtle longitudinal gradient was incorporated along the central axis to direct rainwater towards the southeast corner, revealing a nuanced strategy of micro-topographic adaptation and gravity-driven hydrological control (Figure 9b).

The spatial organisation unfolds inward from the main fortress gate, proceeding through the gatehouse, front yard, principal courtyard, and rear residence, thus establishing a sequential layering of ritual and social space. The gatehouse features brick carvings of auspicious motifs such as “Longevity and Prosperity” and the Confucian virtues of “Loyalty, Righteousness, Benevolence, and Filial Piety”. These are complemented by incised stone plaques and painted wooden columns, reinforcing clan ethics and Confucian order [23].

From a typological perspective, Dong’s Fortified Compound shares both structural and symbolic characteristics with other fortified residences in northwestern China, including Guomari Fortress in Qinghai and mosque-fortress complexes in Tongxin, Ningxia. These compounds typically incorporate high perimeter walls, serial courtyards, ceremonial areas, and defence mechanisms, collectively forming a distinct architectural typology of official fortified residences in the region [24,51].

4.2. Symbolic Ornamentation Analysis

4.2.1. Architectural Symbolism and Iconographic Programme of Palazzo Farnese

Beyond its geometric clarity and fortified spatial layout, Palazzo Farnese incorporates a complex iconographic programme. Symbolic motifs are embedded within the spatial sequence, most prominently in the Scala Regia (spiral staircase), where the dome features the Farnese family crest, Latin maxims, and allegorical frescoes, including the widely quoted family motto. This vertical axis serves as a ceremonial spine uniting religious, political, and moral dimensions.

Between 1560 and 1583, interior iconography was developed by notable artists, including the Zuccari brothers, Tempesta, and Reggio. Among the most significant spaces is the Room of Farnese Deeds, which glorifies the ecclesiastical and political legacy of Pope Paul III and Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. Another is the World Map Room (Sala del Mappamondo), where sixteenth-century Ptolemaic cartography, celestial charts, and cosmological motifs converge to project a visual order of empire, knowledge, and divinity (Figure 10).

The symbolic dimension extends to architectural ornamentation. Vaulted ceilings, engaged pilasters, and classical orders create a vertical rhythm across the interiors, where Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian elements signal functional and social hierarchy. Mosaics guide circulation along the floors, while false doors and stucco reliefs shape the ritual character of the space. Painted wooden ceilings and stained-glass windows portraying religious symbols and biblical stories add further layers of iconographic meaning, integrating structure and image into a coherent visual system (Figure 11).

On platforms like Instagram, recurring hashtags such as #ScalaRegia and #VillaFarnese show that the staircase dome and ceiling frescoes are dominant focal points. This consistency in visual framing affirms the continued symbolic power and photogenic clarity of Renaissance scenography in digital culture.

4.2.2. Architectural Symbolism and Traditional Ornamentation in Dong’s Fortified Compound

Dong’s Fortified Compound presents a parallel mode of architectural symbolism rooted in Confucian hierarchy, Islamic orientation, and frontier defence. The 8.5-m-high rammed-earth walls form a solid enclosure, while the axial layout—structured as “three-row courtyard complex with two axial depths”—establishes a ritualised spatial sequence. Visitors enter through the gate tower and move progressively inward along the central axis. The main courtyard embodies patriarchal authority, whereas auxiliary spaces accommodate women, servants, and religious functions, reflecting domestic order and sociocultural values. Transitional elements such as decorated gates and enclosed corridors integrate the Confucian notion of inner–outer separation with the Hui Muslim principle of westward ritual orientation, creating a spatial synthesis of late Qing ritual ethics and ethnic identity (Figure 12).

In contrast to Palazzo Farnese, which centres its decorative strategy on frescoes, Dong’s Compound highlights traditional crafts in brick, wood, and stone (Figure 13). The gate tower and screen wall (zhaobi) feature intricate shadow carvings and openwork motifs including the Eight Treasures, bats, and guardian lions. Interior elements such as inscribed plaques, painted beams, and carved pillars convey Confucian ideals of loyalty, filial piety, and moral refinement. Ornamentation thus becomes a vehicle of social expression, embedding ethical narratives into architectural surfaces.

As a fortified residence of a Qing military official, the compound illustrates the symbolic logic of defensive architecture as a visual language of authority. Features such as battlements, dog-leg gates, and narrow corridors serve both as protective infrastructure and symbols of status. These elements frequently appear in tourist photographs, contributing to a distinct narrative of defence that contrasts with the artistic scenography of European villas. The spatial fusion of dwelling and fortress underscores territorial sovereignty and elite identity in the northwestern frontier context.

On platforms like Weibo and Xiaohongshu, user-generated content often highlights ornamental details, signage, and performative moments such as guided tours or family rituals. These practices suggest that the compound’s decorative system now functions not only as static heritage but also as a medium of public memory. The rise of family virtue performances and theatrical heritage experiences has embedded traditional iconography into participatory storytelling, linking architecture with collective remembrance and local identity.

4.3. Public Perception Analysis

This section analyses UGC from major social media platforms to construct a cross-cultural perceptual comparison of Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound in contemporary digital contexts. The data were collected between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2024. Chinese-language sources include Weibo, Xiaohongshu, and Ctrip, using keywords such as “董福祥故居”, (Dong Fuxiang Residence), “宁夏董府” (Ningxia Dong Mansion), and “吴忠董府” (Wuzhong Dong Mansion). English-language content was gathered from Google Maps, Instagram, and TripAdvisor, using hashtags like #VillaFarneseCaprarola and #PalazzoFarneseCaprarola to distinguish the site from the similarly named building in Rome.

After filtering out irrelevant posts (e.g., advertisements, poor image quality), a curated dataset was established (

Table 2. UGC statistics before and after filtering.

Platform	Original Text	Original Images	Filtered Text	Filtered Images
Weibo	107	598	46	302
Xiaohongshu	291	3496	54	467
Ctrip	63	115	63	94
Google Maps	996	5753	980	3159
Instagram	111	111	79	90
TripAdvisor	299	959	299	925

). Due to differences in site recognition and social media ecosystems, the dataset is imbalanced—Palazzo Farnese, a globally recognised heritage site, is more widely represented on international platforms, while Dong’s Compound appears mainly on Chinese-language media. As a result, analysis is conducted using ratio-based rather than absolute frequency metrics.

Text modelling was conducted using BERTopic (v0.13.0), while CLIP (ViT-L/14@336px)-based image embeddings combined with HDBSCAN (v0.8.40) clustering enabled high-resolution thematic classification. Each site is discussed below.

4.3.1. Public Perception of Palazzo Farnese

• Textual Analysis

A total of 1358 English-language reviews were analysed, over 85% of which expressed positive sentiment (Figure 14). International visitors consistently appreciated the architectural and artistic features of Palazzo Farnese, especially the façade, frescoes, spiral staircase, and gardens (

Table 3. Distribution of review topics and sentiment analysis for Palazzo Farnese.

Topic ID	Keywords (By Probability)	Share	Dominant Sentiment
Topic 1	Façade, frescoes, architecture, Renaissance	32%	Awe, admiration
Topic 2	Spiral staircase, courtyard, perspective	11%	Surprise, delight
Topic 3	Gardens, fountains, symmetry, view	11%	Relaxed, pleasant
Topic 4	Guided tour, ticket office, queue	6%	Mixed
Topic 5–8	Chapel, ceiling, fresco restoration, distance…	<4%	Mostly positive
Topic 0	Irrelevant content/noise	23%	No dominant sentiment

). Dominant emotional tones included awe, delight, and admiration. Negative responses (5.3%) were primarily related to logistical issues, including queue times, limited tour availability, and the site’s remote location.

2.

Image Analysis

Among the 4174 valid images, the most frequently depicted visual themes were frescoed wall (19.4%), fountain system (19.4%), frescoed ceiling (13.1%), spiral staircase (11.1%), and atrium (6.5%) (

Table 4. Top five visual themes and their interpretive significance in Palazzo Farnese.

Rank	Visual Theme	Share	Architectural/Ethnographic Interpretation
1	Frescoed wall	19.4%	Frescoes signify Renaissance authority and serve as immersive artistic focal points.
2	Fountain system	19.4%	Waterworks reflect idealised landscapes and become key attractions for digital media.
3	Frescoed ceiling	13.1%	Domed perspectives evoke vertical gaze and symbolic elevation.
4	Spiral staircase	11.1%	Unique geometry renders it a “photographable architecture” repeatedly reproduced.
5	Atrium	6.5%	Light-filled colonnades enhance theatrical spatial effect.

, Figure 15). These preferences suggest a strong emphasis on immersive interior features, forming a consistent “visual heatmap”. Repeated imagery of vaulted ceilings and water elements points to a visitor preference for upward perspectives and sensory immersion. These architectural nodes serve as photogenic hotspots, positioning Palazzo Farnese as a digitally performative heritage site.

This analysis indicates that Palazzo Farnese has developed a recognisable “photographic grammar” across social media platforms. Its visual identity extends the symbolic legacy of Renaissance architecture while actively participating in digitally mediated perception and representation.

4.3.2. Public Perception of Dong’s Fortified Compound

• Textual Analysis

A total of 163 Chinese-language comments were analysed, primarily from Weibo, Xiaohongshu, and Ctrip. Thematic patterns centred on historical narratives and cultural heritage, with frequent terms including “Governor of Shaanxi-Gansu”, “late Qing residence”, and “restoration” (Figure 16,

Table 5. Distribution of review topics and sentiment analysis for Dong’s Fortified Compound.

Topic ID	Keywords (By Probability)	Share	Dominant Sentiment
Topic 1	Dong Mansion, late Qing, history, restoration, governor	32%	Reverence, nostalgia
Topic 2	Courtyard, layout, wood carving, Siheyuan courtyard	19%	Praise, curiosity
Topic 3	Parking, ticket price, visitor center, commercialisation	11%	Complaint, suggestion
Topic 4	Family values, theatre performance, guided tours	9%	Engagement, learning
Topic 0	Irrelevant content/noise	29%	Mixed/non-specific

). These indicate that public perceptions of Dong’s Compound are framed through a national–familial lens, evoking strong associations with collective memory and regional identity. Dominant emotions included reverence and nostalgia.

Although the dataset was smaller, with a total number of 163, it was curated from verified, location-tagged content, cross-checked with geotagged images and platform metadata to ensure representativeness. The selected platforms reflect diverse user profiles and regional engagement within domestic tourism discourse.

Negative sentiment accounted for around 9%, largely relating to parking, ticket prices, and perceived over-commercialisation. A recurring “social–experiential–service” loop was observed, where users shared their experiences not only for expression or interaction but to indirectly influence site operations. This participatory mechanism is particularly evident in China’s digital tourism environment [16].

2.

Image Analysis

A total of 863 filtered images were reviewed. The five most common themes were yard space (14.8%), fortress gate (12.9%), brick carving (9.8%), panoramic view (7.3%), and information panel (7.0%) (

Table 6. Top five visual themes and their interpretive significance in Dong’s Fortified Compound.

Rank	Visual Theme	Share	Architectural/Ethnographic Interpretation
1	Yard space	14.8%	Rare northwest China courtyard layout; photos highlight spatial inwardness and moral order.
2	Fortress gate	12.9%	Focus on arched masonry and battlements affirms the defensive-residential narrative.
3	Brick carving	9.8%	Decorative reliefs serve as the medium of cultural memory and craftsmanship.
4	Panoramic view	7.3%	Aerial shots underscore topographical logic and siting within regional terrain.
5	Information panel	7.0%	Signage documentation indicates “learning-oriented tourism” and public interpretation.

, Figure 17). Visitor photography consistently highlighted architectural symbolism and spatial hierarchy, especially brick reliefs, axial layouts, gate towers, and signage.

Three dominant visual tendencies were identified:

• Inward spatial aesthetic: Many photos focused on axial paths and layered courtyards, reflecting a preference for outside–in ceremonial sequencing.
• Symbolic detail orientation: Brick motifs and gates conveyed cultural identity and historical meaning.
• Knowledge-recording behaviour: Frequent images of signage suggest a trajectory of learning, documentation, and sharing, aligned with digital ethnography’s emphasis on recontextualisation and participatory knowledge-making [12].

Though aerial images were less common, their presence signals a shift towards holistic spatial perception, indicating how technological mediation is reshaping visitor cognition.

This feedback loop illustrates how Chinese platforms like Weibo and Xiaohongshu facilitate interaction between user experience, symbolic interpretation, and site management. Posts often combine emotional response with operational critique, indirectly shaping public perception and destination governance—a process described as a “social–experiential–service optimisation” cycle [16].

4.4. Cross-Cultural Comparison from an Art-Anthropological Perspective

Building on the preceding analyses, this section compares Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound across architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception. It explores how different cultural systems embed authority, belief, and memory into built form and how such meanings are reinterpreted through digital platforms.

• Spatial Construction of Power: Geometric Rationality vs. Ritual Order

Both sites were conceived as fortified residences and share features such as enclosure, axiality, and defensive elements. However, their spatial logic differs significantly.

Palazzo Farnese embodies the Renaissance ideal of geometric rationality. Its pentagonal layout and circular courtyard establish a centrifugal spatial order based on symmetry and controlled perspective. The Scala Regia spiral staircase acts as a vertical axis, guiding movement through layers of symbolism and reinforcing authority through ascent. Space becomes a stage for power.

In contrast, Dong’s Compound reflects a Confucian-ritual conception of space grounded in kinship ethics and frontier defence. The “three-row, two-depth” courtyard system unfolds along a strict axis, structuring domestic life by gender, hierarchy, and function. Defensive walls, corner gates, and dog-leg entrances create nested physical and symbolic boundaries. Here, power is embedded in spatial discipline and ritual practice.

While Farnese expresses authority through centralised geometry and monumental aesthetics, Dong’s Compound encodes it through hierarchical organisation and ceremonial progression.

2.

Decorative Strategy: Narrative Immersion vs. Moral Inscription

Palazzo Farnese employs a unified iconographic programme anchored in Renaissance humanism. Frescoes in the Room of Farnese Deeds and the Sala del Mappamondo interweave dynastic history, biblical allegory, and celestial mapping, creating a scenographic visual system that integrates architecture and narrative.

Dong’s Compound, by contrast, features traditional craft-based ornamentation—brick carvings, painted beams, and stone reliefs—emphasising Confucian and regional values. Symbols such as the Eight Treasures and poetic inscriptions express familial honour and collective memory, reinforcing ethical meaning over visual unity.

These symbolic interpretations are further supported by user comments. A Xiaohongshu post reads, “董府, 是清末将领董福祥的宅邸, 布局为‘三宫六院’, 是北京宫廷建筑与宁夏地方民族特色的结合物” (“Dong’s Compound, the former residence of late Qing general Dong Fuxiang, follows a ‘three-raw, six-courtyard’ layout—a fusion of Beijing imperial architecture and Ningxia’s local ethnic features”), highlighting both structural form and ethnic-symbolic ornamentation in decoration. Another user noted, “光门楼都让我拍了十几张” (“I took more than ten pictures just of the fortress gatehouse”), suggesting that the fortress gate serves not only as a physical threshold, but also as a symbolic and visual focal point of cultural identity.

For Palazzo Farnese, a visitor wrote, “The Hall of Jupiter or of the Perspectives had optical illusions from every angle,” revealing the intended scenographic immersion. Another described, “The celestial vault of the Globe Room inside a painted cosmology… I could stare at it forever,” underscoring the fresco program’s cosmological and contemplative impact.

These responses indicate that symbolic ornamentation is culturally encoded: at Dong’s Compound, meaning emerges through moral reflection and narrative context; at Palazzo Farnese, it is conveyed through immersive scenography and visual awe.

3.

Digital Gaze: Performative Heritage vs. Participatory Memory

The digital representation of each site mirrors its symbolic logic. Palazzo Farnese, as captured on Instagram and TripAdvisor, circulates through upward, symmetrical shots of frescoes, courtyards, and spiral staircases—visual “hotspots” curated for aesthetic impact. Hashtags such as #ScalaRegia and #VillaFarnese construct a shared digital grammar rooted in harmony and spectacle.

In contrast, UGC about Dong’s Compound favours detail-oriented views—inscriptions, brickwork, and signage—often embedded in narratives about family rituals, guided tours, or local customs. Weibo and Xiaohongshu users frequently reference personal or regional identity, indicating a memory-oriented gaze that ties built form to emotion and social practice.

This divergence reflects two digital strategies of heritage perception. Palazzo Farnese is filtered through algorithmic consensus and global visibility, reinforcing its visual coherence. Dong’s Compound is interpreted through local participation and emotional storytelling, sustaining interpretive pluralism.

Table 7. Triangulated Interpretation of Architectural Form, Symbolic Ornamentation, and Public Perception across the Two Sites.

Case	Image Focus	Textual Focus	Interpretive Meaning
Palazzo Farnese	Frescoes, spiral staircase, fountains	Frescoes, perspective, architectural grandeur	The built form conveys dynastic authority and a cosmological worldview through vertical procession and scenographic spatial organisation.
Dong’s Fortified Compound	Courtyard views, fortress gate, carving arts	Courtyard layout, family ethics, restoration	Architecture conveys ritual hierarchy and clan identity through spatial segmentation and symbolic ornamentation.

summarises how the spatial form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception interact to shape culturally embedded meanings in fortified heritage.

By aligning architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception, the comparison reveals how cultural meaning in architecture is not fixed but continuously shaped by visual grammar, public engagement, and representational media.

4.5. Summary

This section synthesises the preceding analyses by offering a comparative overview of Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound across spatial configuration, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception.

Table 8. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Architectural form, Symbolic Ornamentation, and Public Perception.

Analytical Dimension	Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola, Italy)	Dong’s Fortified Compound (Wuzhong, China)
Architectural Form	Pentagonal bastioned layout with central circular courtyard; emphasises axial centrality and ceremonial geometry	Three-row, two-depth courtyard system enclosed by rammed-earth walls; emphasises nested spatial hierarchy
Spatial Sequence	Monumental spiral staircase establishes a vertical processional route from subterranean access to rooftop platform	Axial progression through courtyard zones; spatial hierarchy structured by gender, kinship, and ritual
Structural System	Volcanic tufo and peperino stone; classical column orders; domed roof symmetry	Rammed-earth structure with timber-brick composite; post-and-beam roofing adapted for climatic resilience
Material Provenance	Locally sourced volcanic stone from the Lazio region	Timber from Gannan, stone from Shaanbei, ironwork from Baotou; locally fired bricks and tiles
Decorative Content	Ceiling frescoes, celestial maps, and dynastic iconography; unified narrative programme	Brick reliefs, painted beams, carved plaques; expressions of Confucian morality and Islamic ritual meaning
Decorative Placement	Ceilings, staircases, chapel interiors; aligned along perspectival and processional axes	Gate towers, zhaobi screen walls, corridor thresholds; integrated within ritual axis and familial pathways
Stylistic Features	Illusionistic painting; perspectival depth; immersive scenography	Modular surface symbolism; didactic iconography; intergenerational moral messaging
Viewing Orientation	Aesthetic gaze; upward compositions; photogenic coherence	Familial memory gaze; experiential engagement; affective narration of site identity
Digital Dissemination	Hashtag clustering; symmetrical visual patterns; algorithm-amplified visibility	Emotion-driven narration; atomised user content; performance-based heritage participation
Expressive Orientation	Visual immersion, scenographic logic, and cosmological symbolism	Ethical embodiment, ritual sequencing, and identity construction through heritage storytelling

summarises their contrasting characteristics and interpretive tendencies within a unified analytical structure.

These contrasts reveal that while both sites function as fortified residences, their architectural logic and symbolic communication differ markedly. Palazzo Farnese constructs power through geometric harmony and scenographic aesthetics rooted in Renaissance statecraft. Dong’s Compound articulates authority through ritual structure, ethnic layering, and domestic ethics embedded in courtyard configurations.

Moreover, digital representations of the two sites reflect their respective cultural codings. Farnese’s photogenic unity lends itself to global aesthetic circulation, reinforced by symmetrical compositions and platform algorithms. In contrast, Dong’s imagery is shaped by user participation, emotional resonance, and heritage performance, reflecting a more localised and memory-oriented form of digital engagement.

Together, these findings affirm the value of a triadic interpretive approach—architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception—for understanding how built heritage is both materially constructed and digitally reimagined. The juxtaposition of these two fortified residences offers insight into how architecture encodes meaning across cultural boundaries and how public perception can uncover culturally situated modes of architectural appreciation.

5. Conclusions and Implications

This chapter concludes the comparative study of Palazzo Farnese and Dong’s Fortified Compound, drawing on the triadic framework developed through preceding analysis. It summarises the key spatial, symbolic, and perceptual findings, evaluates the theoretical and methodological contributions, and outlines directions for future research. The aim is not only to synthesise empirical insights but to provide a transferable interpretive model for analysing fortified architecture across cultures and digital environments.

5.1. Key Findings

This study examined Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola and Dong’s Fortified Compound in Wuzhong using a triadic analytical framework—architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception—revealing distinct characteristics rooted in their cultural and historical contexts.

At the spatial level, Palazzo Farnese demonstrates centralised geometric planning and a vertically organised ceremonial axis, reflecting Renaissance ideals of symmetry and scenographic control. In contrast, Dong’s Compound is structured as a nested courtyard system informed by Confucian ethics and defensive pragmatism, prioritising enclosure and familial hierarchy.

In terms of ornamentation, Palazzo Farnese constructs a cohesive symbolic narrative through ceiling frescoes and cosmological imagery, projecting dynastic authority and classical knowledge. Dong’s Compound, by contrast, embeds moral and ancestral values in carved inscriptions and surface decoration, expressing ethical order through visual and material means.

UGC further reveals divergent perceptual orientations. Visitors to Palazzo Farnese typically adopt an aesthetic gaze—framing symmetry, grandeur, and photogenic features—while users of Dong’s Compound display a familial and memorial gaze, expressed through intergenerational narratives and emotional reflection.

Importantly, this study demonstrates that architectural meaning emerges from the triangulated relationship between visual salience, textual discourse, and symbolic interpretation. By aligning user attention with architectural elements and interpretive themes, we reveal how architectural forms are reframed and emotionally invested across digital platforms and cultures. This model offers a transferable method for architectural perception analysis.

While the two sites differ in cultural background and architectural strategy, this study does not seek to equalise all variables. Rather, the triadic framework provides a consistent comparative structure—organised around architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception—which enables cultural specificity while ensuring analytical coherence.

5.2. Theoretical and Methodological Implications

This study contributes to architectural discourse by integrating spatial typology and public perception into a unified comparative framework. Rather than generalising across all architectural forms, it proposes a transferable triadic model linking architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception. This structure is adaptable to contexts where spatial meaning is shaped by cultural difference, offering a practical lens for examining how built heritage is digitally reinterpreted through multimodal, cross-cultural perspectives.

Theoretically, the study extends spatial and iconographic analysis into the domain of digital heritage perception. UGC is shown to operate not merely as empirical material, but as a mode of public expression that reveals how heritage meaning is constructed, circulated, and contested within platform-mediated environments.

Methodologically, the study validates the use of CLIP with HDBSCAN for image clustering, BERTopic for multilingual topic modelling, and RoBERTa-based sentiment analysis for extracting perceptual patterns from heterogeneous UGC datasets. These techniques confirm the feasibility of cross-modal, cross-lingual analysis in architectural research.

However, several limitations remain. While CLIP-based visual embeddings offer semantic capacity, they may misrecognise culturally specific features—such as Chinese calligraphic plaques or regional brick motifs—due to absence in training data. This can distort clustering outputs and obscure interpretive focus. Future research could fine-tune CLIP on curated heritage subsets or apply prompt engineering to improve feature salience.

Cross-lingual topic modelling also poses challenges, particularly with informal or dialectal expressions. Moreover, sentiment classifiers, though useful for mapping affective trends, may oversimplify complex emotional or sociopolitical responses embedded in heritage discourse.

Finally, while the sample size imbalance between the two sites was mitigated through proportional analysis, it still limits the granularity of sentiment clustering and may affect interpretive resolution.

5.3. Future Research Directions

To advance culturally responsive and digitally informed architectural analysis, future research may pursue the following directions:

• Multilingual alignment optimisation: Improve semantic coherence across languages through aligned embedding spaces or translation-augmented topic modelling. This would reduce topic drift and enhance comparability between cross-lingual UGC datasets.
• Fine-grained image–text pairing: Use multimodal transformers or contrastive captioning to capture symbolic links between carvings, inscriptions, and user narratives. This would help decode implicit references in ornamentation and improve cross-modal interpretability.
• Zero-shot category adaptation: Enhance CLIP-based visual classification for heritage-specific elements—such as vernacular ornament or minority motifs—through prompt engineering or few-shot learning, enabling better cultural specificity.
• Platform behaviour modelling: Analyse how platform curation algorithms (e.g., on Instagram, Xiaohongshu) shape the visibility, clustering, and framing of architectural features, affecting what is seen and remembered in digital heritage narratives.
• Community-led interpretation: Integrate guided narration, performative storytelling, or local knowledge production into ethnographic workflows to account for non-digital, embodied heritage interpretation.

In addition to these directions, the proposed triadic framework—architectural form, symbolic ornamentation, and public perception—is transferable to other paired case studies. Researchers can replicate this model by:

• conducting site-based architectural observation,
• applying iconographic decoding,
• harvesting UGC from appropriate platforms for multimodal clustering and interpretation.

Only platform-specific tools and local terminologies need adaptation, while the comparative logic remains stable. To support such transfer, this study proposes a triadic interpretive matrix (

Table 9. Triadic Matrix of Spatial–Symbolic–Perceptual Meaning across Cultural and Digital Dimensions.

Analytical Layer	Cultural Logic (Farnese vs. Dong)	Digital Expression (Farnese vs. Dong)
Architectural Form	Geometric centrality and vertical ascent vs. courtyard hierarchy and ritual layering	Symmetrical composition and axial focus vs. nested sequencing and zoning
Symbolic Ornamentation	Dynastic fresco narratives vs. moral and ethnic surface motifs	Immersive ceiling imagery vs. localised textual iconography
Public Perception	Hashtag-led aesthetic framing vs. story-driven memorial reflection	Photogenic hotspots and algorithmic visibility vs. fragmented storytelling and emotional engagement

) that maps architectural, symbolic, and perceptual meaning across cultural and digital domains. Rather than prescribing design practice, the matrix serves as a conceptual scaffold for analysing how architectural meaning is constructed, mediated, and reinterpreted across sociocultural contexts.