Chapter Two: Literature Review

The research practise explores the multifaceted impact of digitisation on art and cultural heritage, applying theoretical frameworks that address the shift in our understanding of the art object within digital networks. The analysis begins with Lawrence Alloway’s concept of the art world as a network, highlighting the historical context of artwork dissemination and its layers of meaning through various interpretations. This sets the stage for understanding how digital documentation by curators and users expands these networks, challenging traditional notions of originality and authenticity. I also draw on perspectives from museum studies, particularly the work of Richard Sandell and Nina Simon, to discuss participatory practices and community engagement, reflecting on how museums have attempted to use digital technologies to foster inclusivity and accessibility within museum contexts. The examination of Walter Benjamin’s notion of aura and its dilution through digital reproduction provides a critical lens to understand the ontological shift of digital artefacts. This theoretical exploration is complemented by Lev Manovich’s insights into new media language, emphasising the autonomous circulation and emergent meanings of digital objects. The research practise further delves into the interactions between digital collections and users, addressing how these interactions generate new interpretations and relationships, thereby enriching the pedagogical and curatorial dimensions of museum engagement. Finally, the review considers the limitations and ethical considerations of digital collections, acknowledging the ongoing role of the curator in shaping these participatory digital environments. These interdisciplinary fields collectively provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the digitisation of cultural heritage, museum practices, and user engagement with digital collections.

The art object existed in networks of relations before the advent of the networked image. Curator and critic Lawrence Alloway proposed the concept of the art world as a network in 1972. He described the dispersion of artwork through a complex system of distribution and reproduction, gaining layers of meaning through diverse interpretations by critics, viewers, and curators (Moonie, 2016) As the artwork travels through these networks of interactions it develops a record, shifting from a presence as an object, to a subject of information with an aura of aesthetic interpretations. A new type of density accrues as the work is circulated by viewers, curators and critics (Alloway, 1972) Art subsisted in networks of relations before they were digitised and uploaded onto an online environment. The shift is in the new layers that are added to the networks by the possible documentation that users and curators as participants can add to the digital archive. For example, visitors and curators can now capture images, videos, and other documentation of artworks, screenshot or save images. The Internet puts the curator in the exact same position as the user, allowing both to engage with and contribute to the digital archive in similar ways (Dewdney et al., 2013). This documentation can then be uploaded to digital archives or shared on social media platforms, expanding the reach of the exhibition beyond its physical location or associate the digital images within new contexts. The role of the audience in creating and preserving documentation becomes crucial as institutional efforts fall short. This leads to a shift from focusing on reproducing artworks to understanding the complex networks of documentation. These reframing impacts traditional documentation standards and protocols, while also generating new aesthetic values and challenging conventional spectatorship (Dekker, Annet et al., 2024a) Users can now become active participants in the documentation process by sharing their own perspectives, interpretations, and experiences of the artworks online. This user- generated content adds new layers to the network of relations surrounding the artwork. The possible art network is expanding, increasing who could have access and how many copies of the artwork can circulate and be seen by the new techno- human critics, viewers, and curators.

Insights from museum studies literature deepen our understanding of the emerging role of museums in the digital age. Authors like Richard Sandell and Nina Simon offer perspectives on participatory practices and community engagement in museum contexts. Sandell’s work, for instance, explores the role of museums in addressing social inequalities (Sandell, 2006). New digital technologies can foster inclusivity, accessibility, and engagement with cultural heritage, aligning with Simon’s vision of museums as participatory spaces.

With expanded access and circulating copies of digital objects available to techno- human viewers, the digital collection has become unmoored from concepts of originality or authenticity. If the significance of the digital collection is not to refer the user back to the offline collection, then how might the institution engage with its digital collection? Walter Benjamin defined aura by the uniqueness of an object in a particular time and space (Benjamin, 1936) This definition suggests a way of looking, attention given to artwork that is diluted through the multiple viewings of the circulated images. Benjamin suggested that unrecognised images from the past are lost but this has been upended by the continued circulation, manipulation, and reimagining of images, with sometimes unknown origins, into memes, texts, and possible meanings (Boudana et al., 2017) Digital images have the potential to spread through replication and mutation. Instead of loss of meaning, the work of art grows in originality in proportion to the quality and abundance of its copies (Latour and Lowe, 2010) that are in circulation. The idea that digital images can proliferate and shift in meaning through replication and mutation is relevant to the focus of my research as it underscores the revolutionary nature of digitisation in museum contexts. It challenges the conventional understanding of digital artefacts as reproductions, emphasising their autonomy and circulation within emergent digital ecologies. This perspective aligns with the research’s focus on understanding the ontological nature of digitised collections and the shifting role of the curator in facilitating user interactions with digital artefacts. By acknowledging the unfolding nature of digital objects, the research aims to enrich user engagement with online art collections, advancing pedagogical and curatorial dimensions of museum engagement. The decline of attention on the unique image has transferred to the creative potential of the edibility of the mass of digital images. The digital object has both gained significance, as it is no longer dependent on any one exhibition or institution and been weakened with the loss of context resulting in a limitless variety of modes of distribution (Groys, 2008) The circulated context can overwrite the institutional or artist’s interpretation of the image and obfuscate the original context or meaning, gaining new associations and forms. The proliferation of digital images negates the need for a singular interpretation of the image as they can exist across multiple contexts, platforms, and networks.

Another effect of the proliferation of the photographic reproduction of artworks is the expansion of the variety of works that viewers can access. The breadth of accessible images can modify the perception of individual artworks as well as enlarging the canon of art itself (Henning, 2015) In my curation of this specific digital collection the addition of commissioned work and images of work that were overlooked in the initial collection process expanded the possible reading and interpretation of the archived collection.

The discussion on the effect of technology on cultural heritage underscores the unfolding nature of digital collections and their implications for interpretation. As digital objects become more accessible and ubiquitous, they detach from traditional notions of originality and authenticity. This departure prompts a critical inquiry into how institutions engage with their digital collections, particularly considering Walter Benjamin’s notion of aura. Benjamin’s concept, rooted in the uniqueness of objects in time and space, suggests a mode of attention diluted by the proliferation of digital reproductions. Lev Manovich offers an alternative perspective, positing that digital images proliferate and grow in meaning through replication and mutation (Manovich, 2001) These artefacts can be viewed as reproductions, emphasising their autonomy and circulation within emergent digital ecologies. By acknowledging the expanding nature of digital objects, this research practise aims to enrich user engagement with online art collections, advancing pedagogical and curatorial dimensions of museum engagement. This shift from a focus on the unique image to the creative potential of digital proliferation reshapes interpretations and expands the variety of works accessible to viewers. In curating digital collections, the inclusion of commissioned works and previously overlooked pieces broadens the canon of art and enriches the interpretive possibilities of archived collections.

The loss of aura through the process of digitisation decentres the object as the focus of attention. Without the uniqueness of the object codifying and limiting the possible encounters the users could have with it, the possible interaction areas are as important as the object itself. It is through the users’ contact with the object that meaning is generated. That meaning will continuously be incomplete as each new interaction details a different perspective (Pearce, 1994) and there are always new potential connections to be made. Each interaction with the object actively changes and construes it. The concept of the loss of aura through digitisation and the decentralisation of the object as the focus of attention is highly relevant to the research’s aim of enriching user interactions with online art collections. By acknowledging that digitisation changes objects into distinct ontological entities that circulate autonomously, the research recognises the diminishing influence of museums over users’ interpretive processes in the online context. This perspective aligns with the proposed alternative approach wherein the role of the curator shifts from interpreter to facilitator of user encounters with digital artefacts within emergent digital ecologies. The understanding that meaning is continuously generated through users’ interactions with digital objects highlights the importance of considering the complexities of digital representation and engagement in the context of the research’s inquiries into the materiality and dynamics of digitised museum artefacts.

This research practise considers the expansion of our concept of collection documentation to include the relationships between things, as things in their own right (Jones, 2016) The material and interpretative relationships drawn between the digital files in the platform become digital objects adding to the archive. Central to this expanded view of collection documentation is a sense of optimism inherent in the act of archiving and collecting. Archivists and curators are tasked with envisioning what aspects of the present may hold value for future generations, shaping the archive with an eye toward preserving and documenting the cultural and historical significance of contemporary materials. This research practise expands the users’ role to include questions from those of a curator and a conservator. This project goes beyond documentation by engaging in speculative interpretations and envisioning potential futures for the digital collection archive. By exploring and suggesting possible relationships and trajectories for the archive, the research practise aims to generate a diverse array of perspectives and imagined futures, enriching the understanding of the collection and its potential dispersion.

This research project aims to generate a diverse array of perspectives and imagined futures, enriching the understanding of the collection and its potential dispersion. Engaging with speculative interpretations, blending factual research with imaginative storytelling of the collection archive is a method of filling in the gaps in the archival record and imagining the experiences of voices that are missing from the record. The archive often reflects the perspectives of those in power and may distort or erase the voices and experiences of those who have been oppressed (Hartman, 2008). This method challenges the authority of conventional institutional archives and offers alternative narratives that may not be readily apparent from archival documents alone. This approach highlights the importance of storytelling as a tool for reclaiming the voices and humanity of those who have been marginalised by history.

Employing speculative questions and encouraging users to use their personal narratives opens new possibilities of historical inquiry and invites them to create empathetic and imaginative narratives of the digital collection. Consequently, the research practise requires user interaction with the collection to activate the designed platform, converting the collection website from a site of viewing to a dynamic space of participation and collaboration. The reframing of the space as a site for active participants involved in knowledge production and discussions (Richter and Birchall, 2015) alters the collection website from a site of viewing to a site of participation. The viewer is invited to contribute and generate more components of the archive, becoming both a viewer and a participant. The shift in understanding museum visitors as active participants, able to generate knowledge, had already begun to happen in museum education departments, which had already begun to include “free-choice learning” (Falk et al., 2006). By inviting users to contribute and generate additional content for the archive, the collection website changes from being a static viewing platform to a dynamic space of participation and collaboration. Users are empowered to not only consume information but also actively shape and enrich the digital archive through their contributions, thereby blurring the distinction between viewership and participation.

This participatory approach not only enhances user engagement but also aligns with the broader trend of digitised museum collections offering novel insights into objects and their relationships. The digitised dispersion of museum collections online offers novel insights into objects and their relationships, with the Internet becoming the primary origin and context for these artefacts, reshaping user engagement (Navarrete and Owen, 2016). The aim of active involvement of the users with the content of the archive is to cultivate a sense of ownership and investment, fostering a deeper connection to the material. Embracing the digital object as digital, the research practise opens new avenues for creative expression and dialogue, sparking innovative approaches to understanding and interacting with digital imagery. The expectation of these experiments is to rethink the collection website from a static repository of images into a space for dialogue, discovery, and shared creativity. In doing so, the active site becomes not only a laboratory of looking but also a catalyst for community-building and knowledge production. There are, however, limitations to the openness of the digital collection archive. This is not a research practise about the user gaining unlimited access to the archive; the focus is on curating by a larger set of users to a selected part of the online collection and archive. There is an overwhelming number of digital images available online. This designed platform is a cut, a particular view into a cross section of this online collection. In this selection of digital images, the authorship of a singular curator remains. I selected images from the collection and archive for the users to interact with throughout the experiments and across platforms. They were selected through several factors including a desire to show a diverse selection of work (including digitised paintings and born digital projects), documentation of performances, and posters about past events. Other works were left out because of the conditions of DACS licencing. In this selection of objects the institutional role of the curator as tastemaker remains in the research practise. Through the proposed designed interface and workshops, the research practise attempts to draw attention to the possible networks that the online collection participates in and suggests an approach of interacting with and through the digital objects. New narratives are made possible by the digital environment, that deviate from linear and hierarchical structures. Yet digital tools such as hyperlinking can still be employed to captivate users by strategically arranging arguments and counterarguments, prompting users to align themselves with the curator’s perspective (Cameron, 2003). While acknowledging the limitations of access inherent in the digital collection archive, this research practise focuses on curated engagement by a broader user base with a specific subset of the online collection. By selecting diverse works and facilitating interactive experiences, the research practise aims to illuminate the interconnected networks in which the digital archive operates, encouraging users to engage with and through the digital objects in new and meaningful ways.

There are limitations to the openness of the digital collection archive. This is not a research practise about the user gaining unlimited access to the archive; the focus is on curating by a larger set of users to a selected part of the online collection and archive. There is an overwhelming number of digital images available online, the designed platform is a cut, a particular view into a cross section of this online collection. In this selection of digital images, the authorship of a singular curator remains. I selected images from the collection and archive for the users to interact with throughout the experiments and across platforms. They were selected through several factors including a desire to show a diverse selection of work (including digitised paintings and born digital projects), documentation of performances, posters about past events. Other works were left out because of the conditions of DACS licencing. In this selection of objects institutional role of the curator as tastemaker remains in the research practise. Through the proposed designed interface and workshops, the research practise attempts to draw attention to the possible networks that the online collection participates in and suggests an approach of interacting with and through the digital objects. New narratives are made possible by the digital environment, that deviate from linear and hierarchical structures. Yet digital tools such as hyperlinking can still be employed to captivate users by strategically arranging arguments and counterarguments, prompting users to align themselves with the curator's perspective (Cameron, 2003). While acknowledging the limitations of access inherent in the digital collection archive, this research practise focuses on curated engagement by a broader user base with a specific subset of the online collection. By selecting diverse works and facilitating interactive experiences, the designed platform aims to illuminate the interconnected networks in which the digital archive operates, encouraging users to engage with and through the digital objects in novel ways.

This research practise considers the place of the digital image as part of the museum and its circulation outside of the bounds of the institution. Despite the increasing integration of digital components into museum experiences, such as the utilisation of immersive installations and facilitation of social media engagement, museums have displayed a notable reluctance to fully integrate digital culture into the broader narrative of art history. This hesitancy may stem from a variety of factors, including concerns about preserving the traditional sanctity of physical artefacts and navigating the complexities of digital preservation. While museums have acknowledged the existence of networked ecosystems, they have primarily viewed them as communication platforms rather than spaces for cultural exchange and exploration (Zouli, 2023). There remains a significant gap between the potential of digital technologies to enrich the museum experience and their actual incorporation into institutional practices and narratives.

Discussions around the digital collection as an emerging museum genre often highlight its role in democratising access to cultural knowledge and artefacts for a broader public. Themes of accessibility and responsibility are key features in the broader movement for museums’ shift focus from objects to the engagement of wider communities. There is an optimistic view that the networked object can be a catalyst for political interventions within public discourse with the potential for the traditional boundaries between museum culture and public culture, to blur organically (Cameron and Mengler, 2009) and create engaged interaction with the digital collections. The act of digitising alone does not create meaningful interaction with digital collections.

The research practise employs diverse fields including museum studies, network theory and media studies to illuminate the multifaceted impact of digitisation on art and cultural heritage, offering insights into the art object within digital networks. Drawing on theoretical frameworks ranging from Lawrence Alloway’s concept of the art world as a network to Walter Benjamin’s notion of aura and Lev Manovich’s insights into new media language, the review underscores the shifting nature of digital collections and their implications for interpretation. It explores how participatory practices and community engagement in the digital age, as discussed by scholars like Richard Sandell and Nina Simon, intersect with the proliferation of digital artefacts, reshaping user engagement and the role of museums in fostering inclusivity and accessibility. The research practise explores the ongoing role of the curator in shaping participatory digital environments. By synthesising insights from diverse disciplines, the literature review provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the ramifications of digitisation on cultural heritage, museum practices, and user engagement with digital collections.

2.1 What is the position of the user?

How might we reconsider the role of users as co-producers of meaning within digital archives, inviting them to generate new written and audio interpretations of selected online archive material? The digital objects are no longer framed by the art institution but are situated in far-reaching associations and alliances that are not bounded by museum framing or hierarchies of interpretation. The user, through encountering the digital artworks in a new context, could understand the digital collection material not as fixed objects but as points in a chain of possible interventions and contributions (Bourriaud, 2005) allowing them to reframe and reuse the material in new contexts. When users interact with the online collection this research practise endeavours to illustrate that we are not looking at completed objects made in a specific time but an ongoing event that is still taking place (Domínguez Rubio, 2020) With no stable object, the users have an expanded role to recreate and edit the digital archival objects.

To curate the digital archive in an online framework is to consider the boundaries between the curator and user to be more porous (Dewdney et al., 2013) The user actively participates in the creation and distribution of the digital content, becoming the editor, critic, translator, and co-author of the digital images (Steyerl, 2012). Steyerl’s poor image is not a stand in but a dynamic model – the user can function as curator describing what they understand of the contents of digital images and encouraging the circulation of the digital archive. If curators and users are both able to write and rewrite the interpretations of the digital images, then the hierarchy between these roles collapse. The structure of the Internet means that no single node is more important than another (Stallabrass, 2003) The curator and user become nodes in the circulation and consumption of the digital image.

Museums, especially since the onset of Covid, often maintain a traditional stance, adhering staunchly to their established cultural authority. However, despite the resistance and sluggishness in embracing digital networks, there is a notable shift occurring. With expanded access to the museum collections through online platforms, audiences have become more engaged participants, increasing their influence on the representation and construction of knowledge and culture (Kidd, 2014). Users’ positions through online platforms and the digitisation of collections and archive users have increased opportunities for interaction and knowledge production. The emergent qualities of digital archives challenge traditional notions of authorship and interpretation, inviting users to actively engage as co-producers of meaning. By liberating digital objects from the confines of institutional framing, users are empowered to explore, reinterpret, and contribute to the ongoing narrative of the online collection. This shift not only blurs the boundaries between creator and audience but also underscores the dynamic nature of digital images as continually unfolding events rather than static artefacts. With the proliferation of online platforms facilitating broader access to museum collections, users are afforded greater agency in shaping the representation and construction of knowledge and culture. As participants in the digitisation process, users play an integral role in expanding the dialogue surrounding digital archives there is the potential for museums to encourage a more collaborative approach to knowledge production.

2.2 Digitisation and curation, (How to curate online)

Looking closely at the emerging relationships of user engagement with digital archives, it becomes evident that traditional notions of curation and interpretation are undergoing a shift. Museums are increasingly adopting open-access policies for their collections, leveraging digital technologies to broaden public access and engagement. They are providing online catalogues featuring high-resolution, often zoomable or downloadable images. An example of this is the V&A’s recent rethinking of how users enter the digitised collection. The redesigned platform acknowledges that over half of the online traffic arrives via search engines, and users often land directly on object pages rather than the museum homepage. Previously, object pages were isolated, but the new integration connects them to the broader V&A website, enhancing navigation and discoverability. Controlled vocabularies and identifiers from the Collections Management System link object data with editorial content, leading uses to related articles, videos, and interactive content (Craig, 2021). In this new paradigm, the curator relinquishes their role as a singular authority figure, instead becoming part of a complex network of human and non-human agents engaged in the co-production of meaning. As users interact with digital artefacts in novel contexts, they contribute to a continuous process of reinterpretation and recontextualisation, reshaping the narrative surrounding the collection. By embracing this participatory approach, we not only dissolve the traditional distinctions between curator and user but also acknowledge the multiplicity of perspectives and voices that contribute to the construction of cultural knowledge. In essence, the curator and user alike become integral nodes within the interconnected web of digital dissemination and consumption, collectively shaping the trajectory of the digital archive.

If the digital collection objects and the context in which they exist have shifted, then the mode of curation must also be reimagined. In traditional museum practice, there is a clear divide between the collecting subject as curator, and the viewing subject as visitor where the interpretations of the meanings of the collections are limited to the largely unseen world of the curator (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992) The digitisation of collections makes new collaborations between the curator, viewer and object possible, meaning can be co-produced and invisible processes can be made visible.

As the digitisation of collections opens new possibilities for collaboration between curators, viewers, and objects, the traditional hierarchy in museum practice must also change. No longer confined to the role of an authoritative figure, the curator becomes integrated into a networked co-curation model, where various actors – including users and machines – play active roles in shaping the interpretation and dissemination of digital collections. This shift from centralised cultural gatekeeping to decentralised collaboration reflects broader changes in the art world environment, redefining how audiences interact with collections and expanding the scope of what can be curated. Networked co-curation is a decentralised and collaborative alternative to cultural gatekeeping that are often at the core of art world systems. Here, the curator moves from a figure of authority to being one of the nodes within a complex socio-technical assemblage of human and non-human agents. Networked co-curation is a collaboration between curator, users, objects, and machines (Dekker, A. and Tedone, 2019). This shift indicates a change in the art world environment, the ways in which the audience can interact with the collection and what can be curated.

Changes in the form of access to the online collection archive modify the structure of the online collection, altering the content of what can be understood and remembered. One consequence of this change is the form of access users can survey the collection, viewing works that may not have been on display and are now shown outside of the context of a mediated exhibition environment. Users could create new groups and tags for the objects. If the way that culture is recorded changes the conditions under which culture is produced and enacted (Lister et al., 2009), if more collaborators can record and save their own versions of an online collection, then this alters what might be remembered or understood of that grouping of digital objects. Media technologies have altered the relations between media producers and consumers as barriers between consumption and production have dissolved. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram empower users to create and share their own content, reshaping them into producers of media content. Social media platforms have become hubs for activism, enabling individuals to challenge mainstream narratives and promote social causes through user-generated content. Crowdsourced journalism on platforms like Reddit and Twitter allows users to contribute real-time information and eyewitness accounts during events such as natural disasters or political protests. Additionally, online communities for fan fiction and fan art, such as Archive of Our Own and DeviantArt, blur the lines between consumption and production by allowing fans to actively engage with and contribute to the media they love. Overall, these examples illustrate how media technologies have facilitated a shift towards a participatory culture, where consumers are also producers, shaping the content and discourse of digital media. The digital environment extends the users’ power to archive allowing a wider audience toannotate, appropriate, and recirculate media products (Jenkins, 2006). The fluctuating form of the online collection archive shifts what is being recorded, how it is recorded, and by whom, altering what might be remembered and recorded. The democratisation of archiving through user-generated groups and tags introduces a multiplicity of perspectives, complicating traditional notions of cultural preservation and significance. Yet, amidst this democratisation, concerns arise regarding the reliability and accuracy of user-generated content, raising questions about whose voices and interpretations are privileged in shaping cultural memory. As media technologies blur the lines between producers and users, the power structures inherent in cultural production and consumption become increasingly complex. While the digital environment empowers users to annotate and redistribute media products, it also raises concerns about the manipulation and distortion of cultural artefacts in the online sphere. Thus, while the fluctuating form of the online collection archive presents new opportunities for engagement and participation, it also necessitates a critical examination of the mechanisms shaping cultural memory and authority.

The configuration of the online archive is always temporary because of the underlying continuous dynamic rewriting of the structures that underpin it. This fluidity arises from the ongoing process of rewriting or reconfiguring the underlying structures that support the archive. In other words, the way the archive is structured or presented online is always in flux, as adjustments are made to its foundational components over time. This emerging nature implies that the online archive is never static or fixed; instead, it changes continuously in response to factors such as technological advancements, user feedback, or shifts in organisational priorities. Definitive knowledge as presented by the museum about its objects is replaced with permanent rewriting and annotation (Ernst and Parikka, 2013) For example, a digital object might acquire new tags, image descriptions, and appear in social media platforms and mood boards, cut from the museum’s records of provenance and context. Unlike the projected lifespan and acts of preservation that museums do to maintain their offline collections and archives, this research practise is framing the grouping of this set of digital objects as temporary, not as an act of preservation. This configuration is more akin to a temporary exhibition uniting the digital objects in a particular constellation before they move outward to other networks. This research practise takes a non-custodial approach to digital curation, underlining the shifting structure and use of the objects across the network.

Through the process of digitisation, the digital objects can be made searchable to image recognition technology. Digital collections and records are uploaded into hardware apparatus governed by private companies and must conform to the rules of these commercial platforms. This process of digitisation of collections and archives can make the online collections available to a wider public but can risk the loss of free play of narrative and can flatten the online collection to the indexical, algorithmic performativity of its data (Pepi, 2014) Digitisation projects, while promising greater accessibility to cultural resources, often perpetuate existing inequalities and reinforce hegemonic structures, as issues of ownership, control, and the commodification of digitised content are inherent in the digitisation process. Digitisation is not a neutral process, it requires critical reflection, such as what is digitised and how it accessed frames how collective memory is formed (Thylstrup, 2018). It opens up the collection to new audiences but also makes it subject to a new set of proprietary platforms that can block possible pathways and use of the digital material.

Within the broader framework of cultural value and participation, the impact of digitisation on cultural artefacts prompts a rethinking of traditional assumptions. The digitisation of objects introduces new dimensions to the concept of cultural value, challenging established notions and altering the forms of meaning-making. Despite the analogue model of the gallery remaining a significant influence, interactions with digitised objects disrupt conventional understandings of cultural value. As users engage with digital archives and collections, the fluidity and accessibility of digital platforms reshape the ways in which cultural value is perceived and negotiated.

2.3 Temporality

When I created the Borough Road Collection Archive (BRCA) platform, I envisioned users experiencing time differently compared to the experience of visiting a museum. They wouldn’t have to go to a physical location during set hours, and the artworks wouldn’t be dated or displayed in a chronological or thematic order like in a traditional exhibition. This shift in the temporal experience aligns with the principles of digital aesthetics, where interacting with technology not only creates time but also involves encountering different ways time can be experienced. When users engage with a database, they’re experiencing a unique kind of time. The database stores past interactions and presents them to users whenever they access it, allowing them to move through these interactions in different ways – not just chronologically. Drawing from Deleuze’s concept of the virtual the user and their interaction on the platform should be considered as an ongoing process, events not just shaped by existing actualities but are also influenced by the virtual realm of potentialities and tendencies (Deleuze, 2014). I argue that when considering the user’s interaction with the digital archive, we can’t just see the final product as a static thing. Instead, we need to focus on the processes behind it. Users aren’t just individuals; they’re part of a larger interconnected system, experiencing multiple layers of time at once.

At present, traditional forms and institutions of representation persist, albeit functioning within a significantly altered framework of information gathering, storage, circulation, and consumer habits. Aesthetic modernism, which emphasises the artwork as an independent, self-contained entity to be admired for its formal qualities, is inadequate in defining the contemporary era, as time is no longer perceived in a linear manner (Dewdney, 2017) In navigating the complexities of contemporary representation, it becomes apparent that traditional paradigms and aesthetic frameworks, such as aesthetic modernism, are challenged by the fluidity and interconnectedness, prompting a rethinking of how we perceive and engage with artistic and cultural artefacts in a non-linear temporal landscape.

The notion of ‘userness’ recognises that users are constantly changing and altering their interactions. Each action they take adds to this ongoing process. Users, machines, and software all interact in real-time, shaping how we experience time digitally. This interaction changes how we perceive time, introducing non-linear paths that diverge from traditional ways of thinking about time (Barker, 2012). The merging of human and digital time creates a complex present moment with multiple layers of time happening simultaneously. Users navigate through these different temporal layers, experiencing events in a multi-dimensional way. This thickened time reflects the complex relationship between humans and technology, resulting in a diversity of temporal experiences.

In designing the BRCA platform, my intent was to redefine the temporal experience for users, liberating them from the constraints of physical space and linear chronology inherent in traditional museum visits. In the realm of digital aesthetics, our interactions with technology forge new temporal dimensions, transcending conventional notions of time. User engagement with the platform unfolds as an ongoing process, shaped not only by existing actualities but also by the realm of potentialities and tendencies. As users navigate the digital archive, it becomes evident that they are not static individuals but integral components of an interconnected system. The fusion of human and digital time yields different temporal experiences, characterised by non-linearity and multiplicity. This thickened time, influenced by the interactions between users, machines, and software, underscores the intricate relationship between humanity and technology in shaping our perception of time. The BRCA platform serves as a testament to the nature of temporal experiences, inviting users to traverse diverse temporal layers and engage with cultural artefacts in a multi-dimensional temporal ecology.

2.4 Representation and Materiality:

The proposition that “the file is the object” underscores a shift in the way museum collections are perceived and managed. This perspective challenges traditional notions of linear timelines in collection curation and display, disrupting the temporality often associated with modernist approaches. In embracing this paradigm, museums confront the broader implications of the digital revolution, which transcends the stable European methodologies of the past. The advent of the Internet, a quintessential postmodern phenomenon, further complicates this landscape, blurring boundaries and reshaping the role of museums as gatekeepers of cultural heritage. Consequently, art museums find themselves grappling with the complexities of navigating this digital shift and redefining their practices in response to the shifts in collection management and accessibility.

As the concept of representation and the digitised object becomes more challenging to define, materiality provides a strong framework for discussing both representation and simulation, along with the limitations and possibilities they involve. While no single individual can significantly alter this system on their own, individual contributions do influence its direction, with networks of people exerting even greater influence. Altering the material artefact inevitably shifts the context and conditions for engaging with words, thereby altering their meanings. This shift is particularly impactful when words interact reflexively with the inscription technologies used to create them (Hayles, 2002) In navigating the complex interaction between representation, simulation, and materiality, it becomes evident that individual actions collectively shape the potential meaning-making and cultural production. By recognising the reciprocal relationship between material artefacts and the inscription technologies that shape them, we gain deeper insights into how words and symbols acquire significance within socio-cultural contexts. Embracing the interplay between materiality and inscription technologies enriches our understanding of representation, simulation, and the multifaceted nature of human expression in an increasingly digitised world.

The technical framework of an archival system not only shapes the organisation of stored content but also influences its relevance to future use. Archiving processes don’t just capture events; they also shape and produce them. This suggests that media technologies play an active role in structuring archives and potentially influencing their users, rather than just serving as passive carriers of content or representations (Derrida and Prenowitz, 1996) The exchange between archival systems and stored content highlights the active role of media technologies in shaping our understanding of past events and influencing future interpretations, underscoring the relationship between technology and memory construction.

Engagement with the materiality of artefacts implies that materiality is inherently tied to content, and vice versa. Physical artefacts possess material properties that serve as significant resources for constructing meaning. Even when efforts are made to make the interface as transparent as possible, this immediacy inherently involves a process of meaning-making, shaping the reader’s relationship with the imaginative world depicted by the text. By closely examining how users interact with interfaces, it becomes evident that subjectivity is partly shaped by the materiality of the work. The interaction between semiotic elements and physical characteristics not only gives rise to materiality but also contributes to the formation of subjects who perceive and are influenced by this materiality. This intertwining of materiality and meaning underscores their inseparable connection (Hayles, 2002) In recognising the symbiotic relationship between materiality and content, we acknowledge the profound impact of physical properties on the construction of meaning within literary and artistic works. The interplay between semiotic elements and tangible characteristics not only shapes the materiality of artefacts but also moulds the subjective experience of those who engage with them, highlighting the integral role of materiality in the formation of human subjectivity. The interaction between materiality and meaning unveils the intricate layers of interpretation and embodiment inherent in our engagement with cultural artefacts, enriching our understanding of the complex dynamics between text, reader, and the material world.

Engaging with the physical properties of artefacts is integral to understanding their content. This conceptualisation suggests that the material makeup of an object is not separate from its meaning or significance. In other words, the physical characteristics of an artefact contribute directly to its content, and conversely, its content is inherently tied to its materiality. When we interact with artefacts, such as artworks or historical objects, we are not only engaging with their visual or textual content but also with their physical attributes: their texture, weight, colour, and so on. These material aspects are not just incidental features but play a crucial role in shaping our understanding and interpretation of the artefact’s content. For example, the choice of material in a sculpture or the type of paper used in a historical document can convey symbolic meanings or provide context for the content presented. Similarly, the content of an artefact, such as the ideas conveyed in a painting or the information in a manuscript, is deeply influenced by its material form. The inseparable relationship between the materiality of artefacts and their content highlights the importance of considering both aspects when analysing or interpreting cultural objects.

By examining the material components of the Internet, we can gain insight into how meaning is constructed and conveyed. The materiality of the Internet refers to its physical infrastructure and components, including servers, cables, routers, and data centres. Understanding these material aspects allows us to explore the mechanisms through which information is transmitted, stored, and accessed online. For example, the architecture of the Internet, such as the protocols used for data transmission and the hardware used to host websites, influences how content is distributed and presented to users. By studying the materiality of the Internet, we can understand how technological constraints and affordances shape the creation, dissemination, and interpretation of digital content. The physical infrastructure of the Internet shape how meaning is produced and shared.

When we consider the digitised object, we are not just examining their physical components; we are also tapping into a reservoir of cultural meanings and values that are embedded in the machinery itself. This archive not only preserves physical artefacts but also offers a window into the technological innovations, cultural practices, and social practices that shaped the development and adoption of these technologies. This approach helps us understand not only how media technologies have progressed over time but encourages us to explore the complex relationships between media, culture, and technology by delving into the material traces (Ernst and Parikka, 2013). By engaging with digitised objects, we unveil a rich tapestry of cultural narratives intertwined with technological progress, providing insights into the evolution of media, culture, and society. Embracing this approach facilitates a deeper comprehension of the intricate interplay between material artefacts, cultural contexts, and technological innovation, fostering a nuanced understanding of our digital heritage.

When discussing digital images, the focus shifts from the visual representation to the materiality of the digital file itself. The file’s material composition, reliant on electrical components for existence and transferability, becomes significant. When this file interacts with software, it alters into a culturally recognised image. This raises questions about the distinction between the JPEG file format and its visual content. Does this differentiation hold significance for anyone? The platform lies at the intersection between the digital file and the image, influencing how it circulates.

Materiality is a key aspect to consider when examining digital files, as they are often perceived solely as representations rather than tangible objects. However, these JPEG files take on a distinct existence and can even be collected, albeit in ways divorced from the original physical object. This notion serves as a crucial entry point for fieldwork, prompting exploration not only into users’ understanding of these files but also into their literacy regarding digital engagement. Viewing them as photographic representations limits the exploration to offline collections. Contrary to the perception of digital material as immaterial, scholars like Nicolas Malevé argue for its materiality, emphasising its agency, impact, and significance shaped by technical processes and codes (Malevé, 2021). This perspective invites us to consider the physicality of digital technologies, their material affordances, and how they influence our experiences and environments. It raises questions about how to curate the materiality of digital files and the transactions involved when working with online collections, challenging us to rethink our approaches to understanding and engaging with digital materials.

2.5 Digital Subjects:

The distinction between the user and the museum visitor is paramount to understanding the shift in understanding what has changed once a collection has been digitised. In the context of the online collection archive, the user embodies a distributed subjectivity. Unlike the traditional notion of a museum visitor, who typically engages with physical artefacts within a designated space, the user of an online collection archive interacts with digital representations of artefacts dispersed across virtual platforms. This distributed subjectivity reflects a shift in the dynamics of engagement, wherein the user’s experience is mediated by digital interfaces and navigational pathways rather than physical proximity to museum exhibits. Consequently, the user’s encounter with archival material transcends spatial limitations, enabling asynchronous and remote access to cultural artefacts. This paradigmatic shift underscores the multilevel influence of digital technologies on the dissemination and consumption of cultural heritage, redefining the nature of user engagement within the realm of archival practice.

The concept of digital subjects challenges traditional notions of subjectivity by exploring how entities formed within computational systems, comprised of data, models, and analytical operations, function as subjects. These digital subjects are abstract constructs assembled by algorithms, drawing upon data such as clickstreams, cookies, and device IDs. They exist in complex power relations, blurring the lines between agency and control. Various perspectives, from cultural theory to philosophy, delve into the construction and operation of these digital subjects. Scholars examine how technologies like facial biometrics anchor digital subjects, while others propose the emergence of AI-generated subjects or critique the notion of subjectivity altogether. These discussions raise questions about the ontological status and political implications of digital subjects, exploring their relationship with human subjects and their role in contemporary society. The term“digital subject” encompasses a broad range of meanings, from legal definitions to theoretical constructs, challenging traditional understandings of subjectivity and identity in the digital age (Goriunova, 2019) This exploration underscores the underlying systems shaping digital subjectivity and its interplay with human agency, prompting inquiries into the ramifications of these emergent entities.

In this context, the ontology encompasses the various forms and states that the digital images within the collection can inhabit. The digital image exists as a file, a set of data stored in a specific format on a computer or digital storage device. As a file, it has a material existence within the digital realm, subject to manipulation, transmission, and storage. Furthermore, the digital image is also considered an object, albeit a virtual one. It possesses characteristics and attributes that define its identity within the collection, such as metadata, provenance, and associated contextual information. As an object, it represents a unit of meaning and significance within the broader context of the collection. The digital image is in a state of becoming, continually changing as it interacts with various actors and contexts. Its meaning and interpretation are not fixed but are shaped by the networks of relationships and connections in which it is embedded. This dynamic quality reflects the fluidity and adaptability of digital representations. The ontology of the collection extends beyond the digital image itself to encompass the network of relationships and interactions surrounding it. The collection is not a static entity, but a shifting ecosystem shaped by the contributions and interpretations of diverse stakeholders, including the public. Through speculative questions and tools for reimagining the past, the public actively engages with the collection, amplifying the voices of those historically silenced by traditional archival practices. This participatory approach alters the ontology of the collection, imbuing it with new layers of meaning, significance, and relevance in contemporary discourse.

2.6 Collection as Archive:

Defining the museum archive encompasses a broad spectrum of functions and possibilities, each offering unique affordances for research, curation, and access. The archive serves as a repository of documentation, providing multiple entry points into the collection and facilitating deeper engagement with its contents. Documentation, whether in the form of catalogue entries, metadata, or records, expands the accessibility of the collection, offering avenues for exploration and study that extend beyond the physical artworks. While the archive in art institutions has primarily functioned as a tool for record-keeping, it also plays a pivotal role in shaping narratives and understanding the cultural significance of the collection. The labour involved in curating and archiving often intertwines. This symbiotic relationship underscores the collaborative efforts required to maintain and interpret the archive effectively. Curators curate exhibitions and interpret artworks, archivists organise and preserve documentation, contributing to the overarching mission of preserving institutional memory and facilitating scholarly inquiry. In practice, these roles often overlap, highlighting the interconnectedness of archival practices and curatorial endeavours within the museum ecosystem. This intertwining is particularly evident in the digitisation of collections, where the distinction between artwork and document becomes less clear. By viewing all digitised works as part of the archive, attention shifts towards understanding the relationships among various elements involved in their creation and realisation. This re-evaluation challenges traditional museum methodologies and calls for a more flexible approach that accommodates the emerging digital curatorial practices.

Understanding the materiality of digitised collections involves recognising digital artefacts not just as representations but as cultural entities. This research practise explores a broader perspective of the digital object, going beyond its role as a representation of a physical offline artefact. Through this lens, the online collection transcends its traditional role as a display of museum objects, or a record keeping platform that displays information for the offline objects. In this research practise I have reconsidered the distinction between what is document and what is artwork. All digitised work in this collection could be understood as archive. By getting rid of the sorting of digitised objects as either “collection” or “archive”, the focus becomes one of relations. Consequently, the concept of the work as a tangible product of creation dissipates, shifting the focus towards the interconnected relations among the various elements engaged in the creative process (Dávilla Freire, 2012). This means that instead of viewing the work solely as a finished product, attention is directed towards understanding the dynamic connections and interactions between the components involved in its conception and realisation.

The exploration of digitised collections as cultural entities rather than representations marks a departure from traditional frameworks of understanding. This research practise adopts a broader perspective on digital objects, transcending their conventional roles as static displays or archival records. Instead, the focus shifts towards recognising the interconnected relations among various elements within the digital environment, as elucidated by Dávila Freire. This perspective challenges the notion of digital works as finished products, redirecting attention towards the processes and interactions involved in their creation and dissemination. Building upon this conceptual shift, insights from McKemmish’s discourse on personal recordkeeping offer parallels in understanding the proliferation of digital archives (McKemmish, 1996). It highlights how archives not only provide information but also document relationships, serving as sites of interplay between information, evidence, and context. This perspective underscores the importance of maintaining a dialogue between physical and digital artefacts to preserve the authenticity and value of cultural heritage. By drawing parallels between personal archives and digital collections, McKemmish’s insights emphasise the significance of establishing boundaries and ethical practices in managing and preserving digital objects. This holistic approach enriches our understanding of digitised collections, framing them not as only repositories of data but as dynamic repositories of cultural memory and interconnected relationships.

Art in a networked context presents challenges for institutions in defining the boundaries of a work. This challenge is significant as it compels art historians and conservators to recognise that institutional delineations may be dictated more by our methodologies of archiving and showing work than by the intentions of the digital artist that might include process (Adang, 2013). This realisation prompts a re- evaluation of how we understand and interact with digital art within institutional settings. It underscores the need for a more flexible and adaptive approach that accommodates the dynamic nature of digital artistic practices, including their process-oriented aspects.

This rethinking of the relationship between collection and archive is not without precedent. The challenges faced by museums in the digital era are evident in the outdated logic of museum databases, initially designed to mirror analogue practices. In 2012 the Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona took the innovative approach of blurring distinctions between artworks, documents, and online content paving the way for a more adaptable content management systems, integrating archive and library collections into a single database (Walsh, 2016). The shift of understanding the digitised collection as archive changes what can be curated and points to the new networks of relations that the digitised collection archive is part of. The integration of digital technologies in museums is a continuation of a historical trend of connecting, organising, and creating representations of the connections between people and objects (Geismar, Haidy, 2018) The technical process of conversion into binary code and back transforms and mediates the users experience with the digitised collection. The move to rethink of the digitised collection and archive as archive underlines the relational qualities of the digitised images and opens the grouping to user interpretation and uncertainty.

Indexicality, within the context of museum archives and digital collections, refers to the ability of objects or artefacts to serve as tangible markers or traces of historical contexts, events, or individuals. In essence, it signifies the capacity of these objects to point beyond themselves, acting as evidence or reminders of a particular narrative or cultural significance (Duindam, 2018).The Borough Road collection, beyond its role in spotlighting individual artists, serves as an index of Bomberg’s teaching and a reflection of the broader milieu of people associated with him. It embodies a continuing history of the institution it is situated in and the evolving pedagogical approaches within it. Through their digital presence and association with Bomberg’s pedagogy, these objects embody indexicality by carrying meaning and insights into his legacy, interrelated network, and history as a body of work thereby enriching the overall narrative and interpretation within the collection. This perspective underscores the dynamic nature of digital artefacts, challenging traditional distinctions between artwork and documentation within museum archives. The relationship between curatorship and digital curation emphasises the importance of understanding the interconnectedness and relational aspects of digitised collections within the museum ecosystem.

2.7 Practitioner/Researcher

The transition from traditional museum visitor to digital subject marks a change in user engagement facilitated by the digitisation of collections. While the concept of digital subject challenges conventional notions of subjectivity, it intersects with the developing role of curators as researchers in relation to the digital material. As I embarked on my research practise, exploring the intersection of curatorship and research, I encountered a paradigm shift in my curatorial approach. The dual role of researcher and curator prompted a reframing of my engagement with online projects, transitioning from institutional critique to emphasising the curator’s multifaceted role as both custodian of cultural heritage and facilitator of knowledge production. This evolution underscores the transforming role of curatorship, where reflective practices and innovative dissemination strategies redefine audience engagement and enrich our understanding of cultural heritage. Thus, the synthesis of curatorship and research presents possibilities for fostering interactions with diverse audiences within the digital realm, reshaping the trajectory of museum practices in the 21st century.

In starting this research practise, I experienced a shift in my curatorial approach. Initially, I undertook online curatorial projects in my capacity as a curator, but the commencement of my PhD provided an opportunity to expand these projects within a research framework. Transitioning into the dual role of researcher and curator prompted a reframing of my approach to curating the online collection. While my role had always included elements of curatorship and education, the way I engaged with users and targeted publics underwent a repositioning. Initially rooted in institutional critique, my work shifted to emphasise the curator’s role as both curator and educator. Engaging in practice as research establishes a state of uncertainty, serving as a space for exploration. Integrating creative arts into the research process allows for encounters with moments of contradiction, prompting a reassessment of our existing perceptions and understandings of how institutions function. This characteristic renders it a useful methodological tool, with emphasis placed on the process itself.

Research within the museum context involves intellectual pursuits aimed at uncovering, innovating, and advancing new knowledge pertaining to collections and their related activities (Desvallées, 2010) Similarly, Nelund perceives curatorial research as extending beyond the confines of the exhibition, constituting a process of exploring practices across diverse media, sensibilities, and methodologies (Nelund, 2015). In this emerging ecology, curating evolves into a reflective exploration of the implications of engaging in research within a museum context, probing various modes of dissemination and experimenting with their effects on audiences and society (Sheikh, 2013) Curatorial practice encompasses the ability to interrogate subjects of study that may not solely originate from artistic creation and evolution.

The journey from being solely a curator to adopting the dual role of curator and researcher marks a transition in my approach to online projects and engagements with digital collections. Initially rooted in traditional curatorial practices, my work shifted as I embraced the role of a curator/researcher. This shift prompted a re- evaluation of my engagement with online collections, moving beyond institutional critique to emphasise the multifaceted responsibilities inherent in curatorial work within a research framework. As I navigated this transition, my focus expanded to encompass not only the curation of cultural artefacts but also the investigation and advancement of new knowledge related to these collections and their activities. This evolution underscores the changing nature of curatorship in the digital era, where the fusion of curatorship and research offers opportunities to deepen my understanding of the digital objects and reshape my approach museum practices. In connecting it back to subjectivity and the dual position of user/curator, it becomes apparent that all users, in their engagement with digital collections, take on a role akin to that of a researcher, actively shaping and contributing to the interpretation and dissemination of cultural heritage.

2.8 Past online projects, now a research footing in Practice-as-Research (PAR)

This research practise is an opportunity for me to reflect on my past online curation and commissioning of digital projects and identify larger themes that run through my practice with a reflective cycle built in to build on the previous projects and outcomes. The earlier projects form a basis for the research practise as it developed.

With this shift from curator to curator/researcher, I reflected on ways to engage the user with the digital image as a digital image. I created another multiple-choice game. The beta version of the project was a game called “Naming with Care” [see Project 1] made with Twine as the platform and the game was hosted on itch.io. The game starts with a digital image in a file and asks a series of embodied looking questions such as: “what temperature do you think it would be in the image?” and variants on where the image might be able to be sent or what other platforms (LinkedIn, Instagram etc.) the image could participate in. The combination of responses makes up the file name of the final digital image that the user could then download and save. The long file names trace the choices the user made to describe the image and were bound by the limitations of file name characters. The number of available choices restricted the game experience; users moved along a pre- programmed branching structure. This test game illustrated that digital interactions inherently are not more or less interactive than analogue digital forms; there was only a limited set of choices for users to choose from (Manovich, 2001). Museum visitors could just as easily follow their own pathway through an exhibition, reading or overlooking labels and works. The other issue that arose is that users reacted to the image as a representation of the offline painting. Even with the final image presented to the user as a JPEG, that included all the text they had selected, the image was understood not as a digital object but as a stand-in for the offline artwork. The next version of the project attempted to increase the potential pathways for users to engage with the digital collection archive and to further engage the user with digital materiality.

The selection of the outlined methodology arises from the recognition of the unfolding shifts that affect museum visitor engagement as collections have moved online. As a curator and researcher, the imperative to sustain and enrich user interactions with online art collections serves as the driving force behind the chosen methodology. By actively engaging with the digitised collection and archival resources of A David Bomberg Legacy – The Sarah Rose Collection, this approach seeks to unravel the complexities and potentials inherent in the digitisation process. In adopting this method, the curator assumes the role of a proto user, exploring the collection with a mindset akin to that of an engaged researcher, probing its depths and connections. Similarly, for the user, this model presents an invitation to move from passive consumption into a model of the user as researcher. Users are encouraged to delve into the digitised archives, not just as spectators but as active participants in the process of knowledge construction, contributing their insights and interpretations to the collective understanding of the collection. This reciprocal relationship between curator and user blurs the boundaries between creator and consumer, fostering a collaborative approach to the exploration and appreciation of cultural heritage. Through a meticulous examination of the materiality of digitised collections, resonances between curatorial methodologies, and the trace of user engagement across online museum artefacts, the methodology aims to shift the curator’s role from interpreter to facilitator within emergent digital ecologies. Drawing upon insights from scholars like Jussi Parikka and Walter Benjamin, it underscores the cultural significance and materiality of digital artefacts, transcending technical considerations. Embracing the relational nature of digital artefacts and digital subjectivity, this methodology endeavours to confront institutional challenges posed by digitisation, enhancing the integration of digitised collections into expanded networks that transcend traditional museum boundaries. Through this approach, the research seeks to advance pedagogical and scholarly dimensions of art museum engagement, paving the way for a more nuanced understanding of digital museum practices in the 21st century.

The approach outlined in the research practise raises several critical considerations and prompts a reflective analysis of its effectiveness and implications. Firstly, the decision to use a reflective cycle built upon past online curation and commissioning projects is commendable for its intention to identify larger themes running through the practitioner’s practice. Nonetheless, the reliance on past projects as the basis for the research practise may introduce biases or limit the exploration of new avenues, potentially constraining the depth of inquiry into emerging digital practices. The shift from curator to curator/researcher signifies a pivotal transition aimed at engaging users with digital images in a more interactive manner. The creation of the multiple- choice game, “Naming with Care”, demonstrates an innovative approach to digital engagement by prompting users to interact with digital images through embodied looking questions. The limitations imposed by the pre-programmed branching structure and the constrained set of choices restrict the depth of user engagement and may hinder the exploration of diverse pathways within the digital archive. The challenge of users perceiving the digital image primarily as a representation of the offline artwork highlights the need for deeper exploration into digital materiality and the potential pathways for enhancing user interaction with the digital collection archive.

The selection of the outlined methodology arises from a recognition of the developing landscape of museum engagement post digitisation of collections and archives. Traditional approaches often overlook the ramifications inherent in digitisation, necessitating a shift in the curator’s role towards facilitating user interactions within emergent digital ecologies. The methodology aims to unravel complexities and potentials inherent in digitised collections by examining materiality, resonances between curatorial methodologies, and traces of user engagement. Embracing the relational nature of digital artefacts and subjectivity, the methodology confronts institutional challenges posed by digitisation, enhancing the integration of digitised collections into expanded networks. The decision to employ this methodology was informed by its potential to advance pedagogical and scholarly dimensions of art museum engagement, contributing to a nuanced understanding of digital museum practices in the 21st century. Ongoing reflection and adaptation of the methodology is essential to address emerging challenges and shifting roles in digital curation and user engagement.

2.9 Research questions arising from these problems

The object has changed through the process of digitisation. How could museum professionals address this altered state and engage with the new qualities to engage the public with the online collection? The starting point for the research practise was to examine some of the problems that arise when digitising a collection and archive. Where does the Internet belong in relation to the museum. The framing of the digitised collection as a record of the offline collection fails to grasp the materiality of the new digital object. My research practise is rooted at the fulcrum of the analogue and digital world, dealing with the problem that many museums have engaging with the archival and interpretive function of their digitised collection as they circulate in networks beyond the institution’s control. What is the user experience of digital collections when encountered in different environments? If the experience of the digitised object is different from the offline object what potential uses might the curated objects have in engaging users in telling new narratives about the digitised objects?

Through my earlier experimentation with the curation of the digital collection questions of user engagement arose. What role does the curator play in the interpretation or organisation of objects if they are no longer required to be the caretaker of the object? If narrative authority is no longer required, how might the role of curator shift from director to host for other forms of user participation? What methods could be used by an online curator to make room for encouraging users’ progress across the research practise and create space for new knowledges not led by the museum? The research practise explores what new relationships are formed between curator/educator, digital objects and public once museum objects have been digitised.