Chapter Four: Platform Design

The digitisation of museum collections and archives has fundamentally altered how collections are documented, represented, and accessed. Traditionally, digitisation efforts focused primarily on creating digital records of physical objects for documentation purposes. However, as our understanding of digital objects expands, their role within and beyond the museum grows more complex. By investigating the relationships between museums, digital platforms, and users, the aim is to uncover new possibilities for curating and interacting with digital objects.

The use of open-source tools was an essential component of the previous projects. When I began to search for a collaborator for the next phase of the project, I was particularly interested in media artists working with wikis. The form of the wiki combines an open-source and editable feature, enabling users to create multiple versions of each written form and audio file. The platform was built in collaboration with media artist Artemis Gryllaki using a MediaWiki and is hosted on the Centre for the Study of the Networked Image (CSNI) server. Artemis and I worked together in a manner that mirrored the designed platform’s collaborative form. We generated ideas and potential directions on a co-writing pad, reflected on our progress during weekly calls, shared links to images and visual references, tested out design elements, and discussed the platform’s possible forms. This collaborative process is reflected in the design of the designed platform, which seeks to engage users in a similar interactive and co-creative manner.

4.1 Stages of the BRCA Platform Development:

Stage one

The first stage of the platform development was the creation of the gamed intervention into the archive using a MediaWiki. The user selects a role to interact with the digital collection archive. The selected role will determine the framing and prompt questions that they can interact with, and the users can switch betweenroles. The three possible roles are “curator”, “fortune teller” and “audio guide”. Through the users’ interaction with the collection this research practise considers different possible ways of interacting with digital objects and imagining where they might end up in the future.

The selection of a wiki format provides metrics that the interface facilitates, such as tracking changes and additions by users. Using speculative versions of accession forms, co-written stories and creating audio, users will go through the steps of interacting with the digital collection archive at the site of interpretation. The gamedintervention’s functionality explores the entangled relationship between the image, curator, and user/collaborator.

Stage Two

The designed platform was tested for functionality through a series of online and offline workshops involving the participation of undergraduate students at London South Bank University and curator colleagues and professional contacts across various institutions that formed the basis for the data collected on user behaviours and patterns within the online platform.

Speculative questions and prompts guided users’ interaction with the digital collection archive and were collected to map how they relate to the images. The workshops were audio recorded and the pads used were saved as documentation. The analysis of the pilot platform in combination with the scholarly frameworks informed the next steps to further develop the research platform prototype. This methodology allowed for a reflection on the mechanics of the intervention and what pathways users might utilise to deepen their interaction with the digital archive collection and where there were points of frustration or confusion.

Stage Three

Once the wiki intervention framework began to be filled, I adjusted the prototype and modifications to the format of the workshops based on user feedback. This research practise approaches the curation of the digitised archive with a critical interdisciplinary approach. Content from user feedback was used alongside scholarly texts from museum studies, media studies and curation methods to explore the implications put forward by the research.

4.2 Museum Forms

The design references we used as we were making the platform were museum object accession forms, condition reports and the shape of internal museum bureaucratic documents [see Ref 4]. Across different curatorial roles and institutions, I filled in condition reports and object accession forms. The work of filling out these designed documents is often laborious and requires scrutiny to complete an accurate description of the provenance and current condition of an artwork. The framing of the story of an object’s provenance or history can be shaped to the institutional form and in house writing styles. There is a type of performativity to filling out these forms, a way of telling complex, rich information in a series of restrictive boxes in an institutional voice. In this type of museum paperwork there is flattening out of narrative; the object can only have one official provenance and condition reports are linear documenting the physical state of the object. By using MediaWikis that multiple users can add and comment on I wanted to invite a flourishing of forms that tell the possible history and interpretations of the same objects in multiplying ways.

In using object accession forms, condition reports and the shape of internal museum bureaucratic documents as a source of inspiration for the BRCA platform was I just replicating what already existed inside the institution? There are many forms of digital museum projects and applications, yet most originate from a small set of programmed structures, such as relational databases, and algorithms (Manovich, 2001). Does the digital museum foster new behaviours, or does it simply reproduce or embed existing ones? Having used a series of museum references to make the platform, the visual form of the museum and the database were still built into the public, perhaps suggesting a way of interacting with the digital despite attempts to move beyond the set of questions users might be asked in a museum setting. Despite efforts to depart from traditional museum interactions, the integration of museum references into the platform’s visual form and database structure suggests a continuation of established modes of engagement, albeit within a digital framework.

4.3 Adapting Fluxus Strategies in Digital Curation

The form of the intervention was shaped in part by Fluxus strategies of using the appearance of the bureaucratic apparatus to create different associations and networks. The form that users interact with in the curator role is adapted from accession forms and museum paperwork that is used when new objects enter a collection. These types of form are not made visible to those that do not work in a museum. The form itself might not be recognisable to the viewer. In collections these forms exist in a one-to-one relationship with the object, on the platform multiple versions of the form will exist, with each user generating their own version of the meaning and possible future use of the digital objects. By utilising the Fluxus artists’ strategy of mimicking bureaucratic iconographies such as stamps and official looking letterheads, I hoped to create new connections and suggest a more intimate network (Readies, 2012) The use of the look of standardised forms to create multiple, personal interpretations in place of the standardised responses could suggest a different relationship between user and the structure of the online form.

By employing a Fluxus strategy in shaping the intervention framework, the aim was to subvert traditional bureaucratic structures associated with art institutions and invite users to engage in a more intimate and creative exploration of the digitised archive. The adaptation of museum paperwork, typically unseen by the public, into a format accessible to users in the curator role aimed to challenge conventional notions of authority and facilitate a more personal and diverse interpretation of the digital objects. The use of Fluxus strategies in this context raises questions about the efficacy of mimicking bureaucratic forms to foster user engagement and whether it adequately addresses the complexities of digital curation. Would users recognise this form of documentation if they were not already familiar with it, and would it inspire creative approaches, or would the forms constrict interaction? While the intervention framework offers a unique opportunity for users to contribute to the digital archive and imagine its future, it also prompts critical reflection on the effectiveness and implications of employing Fluxus methods in digital curation for users who might write less or feel constrained by the format of a bureaucratic document.

The choice to mimic the accession and condition reports highlights a key factor of the designed platform – the opportunity in the digital environment to create what is generally considered a singular form to a proliferating form. This marks the shift from institutional authority over the archive to a new form of documentation where the users are allowed to generate new forms. The digital museum object encompasses both documentation and representation, serving as a pivotal tool in the interpretation and appreciation of cultural heritage within digital environments. As digital images cut across representations and embody a nexus of technologies, meanings, and practices, they enable users to document, represent, and circulate their collections within networked environments. In examining the emerging dynamics of user engagement with digital archives, it becomes evident that traditional notions of curation and interpretation are undergoing a shift. In this new paradigm, the curator’s role shifts from a singular authority figure to one node within a complex network of human and non-human agents engaged in the co-production of meaning. This shift challenges the conventional hierarchy of cultural gatekeeping, allowing for more decentralised and collaborative modes of curation, and reshapes the narrative surrounding digital collections.

4.4 Wiki platform as a strategy for user interaction

We developed the BRCA platform using the free and open-source software MediaWiki for digital archiving, which is used by many websites and organisations, like Wikipedia. The term free/open-source software comes from computer science, referring to software that is released with a licence that offers rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

The wiki format has both practical and theoretical ties to the research practise. Users can collaborate on content asynchronously and without specialised programmes or art historical knowledge. It is useful for the research to be able to track changes to what is added and written over time. The technical skills for using wikis are relatively low (Baines, 2017) To increase participation, I wrote a series of embodied looking questions that were supplemented by other prompts and questions in the online workshops. One of the motivations for using the embodied looking questions and speculative fiction prompts was to generate new stories and experiences around this expanded version of the online collection. In recent David Bomberg shows such as “Bomberg and the Old Masters” at the National Gallery in 2020 or “Bomberg” at Pallant House in 2018, exhibition texts replicated the theme of the artist as a singular male genius, and part of the grand narrative of European art movements such as impressionism and vorticism. In my writing of the prompts for the platform and workshops there is a desire to create alternative narratives outside of the art historical writing that currently exists around the offline collection and to explore new forms of engagement with the digital objects.

The digital object becomes a node for different interpretations. Each new reading overlaps and forms one another, in a way that is not possible with the physical museum object and through which the institution’s rhetoric can be challenged or subverted. The capacity to map and record a user’s interactions provides a morediverse text for the digital archive and could suggest larger trends of transcultural memory (Meehan, 2020) The wiki format and the use of co-writing pads during workshops encourages collaborative writing; users can contribute and comment, seeing their contributions added to the online archive in real time. The format of the intervention attempts to create a knowledge community where no participant knows everything, but each participant can contribute something (Lévy, 1999). This more diffuse model of contributing to a co-written interpretation of what the digital object is and could be could guide users to understand the other participants’ position as well as the digital image itself. The format of the digital archive intervention encourages contamination and a blurring of boundaries, working against ideas of origin and authenticity that are often the focus of institutional art writing.

The use of MediaWiki and open-source platforms in the workshops were used with the intention that more users might collaborate, and that they would not need to own or buy any additional tools. The use of open-source tools does not mean that all collaborations existed outside of a hierarchy. The openness in open source should not be interpreted as egalitarian collaboration (Stadler, 2006) although there was an increase in what and how users had access to through the open-source tools. There were limits as to what degree they could participate. There are conditions that are specific in why an open-source platform might work in a particular context and open- source platforms do not necessarily mean that collaboration is unrestricted.

4.5 Image Selection and Presentation

In one of the most basic understandings of curating, meaning selection, I curated the designed platform by choosing thirty digital objects using the parameters of: diversity of file types (GIFs, JPEGs, PNGs, MP3), artists and documentation from the collection’s lifespan at LSBU. These thirty digital objects could be any other thirtydigital objects stored in the shared drive. These are not the thirty most important or illustrative objects in the collection but serve as a starting point to think about the materiality of digital objects across the network. The theory of the Long Tail suggests that the digitisation of the collections expands the database the user can access beyond the framework and narrative selected and told by the museum (Rito and Balaskas, 2020). In this designed platform a different selection of objects is being presented than what has been previously shown in the offline gallery with the potential to add and expand the boundaries of what could be curated.

The BRCA homepage constantly reshuffles, creating unexpected combinations of digitised archival and collection images. Users can create something new through each viewing and its recombination (Grau et al., 2019). I considered how the users might have surprise encounters or come across chance juxtapositions between the digital image and possible interpretations. The project of digitisation in art museums has resulted in the development of numerous interfaces and opportunities for visualising online collections, that allow users to explore digital inventories without necessarily having to follow a defined search term (Whitelaw, 2015) This is not to suggest that this platform is a model of the museum as a database, with users tagging or cataloguing the digital collection for ease of searchability. The intention is for the user to create generative narratives that contradict, upend, or perhaps go as far as to erase the tags and titles of the offline collection. The unforeseen combination and recombination of images, texts and audio clips can lead to new insights into the potentialities of the online collection archive.

Visually, it developed into a kind of online Wunderkammer, or cabinet of curiosities. A grouping of loosely associated digital objects, audio files and interpretations that can be added to with a changeable hierarchy. Each time you return to the homepage the objects have been reshuffled and added to. There is a series of folders at the top of the homepage “< 50 edits”, “50 – 100 edits”, “> 100 edits”. The folders group the works by number of edits. The intention of the edits folder was that the users, through their interaction, could “curate” or “move” the work from the least to most edits through their interactions with the digital work. Edits also shape how the work is listed if you click on the icons for “curators report'', “fortune teller predictions” and “audio guide recordings.” Users can rearrange the list by most or least edited or by file name. It is also a way for users to look at the most popular to least popular works, perhaps guiding them to want to look at the most interacted with or bump up the least interacted work. Perhaps users would be drawn to the least cared for digital objects or want to add to the most visibly networked with objects?

Considering the factors that make offline museums navigable and enjoyable for a visitor I applied the same rubric to the online space. The factors include: the user’s comfort, control, competence, and freedom of movement across the digital collection (Hein, 2000). One example from the designed platform is that some users found their initial encounter with the homepage confusing; it was not evident what they were expected to do with the laid out digital objects, if they scrolled to the bottom of the page instructing users to “Click an image, choose a role and contribute to the BRCA!”. If we compare this confusion of how to start wayfinding in the museum, it suggests a lack of signage in the entrance of the museum and makes users unsure of how to proceed. Competence, or whether users felt they could respond to the questions posed to them or complete the tasks (such as uploading an audio file in the correct format), presented varying levels of challenges depending on the participant’s familiarity with the technology. Additional support was provided during the workshops to engage with users who might have had technical hurdles that might have stalled their participation in the platform. Users requested that they could edit the entries to feel more control of what they were contributing. The nature of the form limited some forms of freedom of movement for users, as each question led them to creation of the final form, a linear progression that users could not alter. In mapping factors such as comfort, control, competence, and freedom of movement that make the offline museum more navigable to visitors, some of the design problems that could arise in the online platform were highlighted.

4.6 Roles on the Platform

Users can use the platform to curate and interpret online artworks from the Borough Road Collection Archive [See Ref 5]. There are three roles that the user can select from: curator, fortune teller and audio guide. Collaborators interpret the digital objects in response to embodied looking questions and speculative fiction prompts, considering where these digital objects might travel or live. In this context “speculative fiction” refers to a creative approach where users engage with digital objects or artefacts from museum collections by imagining hypothetical scenarios about their past, present, or future. It involves users interpreting and responding to prompts that encourage them to think imaginatively about the objects they are interacting with, considering possibilities beyond historical facts, or known information. Speculative fiction prompts may encourage users to envision alternative narratives, potential journeys or destinations for the objects, or even fictional stories about their creation or significance. Users, in this context, change into curators, actively contributing to the knowledge base of the collection. This reframing role alters the traditional position of user engagement within museums. While museums aim for visitor engagement, they also seek to maintain the integrity of their systems of interpreting their objects. There is a tension between museums valuing visitors’interactions while trying to maintain control over the visitor experience. By using speculative fiction and close looking prompts, as well as naming the role, I hoped to foster a direct connection between the digital collection and the user, while also pointing to their new role in relationship to the digitised collections and archives.

The digital museum object encompasses both documentation and representation, serving as a pivotal tool in the accessibility, interpretation, and appreciation of cultural heritage within digital environments. As digital images transcend representations of the offline object and embody a nexus of technologies, meanings, and practices, they enable museums to document, represent, and circulate their collections within networked environments, fostering engagement with diverse audiences and expanding access to cultural heritage. The collaborative creation of the MediaWiki platform reflects this expanded understanding of digital objects potential as a site of collaboration. By inviting multiple users to contribute and comment, the designed platform fosters a multiplicity of perspectives, challenging the traditional, singular narratives often imposed by institutional documents.

The 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. Through the interplay of technical, cultural, and political dimensions, digitisation opens pathways to enhanced access, engagement, and understanding of cultural heritage for diverse audiences, reshaping museum practices.

Utilising aspects of participatory museum theory, this approach acknowledges the importance of involving users as active participants in the interpretation and creation of museum content (Simon, 2010). By inviting users to take on roles such as curator, fortune teller, and audio guide, the platform encourages a deeper level of engagement and co-creation, empowering users to contribute their own perspectives and narratives to the digital archive. This participatory approach has been used in the museum context, but the new environment of the online collection allows for new models of knowledge production.

4.7 Speculative Fiction Questions Engaging with Digital Objects as Objects

In the fortune teller role on the platform there is a form of optimism suggested in the type of questions that ask where these digital objects will be in the year 2050, such as where they will be stored, and questions whether these digital objects will still exist and be open for future editing and interpretation. This framing proposes that the users will be able to participate and help form the online ecology that these sets of images participate in, in the future. In this context the use of speculative fiction moves users beyond the impasses of the present and opens to the radically new, reinvigorating the incoming future (Shaw et al., 2017). There is assumption underlying these types of speculative fiction questions that a world will exist where these digital images might be accessible and still open for online curation and speculation.

Users are asked to structure their responses from the perspective of an imagined future; the speculative questions point to future use and future storage of the digital collection and not a reflection of where they might have been or previous use. There is a suggestion in the forward-looking nature of the questions posed in the designed platform that propose that the users are the stewards of the online narrative in the future. Rather than being dependent on inherited knowledge, a speculative curatorial method has the capacity to explore new methods and approaches (Rito and Balaskas, 2020) These methods and approaches create a new set of relationships between curator, digital object, users, and the interface.

Through the format of the platform users can consider how they construct and are constructed by narratives. Working in a speculative fiction mode can reveal structures and help users gain agency in the construction of both the current narrative as well as a method to create space to let in the future (Shaw et al., 2017) Reimagining the significance of the digital object in the present makes room for users to map out the possible futures of the digital objects.

The utilisation of speculative fiction questions within the fortune teller role not only fosters a forward-looking perspective but also empowers users to actively shape the future narrative of digital objects. By prompting users to envision the year 2050 and beyond, the platform encourages a participatory approach to online curation and speculation, where users develop as the stewards of the mutating digital ecology. This speculative curatorial method transcends traditional paradigms, offering a space for exploration and innovation in the realms of digital narrative construction and user agency. As users engage with the platform, they not only gain insight into the construction of narratives but also find avenues to assert their own agency in shaping both present and future trajectories. Through this reimagining of the significance of digital objects, users are asked to chart the potential futures of these artefacts, enriching the collective dialogue surrounding their preservation, interpretation, and evolution of the digital object.

While the use of speculative fiction questions within the fortune teller role of the platform fosters a forward-looking perspective and empowers users to shape the future narrative of digital objects, it also raises important considerations and challenges. The questions operate on the assumption that a world will exist where these digital images remain accessible and open for online curation and speculation – this may overlook the potential risks and uncertainties inherent in digital preservation, such as shifts in museum policies and staffing as well as technological obsolesce. The optimistic framing of these questions may obscure the complexities and vulnerabilities of digital artefacts, including issues such as data degradation, technological shifts, and changing user preferences.

While reimagining the significance of digital objects in the present to make room for mapping out possible futures is useful, it also raises questions about the ethical implications of future-oriented speculation. Users may inadvertently reinforce existing power structures and biases in their visions of the future, perpetuating dominant narratives and excluding marginalised voices and perspectives. The speculative nature of these questions may create unrealistic expectations or false promises about the longevity and accessibility of digital objects, leading to disillusionment or frustration among users if their work on the platform disappears or is archived.

By fostering a dialogue that acknowledges the complexities, uncertainties, and ethical considerations surrounding digital preservation and curation, users can engage in more informed and nuanced discussions about the future trajectories of these artefacts. Incorporating diverse perspectives and voices into the speculative process can help mitigate biases and broaden the range of possibilities envisioned for the future narrative of digital objects.

4.8 Labelling and Folksonomies

In the first version of the platform there was no way for users to go back and edit what they had written, although they could comment on their own entries, amending or updating their thoughts in the comments. These mistakes generate their own archive of the users’ pathways of thought and could create unexpectedjuxtapositions of terms and images. Unfamiliar connections generate new possible meanings; unexpected encounters could create sensory, physical, and metaphysical relationships between the user and the database.

What spaces are opened by the potential of polyvocal interventions in the archive? This designed platform suggests a method for users/curators to rethink the site of interpretation of digital objects as a site of individual storytelling. Alongside the interpretation, the users’ intervention into the archive encourages them to createtheir own folksonomies, labelling the digital objects with their own terms, such as the suggestions of new file name titles or if they were in the digital image what could they smell. New taxonomies suggest new ways of ordering and documenting the collection, enabling new ways of knowing (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992). The format of this designed platform is not to recreate the taxonomies and categorisations of museum archives but to create new terms and relationships between the user and the object. The folksonomies could create an opportunity for exchange, juxtaposition and re-interpretation of the material that could lead to different associations and suggestions of alternative connections.

The introduction of user-generated folksonomies and labelling systems introduces complexities regarding the organisation and accessibility of the collection. While this approach may enable users to create personalised connections and associations with digital objects, it may also hinder the discoverability and navigability of the archive for other users. Without clear guidelines or mechanisms for reconciling divergent labelling practices, the archive risks becoming chaotic and unintelligible. While the research project aims to suggest new ways of ordering and documenting the collection, it must grapple with the inherent subjectivity and bias involved in the creation of folksonomies. The imposition of individual perspectives and terminologies onto digital objects may privilege certain interpretations, perpetuating existing hierarchies within the archive. Polyvocal interventions in the archive offer possibilities for reimagining the relationship between users and digital objects; they also necessitate careful consideration of the implications for authority, coherence, and inclusivity within the archive. Addressing these complexities requires ongoing dialogue, collaboration, and reflexivity to ensure that the archive remains a resource for diverse communities of users.

4.9 Creative Commons Licensing

The platform was designed with the understanding that all work on it and produced through it were covered by creative commons licensing. This was communicated through the about page, in emails with workshop participants and discussed in the workshops themselves. The intention of using creative commons licensing was to move away from restrictive museum image licensing and to encourage more promiscuous records that could be added and amended to. This is not the first museum digitisation project to use this form of licencing; the Metropolitan Museum of Art made 400,000 digital images of its collection available under Creative Commons Zero (Lopes, 2020). By encouraging “promiscuous records” that can be freely added to and modified, the platform fosters a more fluid and adaptable understanding of cultural heritage, reflecting the diverse perspectives and experiences of its contributors.

The implications of the platform being designed with the understanding that all work on it and produced through it are covered by creative commons licensing are significant. The implication of using this type of licensing is that anyone who participates in workshops or contributes to the platform is aware that their work will be shared openly and freely, allowing others to use, modify, and distribute it. This promotes collaboration and the sharing of knowledge without the usual restrictions imposed by traditional copyright laws. By allowing participants to save the forms they generate as PDFs, the platform enables the creation of new digital objects that capture specific states of the expanding digital archive. This encourages the continuous growth and development of the archive, reflecting the expanding nature of the content it contains. While the use of creative commons licensing on the platform offers many benefits, it also introduces complexities and potential challenges. The proliferation of digital objects within the archive, each representing a different state of the mutating content, can create confusion or fragmentation. Without clear structure, users may struggle to navigate or make sense of the vast array of digital artefacts, hindering the platform’s usability and accessibility. Without robust mechanisms for verification or quality control, the platform risks becoming a repository of dubious content, potentially alienating users. In navigating these complexities, it becomes essential for the platform to establish clear community guidelines and norms to address issues of attribution, curation, verification, and sustainability. Ongoing dialogue and collaboration with users can help ensure that the benefits of openness and accessibility are balanced with considerations of ethics, integrity, and accountability within the designed platform.

When open-source practices extend to other fields, for example art archiving projects, the licence plays an important role as an alternative to the standard copyright system. It is a practical and maybe tedious step to decide on a free/open label to a work of art, but it is a crucial stage, where the artist allows their work to be freely exchanged, modified, and distributed. For the BRCA wiki the copyleft licence for this project, for example the general public licence, creative commons, or free art licence were, all considered. The digitised artwork is not the only element to be under licence during the design process. Artemis Gryllaki and I decided to attach an open licence, so that the graphic design work, the text written in the platform and the code that is used for the interface-design of the wiki can be redistributed and modified, according to the rules provided by the licence. The type of licence agreement is a form of artistic statement that opens up a discussion about the meanings and implications of open art archiving works and related elements that can lead to new uses and recombination.

4.10 Collaborative Interpretation and Speculative Engagement in Digital Collections

Users/curators can utilise the framework of the intervention across the site of the digital collection to co-interpret, annotate, and create speculative interpretations for the selected digital objects. The co-written format of the available forms does not suggest a platform for consensus but for users/curators to annotate, dissent and discuss their versions of what they see and understand of the material. What information and observations could be contained in a speculative reading of a digital image utilises an idea described by Ursula Le Guin’s as “the carrier bag of fiction”, all the different possible meanings could be held together as a collective text without a grand narrative (Le Guin, 1996). The platform encourages a wide variety of responses and narrative structures that could contain user autobiographical references that resist conventional art historical references and tropes of museum wall text. Speculative fiction questions encourage new retellings and responses, not an archive of completeness. In this ongoing dialogue the digital archive intervention is a suggestion that the forming of the archive produces more archive, opening out to the future (Derrida and Prenowitz, 1996). The growing exchange around the digital object supersedes the object itself, becoming a prompt for wide ranging speculation.

While the framework of intervention within the digital collection allows for collaborative interpretation and speculative engagement with digital objects, it also introduces complexities regarding the authority and reliability of these interpretations. The emphasis on divergent narratives and user-generated content challenges traditional notions of expertise and objectivity. The significance of user autobiographical references and resistance to conventional art historical tropes may contribute to the marginalisation of certain voices or perspectives within the archive. Without mechanisms for ensuring diversity, there is a risk of privileging certain narratives while silencing others, perpetuating existing power structures and biases within the archive. While the platform encourages exploration and dialogue around digital objects, it must grapple with the challenges of balancing openness and inclusivity with the need for accountability, and ethical stewardship of user base. Addressing these complexities requires careful consideration of the platform’s structures, community norms, and mechanisms for evaluating and validating speculative interpretations within the archive.

4.11 Interaction with Digital Objects and Platforms

Interaction with the digital object might also provide the user with insight into the platform it participates in. The user could understand the framework around the digital archive as not solely a networked repository but as a device that perceives the world and creates its own ordering statements (Mackenzie, 2018). The materialisation of the archival index brings the virtual text into view, opening the space for a system of objects arranging itself in composition with combinatorial potentials (Fuller, 2005). The form of the digital archival and its ordering principles is made visible through the intervention and exposition of the form. As users engage with the digital archive, they contribute to its ongoing evolution and construction of meaning, influencing its emergent properties and organisational structures. This process of mutual shaping highlights the reciprocal relationship between human agency and technological affordances, foregrounding the active role played by both users and platform in the co-creation of knowledge and interpretation.

The form of the platform does not privilege one reading of an object but suggests a way in which an inventory of different encounters with the work might be formed (Rolnik, 2011). Knowledge or an understanding of artwork occurs within prejudiced contexts, with each user bringing in their own experience. In museum interpretations from exhibition texts to audio tours there is a mono voiced, unassailable institutional authority tone that is both impersonal and disembodied (Walsh, 1997). The tone of unassailable voice hides the positionality of the speaker and alludes to a consensus of what the object might mean when none exists. In designing a platform that encourages multiple interpretations it points to the many possible explanations of the digital object. The format of multi-voiced interpretations makes the dissenting voices and possible readings of a work more explicit.

4.12 Speculative Provenance and Future Use

The intervention into the collection archive not only suggests interpretations of the image but ideas of where the digital image might travel. Rather than a provenance of who has owned the object and where it had been, users suggest future contexts and uses through the “curator” or “fortune teller” forms. Reframing the question of the digital provenance of the image as not where the digital object has been but of where it might go and what it might become. This research practise proposes a method for users/curators to rethink the site of provenance as a site of future use generation, reimagining the future history of the digital object.

With the dispersal of the digitised collection meaning and future use, the hierarchy of the art institution has been redistributed to extended networks. The site of curatorial production has moved past the object, to process and then to lively networked systems (Krysa, 2006). Although a wider public can interact with the online collection archive and away from the object, the role of the curator is still present in this research practise through the selection of networked objects and formatting of the space of interaction. The digital collection has grown to include new works not formally included and new networked spaces that the collection previously did not have access to but there are still items that are left out. For example, email correspondence, data about temperature in the art store and the shifting status of the art objects are not included in the expanded online network to be curated in this research practise. There are limits to the attempts to distribute and democratise the curation of the online archive.

4.13 User-Driven Interpretation and Annotation

The gamed intervention platform invites users in as digital curators of selected aspects of the collection. The designed focus is at the site of interpretation and what it might mean to understand the images as digital and what potentialities that might open up. Users could learn not just to see the image surface but also to understand the data that creates it (Wilken and McCosker, 2020). This research practise proposes a framework that makes the participation of techno-human actors visible to the user. This format of looking could give viewers/users tools to recognise the underlying structure of a work, making visible the layers of code and the form of the interface that make up a digital object and the new environment that they operate in. While the research practise aims to illuminate the underlying mechanisms of digital objects, it risks privileging technical proficiency over nuanced interpretation and contextual understanding. By foregrounding the technical aspects of digital creation, there is a danger of overlooking the socio-cultural, historical, and aesthetic dimensions of the objects within the archive. This approach also raises questions about what users can participate and add to the archive, as it assumes a certain level of technological literacy and familiarity with digital tools. Therefore, while making the techno-human aspects visible can enhance transparency and critical engagement, it is crucial to ensure that this does not overshadow the multifaceted richness and complexity of the archival content.

4.14 Integrating Knowledge and Interpretation

The generation of interpretive texts by techno-human user/curators on the BRCA platform intersects with the overlapping roles of curators and museum educators within institutions. Museums have a long history of being a site of learning and knowledge is now the commodity that art institutions deal in (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992). When digital artefacts can circulate outside of the boundaries of the institution, how that knowledge is conveyed must shift, as it is not only the image but its value to the culture it participates in that is being dispersed. The museum as cultural authority diffuses as the digital images travel outside of its reach, challenged by the decentralised, distributed, and networked structure of post-digital culture (Dewdney, 2017). The museum cannot control the reading of images and where users encounter the collection in the online environment but could suggest questions to ask of images when encountered in these new ecologies.

The designed intervention platform format prompts slow looking to invoke a conversation of accretion, with each user building upon the text of another user. The growing dialogue of user voices address and continue past the digital object that posed as the prompt to frame the question of what museum digital objects could do in the networked context. The participation of users in an online conversation builds another material thing. The combination of edges, cuts and overlaps create a dimensional object that can be folded into the archive or travel out from it. The format of the designed intervention platform attempts to add a dimension of activity to the online archive that, like the art store in museums, is often largely hidden or inaccessible to users and may seem like an inert space. The research practise is an attempt to create user exchanges based on collaboration and generosity with and through the digital objects. In this context digital museum objects could be sites to think about memory as a process embedded in social networks rather than solely residing in institutions, objects, texts, or people (Meehan, 2020). Through the format of exchange, the digital archive is reanimated to suggest new practices for online exhibitions, so that the display is reconfigured as a place of collaborative negotiation. The research practise suggests a way we might intervene in the archive, creating a different narrative through the relationship between user, exhibitions, and archival materials.

4.15 Promoting Polyvocal Understandings in the Digital Archive

It is important to note that through the prompts and co-writing exercises, the user can interact but not reach consensus, as different users can contradict, discuss, and add to the interpretation of the collection archive material. What might be brought forward will not be a unified understanding of one digital image from the collection but a suggestion of a way to look at digital images and a growing archive of possible interpretations.The wiki format functions as a semi-open archive, a knowledge site, where registered users can interact with the selected material. The choice in this research to have the content visible to anyone, but only registered users can contribute, shapes the outcomes of these discussions as it excludes certain groups, including those without Internet access and those that might not want to register or feel like the barrier of technical knowledge to participate is too high.

The curatorial ‘intervention’ into the digital archive suggests a method of promotion of polyvocal understandings of the digital images. The digital intervention across the site of the collection/archive proposes new pathways for the user/curator to interact with the digital collection’s objects. The hybrid platform uses some of the tactics of an artistic intervention, a cut into an existing structure that reveals the mechanics of the digital archives. Karen Barad’s concept of agential realism is useful here to conceptualise the deep entanglements between image/user/machine and platform and make an incision between what is included and excluded in this environment. Nothing is inherently separate from anything else, but separations are momentarily enacted so we can gain some insight (Barad, 2007). Artistic interventions can be used strategically to make prevailing configurations visible and with the potential for inciting change and facilitating new readings of existing frameworks (Robins, 2013). The intervention suggests a new way for the user to interact with the digital collection archive but is only one of many different possible combinations to sort, view, interpret or interact with the digitised material.

The BRCA format aims to make user interactions and associations within the online collection visible. Users’ “desire lines” across the archive are observable to others, highlighting which digital artifacts are most or least interacted with. This allows users to sense the presence of others as they annotate and edit the digital archive. The intervention framework provides a space for users/curators to engage with the digital collection while observing other users’ paths. The edits folder was intended to showcase user interactions with the site, like Wikipedia’s “most edited” section. These folders were meant to offer an alternative way of sorting information beyond title or medium, emphasising the digital materiality and wiki-like nature of the platform. However, users did not find the edits folder effective in guiding or encouraging interaction. Instead, the visual appearance of the pieces was the primary factor influencing user engagement.

The curated selection of thirty digital objects serves as a starting point, not to dictate the boundaries of what can be curated but to provoke considerations about the materiality of digital objects across the network. The platform’s design encourages users to engage in diverse roles – curator, fortune teller, and audio guide –prompting interpretations, predictions, and narrations that go beyond traditional institutional narratives. The platform’s visual presentation resembles an online cabinet of curiosity, continually reshuffling and adding objects, fostering a sense of unpredictability and exploration.

The research practise unfolds as a conversation, inviting users to engage in a dialogue that builds upon the interpretations of the digital objects. Through the designed intervention platform, the aim is to reveal the underlying structures of digital objects, making visible the layers of code and the form of the interface. The research practise prompts users to look not only at the image surface but also to understand the data that creates it, thereby fostering a deeper engagement with the digital archive. In essence, the designed platform serves as a proposition for reanimating the digital archive, creating a collaborative space where users actively contribute to the narrative, generating a multiplicity of interpretations and associations. As a form of artistic intervention, it incites users to rethink prevailing configurations, rendering visible the entanglements between image, user, machine, and platform. By providing a framework for polyvocal understandings and diverse interactions, the gamed intervention platform seeks to extend the boundaries of what a digital archive can be – a living, and participatory space that challenges traditional notions of curation and interpretation.

4.16 Reimagining the Online Collection Archive

What does the online collection archive do? What does it enable? The archive can be a lively site of exchange rather than a passive store of documentation. In this research practise the online archive is a place where the formation of statements can take place, shifting the conception of the online objects from a representation of the offline to a dynamic construction of new relationships, associations, and meanings (Rosengarten, 2012). The digitisation of the collection and archive invites a new set of connections and mediation to be enacted.

Instead of thinking about how to turn the online collection into a commodity that can be queried, manipulated, and sorted, how might we design a platform that makes the digital objects more slippery, difficult to categorise? There is a tension between the desire to make information and digital material accessible with the commodification of these objects; by preparing them for online consumption they are opened up to being folded into proprietary platforms and purposes. Now that the collections are digitised we have an opportunity, an opening to reconsider what these digital objects can support, what we can produce that was not possible in the offline museum and environment and where might users assemble online to undertake a collaborative reckoning; moving from closed projects to a more open digitally-enabled discourse that enables a new form of criticality for art institutions (Barranha and Simões Henriques, 2021). This is not a project about the categorisation of an online collection but about a type of fiction generating machine, a form that suggest what type of questions we might ask of the digitised material. The framing of the collection functions as if the collected digital images have a future across multiple interfaces and platforms.

The reason for displaying this selection of digitised collection and archive material is not to keep a record of the process of the old work but to open up the digital archive to generate more archive. The exploration of the online collection archive in this research practise extends beyond the conventional view of a static repository of digital objects. The archive, envisioned as a site of exchange rather than a store of documentation, becomes a space where digital objects expand and proliferate, challenging the notion of online objects as representations of offline entities. The digitisation of the collection not only facilitates new connections and mediations but also prompts a critical reflection on the potential commodification of digital material. This research practise advocates for the design of a platform that embraces the slipperiness and complexity of digital objects. By doing so, it presents an opportunity to reimagine the role of these digitised collections, encouraging users to engage in collaborative reckonings and fostering a digitally enabled discourse that transcends the limitations of the offline environments. This endeavour is not about rigid categorisation but, instead, proposes a fiction-generating machine that prompts innovative questions about the digitised material’s possibilities and interfaces.

Reflecting on the design choices made for the BRCA platform, the aim was to underline the concept of curator as host, facilitating users to create something new with each interaction and recombination. This approach resonates with the idea of “participatory archiving”, where users actively contribute to the creation and curation of archival material, shifting into a more collaborative endeavour (Caswell et al., 2017). Rather than viewing museums as static databases, the intention is to foster generative narratives that challenge and expand upon traditional modes of interpretation. The platform design suggests different ways to engage with the collection, asking users to create their own audio interpretations, file names and imagined futures for the digital objects. Users can navigate between fantasy and reality, exploring new contexts and generating imagined futures for digital objects. The designed platform offers a generative pace where digital collections are imbued with layers of annotation, inviting users to participate in the continual process of meaning-making and contextualisation.

The built BRCA platform was created for this research practice. It is a ring-fenced new space to experiment but perhaps by building a new thing, away from the cataloguing software and main collection website, it undercuts the attempt to include the public engagement with the digital collection and archive. The workshops and platform-based initiatives are recursive in nature as they foster an atmosphere of openness, thereby shaping the public’s perception of the online museum archive as an accessible environment. While the designed platform was successful in engaging the public with the online collection, there were moments of cultivating a genuine sense of participation, and the extent of involvement in structuring knowledge around collections often remains restricted (Geismar, Heidy, 2012). There is a doubling that happened in the research practise: one of the gallery websites and then the BRCA platform and perhaps a third hidden space of the collection software. It would have been more radical to let the engaged public change the actual record or gallery website, to let the renamed digital images and audio descriptions replace the ones written by the past curators that have cared for the collection.

The research practise attempted to create a platform for more absorbed, wide ranging and messy engagement with the digital archive. The use of digital tools in this research practise such as comment boxes and the mapping of other users’ interaction made visible may not result in sustained interactions for the users. The digital interface might not create significant interaction or create a truly social, collective experience of exchanges (Turkle, 2011). To deepen the interaction and guide users in their use of the designed platform I used a hybrid approach by running online workshops to encourage engagement. The users’ interaction with the intervention through the workshop format adds to the ever-expanding digital archive to arrive at imagined futures for the digital archive collection.