Open gabrielbodard opened 3 years ago
gabrielbodard
commented
3 years ago 
ChantalvanEgdom
commented
3 years ago Giving Diligence Its Due: Accessing Digital Images in Indigenous Repatriation Efforts - Susan Douglas and Melanie Hayes
Introduction This paper explores the relationships between Indigenous interests and digital images, its barriers and concerns over permissions and the monopolization of cultural material of Indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples of Canada, in a time of constantly increasing electronic access to Canadian museum collections. The WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) and the UN (United Nations) provide guidelines for Indigenous rights via intellectual property management and call for better access to Indigenous collections for researchers, especially Indigenous ones. Douglas and Hayes argue for better access of images of objects in the digital environment as they support cultural heritage.
Contexts of Repatriation Claims Institutional constraints regarding digital material form primary context of repatriation issues. There is a lack of data and digital reproductions for research due to fixed practices in production of knowledge (collecting, owning, naming), which also has colonial structures. This, and the interoperability of museums can slow down the process of repatriation. Furthermore, it is difficult and time consuming to locate all material across museums.
Perceived failure of the Canadian government to “work with Indigenous Peoples to create fairness and equal opportunity in Canada” was preceded by a publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), calling for a respectful collaboration between museums and Indigenous communities, taking special care of indigenous intellectual property rights (IPR), cultural traditions, and sacred items and securing access to these materials for Indigenous peoples. This has led to the review of existing museum policies and procedures, making sure they adhere to Article 31 of the UNDRIP, which outlines the rights of Indigenous peoples as well as effective measures to recognize and protect Indigenous rights. This has been endorsed by the Canadian government, but isn’t legally binding under international law.
Cultural appropriation and (possible) illegal/unethical circumstances of acquisition are involved, especially concerning ancestral human remains and ceremonial objects from burial sites. The article shows that repatriation is complex (e.g. Potlatch Collection). It also notes the recovery of essential knowledge of lost techniques and artistic processes required for museum restoration. Databases containing Indigenous material is also a form of control over cultural property, and can bring concerns regarding inappropriate collecting activities of Indigenous materials, resulting in feelings of violation and loss. Copyright is the most used tool, but according to John Barrows, it is Indigenous law should be prioritised. There should be more discussion regarding Indigenous uses and theories on copyright protections, and as Brundsdon has put it “it seems intuitively wrong that the oppressor’s laws should be relied upon to protect the culture of the oppressed”.
Database Terms of Use pages could function to share info on Indigenous wishes and as an example, the databases in the case studies in this article use consistent language regarding permissions and lack thereof. Access to the information is not enough, full open access would be beneficial.
The Canadian Culture Online Program (CCOP) designed the portal “Culture.ca”, promoting the exploration/creation/sharing of interactive content. The CCOP developed a digital rights management policy for copyright issues. Canadian museums worked on museum management software and CHIN helped to find appropriate software and published digitization guidelines and standards. The database grew and became a virtual museum, now in the hands of the Canadian Museum of History in Ottawa. Philips spearheaded the creation of a digital repository known as the Reciprocal Research Network (RRN), whose aim it was to s “to re-connect objects, people, land, languages, and traditions culturally and historically significant to First Nations community researchers, and to create a collaborative, reciprocal, and inclusive environment in which to explore museum collections of First Nations’ cultural heritage”. Multiple collaborators were involved.
The Reciprocal Research Network (RRN) is the only project that managed to overcome the challenge of recovering the original integrity of historical collections. It is linked to a network of museums around the world and encourages Indigenous involvement.
Methodology Management of databases in the context of indigenous cultural heritage is part of ongoing efforts to develop and present diverse ideas about material culture and its online management. Historical sociology of museum collecting and intellectual property regimes complicate the development. The case studies in the article all link back to the RRN and demonstrate conceptual issues of information sharing an international and local levels. See table 1 on pages 1265-6.
Case studies 1: The RRN, “an open-source, web-based, federated museum information system intended to provide First Nations, researchers and museum professionals with interactive access to worldwide collections of Northwest Coast and British Columbia First Nations’ cultural heritage.” It was designed for researchers, and sign-up is needed for full access. Collaborations and interdisciplinary research are the main aims. Watermarks, legalistic language and guidelines in the Terms of Use page are all present. Copyright is held by the institution which holds the physical object and their permission is needed for reproduction or reuse. Commercial and publication use is not allowed.
2: The Inuvialuit Pitqusiit Inuuniarutait (Inuvialuit Living History) Portal, designed to provide access to the small MacFarlane Collection at the Smithsonian. Inuvialuit people and others are able to use the database, which connects data and museum objects to Inuvialuit people. It uses images (some watermarked) and descriptions from the Smithsonian website, interactive maps and videos and photos. There is a dedicated copyright page, stating that all “images, illustrations, designs, icons, photographs, video clips, and written and other materials are copyright, trademarks, trade dress and/or other intellectual properties owned, controlled or licensed by the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre”, but usage for educational and personal purposes are allowed. Permission is needed for commercial use. http://www.inuvialuitlivinghistory.ca
3: The Searching for our Heritage database, which reuses data from collections of external institutions, with the RRN being the primary source, which facilitates the exchange of knowledge by allowing communications between users. It helps fill out the picture of nineteenth-century life in the Yukon. Images come from the holding institutions and have watermarks and/or copyright notices, so the availability of images relies on the institutions themselves. Concepts relating to content, navigation and information retrieval are presented in a manual, but currently lacks information regarding image or information use permissions. http://searchingforourheritage.ca and http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/museum_resources.html.
Greater access to online tools can empower communities but the material needs to be treated as one particular case in the domain of copyright protection laws. Data quality, legalistic language and other proprietary notices can constrain community-driven repatriation initiatives, especially in the RRN repository. The copyright or terms of use pages are not exactly clear and host institutions are often responsible for giving permissions. Accessibility issues limit usage of collections documentation. Good is that the Indigenous community is asserting its own ideas about access to information.
Discourses on archives and technology, legal and social issues are mutually enfolded and entwined in the contemporary digital environment as evidenced in indigenous collections and databases overlap/compete just as the discourse overlaps regarding archives/technology/legal and social issues. Furthermore, a WIPO framework for the protection of indigenous heritage information is at work restricting access and reuse within Canada, addressing moral and economic rights. Some intellectual property rights may not meet all the community’s needs, but can function as a tool to prevent exploitation/misappropriation/misattribution and can maximize economic value. WIPO functions to empower communities to tailor the protections to their needs and special intellectual property protections need to be made. Furthermore, repatriation is still a concern despite all efforts.
Allowing museums to establish parameters for control and access of indigenous information may not be the most appropriate solution if it does not comply with indigenous groups’ rights as stakeholders and they should be involved more. The challenge is to develop uniform standards for visual material and image quality as well as for access and information exchange, ensuring the information can be protected from misappropriation without creating barriers to gain repatriation. A well-defined model is needed.
nicolealexandra33
commented
3 years ago This article reminds me of one case study that has been an ongoing point regarding the ethical issue surrounding the preservation of material culture and the conflict with indigenous rights--- totem poles were traditionally used as commemorative monuments for the First Nations groups of the Pacific Northwest coast and often contained the remains of deceased ancestors and members of these First Nations. The idea was that over time, the totem poles would eventually decompose and thus, 'be returned to the earth' along with the remains. However, many European explorers and early North American settlers who were in awe of the artistry of the totem poles frequently removed them and took them back to museums or in extreme cases, as decorations for their homes. The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) still possesses and displays a few massive totem poles in one of their atria. This practice was and still is seen as a form of desecration of their commemorative monuments by these First Nations groups (this was the account I was given by the Haida Nation specifically), as their ancestors now cannot return to the earth. On the flip side of this argument, there has been a sharp decline of those who know how to carve totem poles, and as a result, there are many fewer being produced, so being able to preserve some of these totem poles and preserve this knowledge is also seen as quite important. There have been some collaborations and agreements made to come up with a happy median-- the few remaining indigenous artists who know how to carve totem poles have been commissioned by Parks Canada and the Canadian government to carve totem poles specifically with the idea that these will be preserved and displayed rather than to contain remains. While undertaking the project, they have been requested to take on apprentices who are interested in learning how to carve totem poles, so that more people can learn the traditional art. However, I would have to check, but I still don't think a lot of these originally removed totem poles have been returned to the nations from which they were originally taken, thus still causing a rift between these First Nations and the various museums and institutions. Maybe 3D modelling as well as appropriate licensing while also respecting indigenous law would be one way to 'preserve' these totem poles before returning them to their rightful nations
Kiamanx
commented
3 years ago Digital Heritage Consumption: The Case of the Metropolitan Museum of Art - Trilce Navarrete & Elena Villaespesa
Intro: With the internet more popular than ever, Museums are lagging behind with online accessibility. While they may be increasing their social media presence and have a number of mobile apps to accompany visitor experiences, online access to museum collections routinely lag behind - with only a third of their reported collections being digitized, yet less than 10% actually published online. Third-party platforms have been able to disseminate collections to the masses, such as Artstor, YourPaintings, Google Arts and Culture, and Wikipedia. This has led to calls for a more inclusive approach to understanding modern-day cultural consumption through these sites. Specifically, this paper shall be analysing the digital consumption of paintings disseminated via Wikipedia by the Museums - most notably The Met in New York. The articles that use paintings from this museum will be ranked by their use and views to reveal a pattern of practical consumption that reveal a clear information need of paintings as documentation and information sources - not only as artwork.
Cultural Consumption: Who Visits Museums and Why (Not)?: In this very study-heavy section, the question of who and why people visit museums in the first place is tackled. One of the studies explained that the people that visit museums required a certain amount of human capital (knowledge and context) before they considered visiting a museum an enjoyable activity. But in more recent years institutions have to bare the burden of contextualising the definition of 'taste' in a society. What a museum displays and chooses to display will de facto be viewed as "authentic". This should therefore be extended to the realm of digital art, which is still seeking its place among other traditional art forms. Cultural consumption is limited by the accessibility of available content. An estimated 10% of museum objects are actually on display - and this includes digitised collections from museums. Museums are more accessible than ever - especially in the UK (maybe not during the time of COVID) - and the most commonly cited reason for not visiting a museum is "lack of time". Online, consumers encounter artworks by chance - for example, a person looking at the Wikipedia article for "Autopsy" would encounter the painting by the artist Rembrandt.
A study from 2019 analysed 8,000 paintings used in 10,000 different articles in Wikipedia, 67% of which were encountered on non-art related articles. The costs to museums to transfer these paintings online was seen as negligible, as a digital scan of these paintings was usually already owned by the institution. Museums and Wikipedia have collaborated successfully before - with Derby Museum in the UK including QR codes by their displays that redirect to the Wiki article on that particular painting. While there is no substituting seeing the real painting with your own eyes, the presence of these museum paintings on Wikipedia creates much more awareness of them and therefore incentive to view them in person with the added context.
The Case of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Paintings on Wikipedia The Met is one of the most prolific art museums on the planet, with 7 million visitors in 2017 alone. The museum boasts an online collection of over 400 thousand objects - with 13 thousand paintings. The museum website receives 32 million online visitors a year and the online collection receives 7 million. In 2017, the museum adopted an open data policy with 200 thousand objects being made available online in HD under Creative Commons Zero. It collaborated with Wikimedia an uploaded all the objects as part of an Open Access Initiative. After a year, the Open Access strategy revealed a massive increase of downloads from the museum website, a very high usage of object images on Wikipedia, and a colossal 385% increase in page views that included an image from the collection. Portraits of famous figures such as George Washington and Christopher Columbus are instrumental in the massive increase in views - as they are at the forefront of image results on Google when the figure is searched for. With all these factors in consideration, the overall viewership of these paintings have increased exponentially. With the variety of topics that these paintings are used in, the accessibility threshold has been essentially commodified and an important barrier in museum viewership as been lowered. Though art on Wikipedia is not viewed in the same way as it is in museums, I.E. as more consumable than anything - with the additional context provided by the encyclopaedia the interest in these paintings may increase as well.
Conclusions: The benefits of digital collaboration for museums is clear. Accidental consumers can access paintings previously confined behind a barrier of a museum, Wikipedia's fact-checking allows for clear and concise context behind the images, and finally museums themselves providing the information directly establishes the authenticity of these pieces. Collaboration between the digital and physical institutions shows highly beneficial results
FabioDFernandes
commented
3 years ago Thank you both for your excellent summaries. One quote from that @ChantalvanEgdom noted down did grab my attention: “it seems intuitively wrong that the oppressor’s laws should be relied upon to protect the culture of the oppressed”. It certainly does tie in with the wider question of who should have the final say over the preservation of objects belonging to certain cultures and heritages. @nicolealexandra33 gave a really good example about the totems and their emotional significance to the indigenous peoples of Canada. While many of these efforts in digital preservation and licensing might have good intentions, many cultures that fall under these protections are still living and should have that authority over their heritage. So, the peoples of the First Nations want their totems to decompose, and even if they are remarkable on so many levels, it should be left to those original purposes. The idea of 3D modelling and appropriate licensing is a good one if it does not contravene their laws and customs, of which I am not familiar with.
@Kiamanx - This article touches well on the 'barriers' precluding people from visiting museums, driven by a perception that you need to have a certain level of cultural/human capital ('taste', which just sounds elitist). I think the digitisation and dissemination efforts are useful to give 'tasters' and encourage people to visit, but also to make collections generally more accessible for those who cannot visit them. Also, I would say it is democratising in the sense that art and culture (at least that safeguarded by museums) should really be accessible to all. Unfortunately, it seems the numbers are still very low, so I hope there is a continued investment in this.
Kiamanx
commented
3 years ago @Kiamanx - This article touches well on the 'barriers' precluding people from visiting museums, driven by a perception that you need to have a certain level of cultural/human capital ('taste', which just sounds elitist). I think the digitisation and dissemination efforts are useful to give 'tasters' and encourage people to visit, but also to make collections generally more accessible for those who cannot visit them. Also, I would say it is democratising in the sense that art and culture (at least that safeguarded by museums) should really be accessible to all. Unfortunately, it seems the numbers are still very low, so I hope there is a continued investment in this.
The article showed me that there was a very awkward era where museums were deemed genuinely classist institutions. I think some of that perception still lingers today, but in the old days this was reflected directly by the staunchly classist studies that some conducted. It's super interesting that now museums have a chance to become more accessible than ever and disseminate their pieces free of charge to websites which actually increases the knowledge of their pieces. Therefore it encourages more to see them in person. It's happened to me a few times. I can imagine the museums are much happier with that result.
K-Doering
commented
3 years ago Thank you both for your excellent summaries. One quote from that @ChantalvanEgdom noted down did grab my attention: “it seems intuitively wrong that the oppressor’s laws should be relied upon to protect the culture of the oppressed”. It certainly does tie in with the wider question of who should have the final say over the preservation of objects belonging to certain cultures and heritages.
Yes, thank you both for your detailed summaries! I know everyone is probably sick of me bringing up gatekeeping every week but I agree with the wider question mentioned by @FabioDFernandes. Who should have the final say? The UN? I also jotted down this quote as something I particularly wanted to bring to the discussion board.
I think that the ideal would be to create a framework where everyone can work collaboratively without having a tiered value of opinion or gatekeeping but that is just not possible. We certainly need a well-formed model but a clause would need to be included that the instance of IP infringement/cultural appropriation/step in repatriation needs to be judged by 1) by the standards of the community of origin and 2) with a representing individual or institution of the community of origin. Otherwise, we will have the age old problem of white westerners telling indigenous people what is best for them (and I think we know how that ends).
K-Doering
commented
3 years ago @Kiamanx - This article touches well on the 'barriers' precluding people from visiting museums, driven by a perception that you need to have a certain level of cultural/human capital ('taste', which just sounds elitist). I think the digitisation and dissemination efforts are useful to give 'tasters' and encourage people to visit, but also to make collections generally more accessible for those who cannot visit them. Also, I would say it is democratising in the sense that art and culture (at least that safeguarded by museums) should really be accessible to all. Unfortunately, it seems the numbers are still very low, so I hope there is a continued investment in this.
The article showed me that there was a very awkward era where museums were deemed genuinely classist institutions. I think some of that perception still lingers today, but in the old days this was reflected directly by the staunchly classist studies that some conducted. It's super interesting that now museums have a chance to become more accessible than ever and disseminate their pieces free of charge to websites which actually increases the knowledge of their pieces. Therefore it encourages more to see them in person. It's happened to me a few times. I can imagine the museums are much happier with that result.
Thanks @FabioDFernandes and @Kiamanx for this interesting deeper discussion on 'classicism' in museums. I thought that the article made a good point in noting that it increased visibility of the paintings but it did not change their 'visitor' demographics. They expected that digital availability would increase consumption across different socio-economic groups but "this did not appear to be the case, as consumers on-line tend to reproduce the current museum visitor profile, and even enlarge the participation divide."
I think you can spread awareness and access but you cannot force interest. The museum I work for started online programming during the pandemic and although we are as 'accessible' as ever, the main attendees at our events are the same people who came into the physical museum pre-COVID.
By the article's standards, my background isn't conducive to me growing into a regular museum-goer and I haven't felt any barrier to being able to visit a museum, perhaps they are thinking more geographically? I think this comes down to priorities and interest rather than any actual barriers but I'd be happy to hear additional thoughts on this.
FabioDFernandes
commented
3 years ago @Kiamanx - This article touches well on the 'barriers' precluding people from visiting museums, driven by a perception that you need to have a certain level of cultural/human capital ('taste', which just sounds elitist). I think the digitisation and dissemination efforts are useful to give 'tasters' and encourage people to visit, but also to make collections generally more accessible for those who cannot visit them. Also, I would say it is democratising in the sense that art and culture (at least that safeguarded by museums) should really be accessible to all. Unfortunately, it seems the numbers are still very low, so I hope there is a continued investment in this.
The article showed me that there was a very awkward era where museums were deemed genuinely classist institutions. I think some of that perception still lingers today, but in the old days this was reflected directly by the staunchly classist studies that some conducted. It's super interesting that now museums have a chance to become more accessible than ever and disseminate their pieces free of charge to websites which actually increases the knowledge of their pieces. Therefore it encourages more to see them in person. It's happened to me a few times. I can imagine the museums are much happier with that result.
Thanks @FabioDFernandes and @Kiamanx for this interesting deeper discussion on 'classicism' in museums. I thought that the article made a good point in noting that it increased visibility of the paintings but it did not change their 'visitor' demographics. They expected that digital availability would increase consumption across different socio-economic groups but "this did not appear to be the case, as consumers on-line tend to reproduce the current museum visitor profile, and even enlarge the participation divide."
I think you can spread awareness and access but you cannot force interest. The museum I work for started online programming during the pandemic and although we are as 'accessible' as ever, the main attendees at our events are the same people who came into the physical museum pre-COVID.
By the article's standards, my background isn't conducive to me growing into a regular museum-goer and I haven't felt any barrier to being able to visit a museum, perhaps they are thinking more geographically? I think this comes down to priorities and interest rather than any actual barriers but I'd be happy to hear additional thoughts on this.
Thanks for this reply, Kéyah. I am inclined to agree with you. You are right to point out that these processes have not (yet?) seemed to increase consumption across different socio-economic groups. I think, perhaps, we were thinking quite idealistically about how digitisation could theoretically influence this in the future, especially if it is done in a way that is disseminated widely and democratically. Especially considering that the numbers of museums engaging in these projects and how much of their collections are digitised are still quite low and there is space for growth.
You are certainly right that interest cannot be forced, though awareness can be spread among those who might have a latent interest and have problems of accessibility. I am also not of a 'conducive' background by the article's standards, but access to museums was not ever a problem for me, for which I am very lucky! And never have I felt any barrier. I think the geographic plays a very significant role (which is why digitisation is so useful in this context). But I also grew up around people who never were interested, despite the accessibility. So, overcoming geographic limitations and giving people further away a further reason to visit collections once they can is a good thing. Classism, I do think, still remains a problem in terms of the perception of 'taste' and which classes engage in which activity (classist structures are still unfortunately strong in the society of this country and others), but on a less sinister level, there is the personal and individual element to interest too. It's important to not overestimate the role of classist perceptions too.
FabioDFernandes
commented
3 years ago Thank you both for your excellent summaries. One quote from that @ChantalvanEgdom noted down did grab my attention: “it seems intuitively wrong that the oppressor’s laws should be relied upon to protect the culture of the oppressed”. It certainly does tie in with the wider question of who should have the final say over the preservation of objects belonging to certain cultures and heritages.
Yes, thank you both for your detailed summaries! I know everyone is probably sick of me bringing up gatekeeping every week but I agree with the wider question mentioned by @FabioDFernandes. Who should have the final say? The UN? I also jotted down this quote as something I particularly wanted to bring to the discussion board.
I think that the ideal would be to create a framework where everyone can work collaboratively without having a tiered value of opinion or gatekeeping but that is just not possible. We certainly need a well-formed model but a clause would need to be included that the instance of IP infringement/cultural appropriation/step in repatriation needs to be judged by 1) by the standards of the community of origin and 2) with a representing individual or institution of the community of origin. Otherwise, we will have the age old problem of white westerners telling indigenous people what is best for them (and I think we know how that ends).
Totally agree with you, Kéyah. I think that in these current frameworks, it is fundamental that the voice of the community of origin of whatever is in question must retain the paramount say. The idea that western institutions can still retain an authority over the preservation and interpretation of heritage of other communities, especially those that are still living (like the totems Nicole mentioned), should really be a relic of the past at this stage. The UN agencies do excellent work and I am not aware of how they address these exact issues, but considering its global outlook, I would hope they take an approach you have indicated.