Huge efforts are today made in finding practical solutions and
funding for digitization of cultural heritage.
Initiatives like the Europeana gather digital representations of artifacts
such as paintings, photographs, manuscripts, films etc and display them
universally. In most countries memory
institutions are driven to relocate funding into various digitization projects,
many of quite poor quality. In the strive for world dominance Google initiates book digitization en masse together with large libraries around the world, who
exclaims the prestige of being part in this global project.
As I am once again preparing a course in cultural heritage
digitization at my university, there is one question that keeps nagging me that
no-one seem to ask anymore, and that – as far as I can see – very seldom has
been asked at any point in time: Why?
Derek Gillman discusses in his eminent book The idea of
cultural heritage, two ways of looking at cultural heritage. The first views
cultural heritage as something belonging to the whole of humanity. Thus the
problems of colonial theft and war-trophies are easily solved – cultural artifacts
have the same values wherever they are. The second states an increased value
for artifacts and document when relating to the context in which they came into
being. Palawah rituals and artifacts
simply make more sense in Tasmania than in London, Brussels or Gothenburg.
The tension between these two ways of looking of the
intrinsic value of cultural artifacts, whether material or immaterial, is well
known and has during the last decade given rise to discussions and several
demands on colonially based collections in Europe to “give back” certain artifacts
and documents. Because this is what cultural heritage is about: documents and artifacts, what is left of
historical events and traditions, crafts and customs, and which is sometimes
forgot, individuals. They bear witness. They matter because they are real. None are
digital.
When skimming through policy documents of the EU, and
digitization strategies in, for instance, Sweden, one is struck by a disturbing
lack of interest for the value of these documents and artifacts. “Cultural heritage” is reduced to just another
term in lack of meaning. What has meaning, however, is the contribution
cultural heritage digitization will make to the economic growth of the European
Union. The digitization industry is in focus.
In order to achieve increased funding, memory institutions are driven
into formulating digitization strategies – to become more “visible”. When confronted with the myriad of tools,
versions, metadata that are out there, and the obvious lack of long term preservation solutions, it
is becoming increasingly apparent that cultural heritage digitization has very
little to do with culture, or heritage, or any value that might lie in the
actual documents and artifacts being subjected to digital treatment. Instead
it has everything to do with supporting the European (and global) IT-sector and
thus (finally) getting a way to legitimizing the very existence of memory
institutions in a society that has lost every sense of memory and is
exclusively focused on economic growth.
Is this a bad thing? Well, no, perhaps not, but when the
social system built on the idea of economic growth starts to crumble, as it does today
in Europe, and finally collapse (as it most likely will) there will be
trouble.
Digital representation cannot replace original documents and
artifacts. There can be smart displays and attractive presentations and, on a
very superficial level, increased “access”. But, the values are lost, and
without values cultural heritage is nothing but “a shell full of memories”, as
Bryan Ferry once crooned.
Do these thoughts mean that I am “against” digitization
efforts? No, but I believe that we must allow ourselves to raise the
fundamental questions about why we do things. The digitization industry doesn’t want us to do it, politicians set to
“lead” the development do not want us to do it – thus it is important to do it.
Because, soon enough the day might come – and I believe it will – when the care
and preservation of actual, value laden documents and artifacts will no longer
be funded, since they are digitally "available". How will museums, libraries and
archives then be able to uphold their legitimacy, which is in every sense
founded in a pre-digital social order?
The book referred is:
Gillam, Derek (2010)
The idea of cultural heritage. Cambridge University Press.
In my opinion, cultural heritage digitization focuses primarily on the preservation of said documents and artifacts, so that it may be accessible by future generation. One might argue that the focus should be looking for ways to preserve the original documents, but the practical truth is that, one way or another, those artifacts and documents will succumb to the passing of time, and alternate ways of preservation must be looked into. The additional visibility and easier access really just comes second, although it can be also be the main priority of some, so as to push awareness of said cultural heritage to the new generation or to different corners of the world. Information is key, and if propagating these digitized collection of cultural heritage can help raise awareness, and in turn help in preserving the actual culture in the modern day, then I’m all for it.
SvaraRaderaRuby Badcoe