Some ideas about GLAM
My introduction to digital humanities coincided with my contact with GLAM. Through a series of innovative “digital” methods, GLAM organizations have not only enabled precious cultural heritage to reach the public in a more vivid and convenient way, but also greatly broadened the boundaries of academic research and cultural heritage. It is these attempts to cleverly integrate tradition and modernity that have inspired my deep interest and passion for digital humanities.
The wide application of digital technology is profoundly changing the way cultural heritage is preserved, disseminated and educated, and at the same time redefining the role of GLAM organizations in the digital age. From protecting fragile cultural assets to attracting public participation, from optimizing internal management to developing revenue-generating models, digitization has brought unprecedented opportunities and challenges to the cultural sector.
Digitization has made a huge impact on how we preserve and protect cultural heritage. While historical artifacts and works of art are bound to be affected by time and the environment, digitization offers a great way to preserve cultural heritage for future generations. Take Sarah Kenderdine’s ‘Pure Land Unwired’ project, for instance. It uses virtual reality to reconstruct and display details of Dunhuang murals, which helps to digitally preserve these highly artistic and historical cultural assets for the long term and make them available to a global audience（Kenderdine, n. d.). For instance, the treasure trove of paintings and sculptures in Dunhuang is extremely fragile, and many of the caves, including Cave 220, are closed to the public. The Dunhuang Academy is now using full-scale digitization, including laser scanning and ultra-high resolution camera array photography, as the main way of preserving these artifacts. The ‘Pure Land Unwired’ project uses virtual reality technology to reproduce the full details of Dunhuang’s wall paintings in digital space. This lets this precious cultural heritage break through the constraints of time and geography and be perceived by a global audience. Digitization can help to slow down the physical decline of cultural heritage and give new life to the preservation of cultural heritage through high-quality digital copies.
In addition to preservation, digitization has greatly expanded the reach of cultural resources and the means of public participation. In GLAM institutions, the use of digital technologies has enabled cultural heritage to reach not only traditional visitor groups, but also remote global audiences. For example, the Tate Modern has attracted large audiences and increased audience participation through its ‘Tate Time Machine’ and ‘Dark Project’ programmes, which have not only brought the art collection closer to modern life, but also enhances the audience’s cultural experience through interaction and data collection (Alshawaaf & Lee, 2021). The Pompidou Centre’s the Virtual Centre, on the other hand, opens up digital versions of art collections globally through an online platform, providing opportunities for those who are unable to visit the museum in person to appreciate culture and the arts (Alshawaaf & Lee , 2021). These projects not only enhance the public reach of cultural institutions but also further consolidate their social role as platforms for knowledge sharing.
Digitization also plays the role of a bridge for intercultural communication in cultural dissemination. Through high-quality digital resources, cultural heritage can be transmitted globally across linguistic and geographical barriers. For example, the OpenGLAM movement promotes dialogue and understanding between cultures by advocating cultural institutions to open up digital resources in the public domain, making them freely available and accessible to users worldwide (Valeonti et al., 2020).The Rijksmuseum, as a pioneer of OpenGLAM, not only promotes the creative industry by making high-resolution digital images of artworks publicly available, it also facilitates the development of the creative industry by making high-resolution digital images of artworks publicly available. Opening up high-resolution digital images of artworks to the public has not only promoted the development of creative industries but also had a positive impact in the fields of academic research and cultural education (Alshawaaf & Lee , 2021). However, this open movement has also triggered debates on copyright, commercial use, and thresholds of access to resources, demonstrating the need to balance openness and protection in the sharing of digital resources.
Below are links to the web pages of several of the GLAM organisations mentioned above, so take a look together if you’re interested.
Some ideas about GLAM
While the deep impact of digitization on culture is undeniable, it also faces a variety of limitations in its practical application, which stem not only from a lack of technology and resources, but also involve complex issues at the ethical, social and cultural levels.
Firstly, the technological limitations of digitization create certain barriers to the presentation and dissemination of cultural resources. As Valeonti et al. point out in their study, the quality of digital content provided by many GLAM institutions varies, especially in terms of image resolution and colour reproduction, making it difficult to meet the needs of academic research or commercial exploitation (Valeonti et al., 2020). For example, the Danish National Gallery has tens of thousands of public domain artifacts open to the public, but the number of high-resolution images in them is very limited, which restricts further utilization of these resources (Valeonti et al., 2020).
In addition, existing digital technologies have limitations in presenting complex or multidimensional cultural heritage, such as the Pure Land Unwired project, which reproduces Dunhuang murals through virtual reality, but the technology is not able to present all the details of the murals or the reality of the materials. Therefore, digitised objects cannot fully replace real cultural experiences. If conditions permit, I firmly believe that the emotional connection brought about by seeing a physical artwork in person will be more profound and sincere than viewing an artwork through digital technology. Thus, digitization can only be used as a supplementary tool for cultural dissemination, not as a complete substitute for physical cultural assets.
I think the above example just answers the question, ‘Will digitisation lead to fewer people visiting GLAM institutions in person?’ . My answer is no. Firstly, digitisation cannot completely replace physical cultural assets. Secondly, digitization has also been shown to be effective in attracting more people to physical venues. Data from a 2008 survey indicated that 65.7% of people disagreed or strongly disagreed that a visit to a museum’s website could be substituted for a visit to that museum when viewing artifacts or exhibits. The majority of respondents preferred or strongly preferred to be in a museum when viewing artifacts/collections (92.6%) or visiting galleries/exhibitions (92.3%) (Marty, 2008). I argue that digital content often acts as a ‘preview’ or ‘publicity’, stimulating curiosity and interest in visiting by providing online resources and virtual experiences. For example, the Tate Modern’s digital program ‘Dark Night Walk’ attracted a large number of online viewers, a significant proportion of whom then wanted to experience the artworks in person. Instead of reducing physical visitors, this digital promotion strategy has broadened the audience base.
Reference
Alshawaaf, N., & Lee, S. H. (2021). Business model innovation through digitisation in social purpose organisations: A comparative analysis of Tate Modern and Pompidou Centre. Journal of Business Research, 125, 597-608.
Marty, P. F. (2008). Museum websites and museum visitors: digital museum resources and their use. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 81-99.
Valeonti, F., Terras, M., & Hudson-Smith, A. (2020). How open is OpenGLAM? Identifying barriers to commercial and non-commercial reuse of digitised art images. Journal of Documentation, 76(1), 1-26.
Here are some digital museums to browse
Personal data and the right to information in the age of the Internet
The Internet has been integrated into our lives, changing the way we access information, communicate, and work. However, while enjoying the convenience, there is also growing concern about personal data and the right to information.
In the past, writing was a personal expression that belonged to the writer. But Mark Marino points out that when many people post content through social media today, it may not actually belong to them entirely anymore. Platforms can collect huge amounts of data from users’ posts, images and actions, analyse their preferences and even sell it to advertising companies. This situation is not just a matter of “exchanging data for convenience”, but also a loss of personal control over data. For example, once I was discussing a product with a friend on a social media app, and when I opened the shopping app, it pushed the product to me, which was a very unpleasant feeling.
Tim Berners-Lee’s “Solid” project aims to change this situation. He advocates a network model that is de-centred and puts everyone in control of their own data. For example, users can decide what information can be shared, rather than having it all collected by the platform by default. This model, while still technically challenging, at least raises a new possibility: data should belong to individuals, not companies.
The spread of the Internet has allowed people to access vast amounts of information quickly, but not everyone has the same access. This is especially true for developing countries, rural areas, and low-income groups. The Web Foundation (2020) mentions, “a majority of the world’s women are still not connected to the internet, largely because they can’t afford it, or have no access to the technology they need or the skills to use it. Men remain 21 percent more likely to be online.” This gap increases existing inequalities and prevents millions of people from using the internet to learn, earn money, and make their voices heard. Tim Berners-Lee argues that the Internet should be seen as a fundamental right. Only when more people have easy access to the Internet can it truly fulfill its role as a tool for connecting everyone, rather than a tool for worsening inequality.
Tim Berners-Lee also mentioned that the original purpose of the Internet was to be open and free for all to participate. But with large companies controlling much of the online ecosystem, that original purpose is being changed. From his narrative, we can realize one thing: technology is evolving much faster than we can regulate it and respond to its impact on society. Big companies use data for profit, but ordinary users don’t know how the data they contribute is being used; the Internet connects the world, but it also creates new inequalities in an invisible way. In facing these issues, we need to find a balance.
So what are some measures we can personally take to protect our data? Following are some of the things I found that we can pay attention to:
- Individuals should regularly check the privacy settings of social media and other online platforms to ensure that only necessary information is shared and that access to third-party applications is limited. This can be done by adjusting privacy settings to reduce the risk of abuse.
- Using complex passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA) can be an effective way to improve account security.
- Provide as little sensitive information as possible when registering for an account or using free services. Consider providing only basic information when signing up and avoid filling in your real birthday, home address, etc.
- Choose to use a more privacy-conscious browser to reduce the possibility of centralized data management and abuse.
- Deleting accounts that have not been used for a long time and cleaning up personal information left behind on online platforms can reduce the risk of data leakage.
- Raising awareness of online security and understanding common online frauds, such as phishing emails and fake websites, can help us avoid data leakage by clicking on suspicious links by accident.
The impact of social media on society
Social media has profoundly changed the way people access information and exchange views, but its impact is filled with complexity. While bringing convenience, social media has also caused many social problems, such as biased information dissemination, divided public opinion and changes in interpersonal relationships. Taking the UK’s exit from the European Union as an example, we can see the power of social media in influencing public opinion, as well as the negative consequences it can bring.I was surprised by this case. Social media has played an important role in this process, not only by allowing political messages to reach every user quickly, but also by using algorithms to drive the spread of “customized messages”. People who support or oppose the European Union tend to see content that matches their own positions, a phenomenon of filter bubbles that allows people to be immersed in the echoes of their own views and makes it difficult to reach out to different opinions.
This kind of fragmentation of the information environment not only makes social discussion more fragmented, but also gradually breaks down the basis of public discussion. People’s knowledge of facts has grown divided, and it has become difficult to reach a common understanding of even basic objective facts.This shows that while social media has expanded the availability of information, it has also become a tool for blurring the line between truth and error.
This phenomenon is not limited to the Brexit event. In China, some people also spread false news on social media in an attempt to cause social problems such as discrimination between regions and opposition between men and women. More seriously, some people have become professional opinion handlers who specialize in social media to incite public opinion as a way to achieve their own personal benefits. These incidents show that social media can be used to control public opinion and even endanger democracy when the speed of information dissemination exceeds people’s ability to make judgments.
Social media has also increased social polarity in an unintended way. It makes people tend to gather in like-minded communities and develop a “group consciousness” with a single point of view. When this group consciousness develops without external checks and balances, it can easily become polarized and even lead to confrontation between rival groups. For example, in Hong Kong’s anti-China campaign, social media platforms (especially Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) have become important places for information dissemination and public opinion wars. Various parties used algorithms to push information and manipulate public opinion. In the process, algorithms contribute to the polarization of opinion by pushing content with which users have previously interacted, making it increasingly difficult for the public to access neutral or different voices. This “filter bubble”on social media not only leads to one-sided information, but also deepens social divisions and opposition.
However, the power of social media is not all negative. In some cases, it has opened up new possibilities for collective action. For example, social media were used to organize the Arab Spring protests, which facilitated public participation in political and social issues. This shows that the impact of social media is not singular, but depends on the way it is used and the context in which it is used. Of course, there is still a long way to go.
Thoughts about The Internet's Own Boy
Watching the film The Internet’s Own Boy reminded me of another news item I saw recently – Suchir Balaji, OpenAI whistle blower and former researcher at the age of 26, was found dead at home. The fundamental problem facing both men was the same: both related to the control of and access to knowledge – the value of knowledge being used in the service of power and profit rather than being shared for the benefit of all of society. In the field of academic publishing, knowledge is locked up by expensive paywalls and only a limited number of people can reach it; in the field of cutting-edge technologies such as AI, the rules of knowledge production and the transparency of its use are similarly controlled by a few giants, so that even people within the field who try to challenge this monopoly will pay a price. They use their own experiences to show us how both traditional and modern knowledge systems when control is concentrated in the hands of a few, can cause great damage to society’s openness, innovation, and fairness.
Knowledge should be a force that connects societies, but today it has become a tool of division. Breaking this situation requires not only technological innovation, but also a change in the attitude of society as a whole towards knowledge. The true value of knowledge does not lie in how tightly it is controlled, but in how far it is spread. If a society is unable to share knowledge equally, no matter how technologically advanced it is, it will become self-contained, and Swartz and Balaji’s story reminds us that the ideal of intellectual freedom requires not just a push, but a systemic change.
