Introduction
DiVersions: an introduction
DiVersions engaged with the potential of on-linedigital cultural heritage to experiment with its potential for welcoming various forms of collaboration, for conflicts to show up, and to make space for other narratives. In dialogue with cultural institutions and their e-collections, DiVersions experimented with digitized and digital heritage to opened up metadata, databases, catalogs and digital infrastructures for other imaginations.
The four year project was organized around seven artistic experiments that evolved in response to specific digital and digitized collections such as WikiMedia, the Carmentis database from the Museum for Art & History and the website of Werkplaats immaterieel erfgoed.
DiVersions committed to decolonial and intersectional perspectives because we felt that e-collections and other digital cultural heritage manifestations hold possibilities for marginalized and non-normative narratives; that they can and should be self-reflexive and aware of the colonial violence that powers them and keeps them in place. Even if we consider e-collections as potential tools for resistance against oppression and annihilation, the institutional and technological practice of constructing them is deeply entrenched in efforts to sort out and categorize the world. If we do not pay attention, normative and invisibilizing modes such as the application of seemingly neutral criteria, templates, standards, and so on will continue and intensify the epistemic and sometimes physical colonial violence that brought these collections together in the first place. For example, database technologies routinely affirm the authority of certain kinds of experts and not others; algorithms corroborate gender cliches and Wikipedia has surprisingly little space for deviating world views. By omitting to question the many complex layers that hold e-collections together, digitization will contribute to keeping representation, conservation and conditions for access firmly in the hands of colonial and institutional powers. DiVersions therefore not only attended to which items are brought together in e-collections, but also to the way metadata, software packages and web technologies prevent or provide space for “Di-Versions”.
When we initiated DiVersions in 2016, we intuitively felt that the potential in on-line collections might be activated if crossed with the software-practice of “versioning”. Versioning is a method for dealing with divergence in networked collaborations. While originally developed to track software production, it is implemented in Wikis, etherpads and other digital writing tools. Log files and so-called “diffs” are automatically saved to make the incremental process of shared editing transparent, or at least to machines, since any action can be reversed or repeated at any time; errors or unwanted inputs can be later corrected. Even if the conventional narrative of “versioning” is one of streamlining collaboration and producing consensus, these techniques and technologies do pay attention to difference.
Four years later, we are starting to see the possibilities and limitations of what versioning might do for e-collections. Beyond being a technocratic solution for large-scale software production, versioning helps to insist that the framing of any cultural object is processual and never finite. It supports reflexive modes of doing by making processes interrogable and creates openings for intervention and response; if only because it allows for a comparison between different phases in a project and provides the means to take a step back if needed. But the mechanics of versioning are only a small part of the puzzle. One of the limitations of conventional versioning practice for example, is the assumption of linearity which too easily confirms a sense of progressive evolution, especially when latest counts as best. The awkwardness of numbering versions becomes apparent when considering the various elements they interact with: time, urgencies, geographies, (un)welcome shifts between digital and physical, sociopolitical climates, etc. How to express versions as stops, u-turns, parallel tracks, bumps and slips that happen throughout a process?
It is here that the decolonial and intersectional potential of versioning starts to emerge. By providing different points of intervention, versioning can support a culture of critique that contributes to the flourishing of politically urgent practices for re-doing, re-thinking, re-stituting and re-orienting. Decolonial and intersectional modes of versioning seek polyphony and demand read-write access to histories. They make sure various versions not only co-exist but also interact in ways that can take the complexities related to heritage into account. This potential is linked to the fact that digital collections can technically be copied, repeated, downloaded, and used in many contexts at once. In contrast with some of the arguments against restitution for example, it means that the physical vulnerability, material and historical value of objects is no reason for keeping them in place. This opens up possibilities for other accounts of heritage, provenance and ownership and even makes it imaginable that Western institutions could let go of physical objects that were not theirs to begin with.
To consider other narratives means to open up digital collections and their stories as collective authorship, an understanding of heritage that is neither individually owned nor arranged along linear lines. Some institutions apply Open Content licenses to give diverse audiences permission to use and re-use e-collections, others deploy digitization to communicate and assert their authority over the presentation and representation of objects. In both cases, relations to digital objects are framed by the Western approach to intellectual property which equates ownership with authorship. Developing other relations with digital cultural heritage objects therefore is not a simple matter of releasing digital doubles under open licenses, but involves an opening up of the conceptual, legal and technical frameworks they operate in.
DiVersions started with a worksession organized by Constant in 2016 in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels.[1] With the neologism “DiVersions” we wanted to allude to the possibility that technologies of “versioning” might foreground divergent histories. In Dutch, this became “di-versies” as a play on divergent or diverse versions. Translated to English and French, DiVersions also evokes “diversity”, a term that we increasingly struggled with as it started to circulate as a blanket term for covering up issues of inequality and oppression, especially in institutional contexts. When the worksession took place, the Museum was in the final stages of digitizing its eclectic collection: some 330,000 objects including clay tablets, tapestries, mummies, ancient jewelry, vases, coins had been inventoried. Our presence at this moment in time allowed us to put the concrete practices of art-history, cataloging and digitization technologies in relation with performances, reflections, prototypes and other types of experiments.[2]
The project revived a few years later, in 2019, to pursue and deepen the interrogations we touched upon during the worksession. This restart happened in a social-political context that was already very different than the one in 2016. By then, many discussions about museums and their archives were taking place as the former Museum of Central Africa reopened its doors after 5 years of renovation. Along extensive and expensive renovation works, the museum claimed to be going through a decolonial process. This assertion attracted critiques, but also much discussion regarding whether such institution, which is thought and created as an agent of the Belgian colonial enterprise, was in a position to even attend to such a critical process. As a result, the problematization of Belgium's colonial heritage in relation to its symbols and institutions, such as museums, became a point of attention and contention in national debates to a degree and visibility that was rather unusual in Belgium so far. Following these debates, the potential of DiVersions to work with and through these concerns appeared to be even more evident, though it required us to articulate the politics of the project more explicitly.
DiVersions organized around seven artistic experiments which each deploy their own artistic strategies to test out how techniques and technologies of networked collaboration might generate other imaginations. The projects are collectively developed in dialogue with each other and in conversation with partner institutions. How can different orders coexist in online collections? In what way do we make room for material and immaterial heritage of the future, for things that are felt to be beyond the scope of museums and archives, or for other things that are consciously being ignored? How can these digital environments allow us to open up a discussion on relations between categorization, colonization and heritage? How can online collections accommodate radically different, and sometimes opposing perspectives?
For the first materialization in October 2019, seven installations were activated in De Pianofabriek (Brussels), accompanied by a first version of this publication. Brought together in a sensitive and humorous scenography proposed by Mia Melvaer and Cristina Cochior, the installations formed a context for multiple meetings, discussions and guided tours which invited participants, project partners and visitors to consider e-collections with a decolonial and intersectional perspective.
The second unfolding of DiVersions was prepared in collaboration with De Krook (Ghent) and UGent. It would have been an exciting occasion to share our findings with the many visitors passing every day through the library but due to pandemic conditions, this final event transformed into a digital exhibition that was launched in June 2020. While the shift on-line came first from constraint, it brought also another dimension to the installations that foregrounded and questioned the technologies which surround e-collections. For some projects such as The Weight of things, the digital shift felt as a logic extension to their research. Other projects such as A new fire ceremony and Material Journeys Through Other Realities had to radically rethink the tools and interfaces by which they were addressing e-collections. For again others such as Sketchy Recognition, Diff3r3ntVversionsArePOSSIBLE?!. and Collection of uncertainties, the on-line exhibition provided an occasion to extend and document the ongoing process and When organic trees meet the data tree decided to propose an entirely new project.
The contributions to this second publication, project documentation included, each in their own way resist simplification and homogenization. They pay attention to the historicity and performativity of digital archives and work with their contradictions rather than against them. This book is an attempt to articulate interconnected threads such as authorship, ownership, revision and restitution that emerged over time, and to make explicit things that were sometimes latent. The generative potential of the artist propositions is activated through their multi-layered documentation and by additional ‘prosms’ such as the intervention of Anne Laforet who took a close look at each of the artistic propositions to render them for us in the publication.
There is also a careful weaving work at play in between the two versions of this publication. Republished contributions are challenged by extensions and new additions; there are explicit reworkings and corrections; others are addressed with direct responses. Together with the designers from Open Source Publishing we brought these materials together in a multi-track book and interconnected wiki that invites the reader to explore different temporalities and non-linear versions.
Our commitment to intersectional and decolonial perspectives made us pay attention to an understanding of histories in plural and to efforts that try to grasp how they entangle with one another. If we consider decolonial work as a proposal for generative gestures of thinking and doing, starting elsewhere than at the ongoing historical and neo-colonial regimes, versioning might be a way for considering different interfering patterns. By accounting for the inclusions and exclusions that are acting on the digital archive, the violence of these archives effectively emerges from the obscurity preserved by cultural institutions’ operations, but also opens up tracks for imagining the agency of collections and their items outside of normalized frameworks of authority and ownership.
This publication marks the last iteration of DiVersions, but it is not an ending. DiVersions provided an environment to engage together with some of the complexities and urgencies around e-collections, over several rounds and in different constellations. It is this temporary context that we close off now, but the intricacies of working through all those scales collectively, is something that we will stay with and come back to.
- ↑ The Museum has in the mean time shed its royal reference and was renamed into Museum for Art & History.
- ↑ DiVersions started with a worksession in December 2016, organised in collaboration with the Museum for Arts and History. Documentation: http://constantvzw.org/w/?u=http://media.constantvzw.org/wefts/41/
DiVersions: une introduction
DiVersions engaged with the potential of on-linedigital cultural heritage forto experiment with its potential for welcoming various forms of collaboration, for conflicts to show up, and to make space for other narratives. In dialogue with cultural institutions and their e-collections, DiVersions experimented with digitized and digital heritage to opened up metadata, databases, catalogs and digital infrastructures for other imaginations.
The four year project was organized around seven artistic experiments that evolved in response to specific digital and digitized collections such as WikiMedia, the Carmentis database from the Museum for Art & History and the website of Werkplaats immaterieel erfgoed.
DiVersions committed to decolonial and intersectional perspectives. We felt that e-collections and other digital cultural heritage manifestations hold possibilities for marginalized and non-normative narratives; that they can and should be self-reflexive and aware of the colonial violence that powers them and keeps them in place. Even if we consider e-collections as potential tools for resistance against oppression and annihilation, the institutional and technological practice of constructing them is deeply entrenched in efforts to sort out and categorize the world. If we do not pay attention, normative and invisibilizing modes such as the application of seemingly neutral criteria, templates, standards, and so on will continue and intensify the epistemic and sometimes physical colonial violence that brought these collections together in the first place. For example, database technologies routinely affirm the authority of certain kinds of experts and not others; algorithms corroborate gender cliches and Wikipedia has surprisingly little space for deviating world views. By omitting to question the many complex layers that hold e-collections together, digitization will contribute to keeping representation, conservation and conditions for access firmly in the hands of colonial and institutional powers. DiVersions therefore not only attended to which items are brought together in e-collections, but also to the way metadata, software packages and web technologies prevent or provide space for “Di-Versions”.
When we initiated DiVersions in 2016, we intuitively felt that the potential in on-line collections might be activated if crossed with the software-practice of “versioning”. Versioning is a method for dealing with divergence in networked collaborations. While originally developed to track software production, it is implemented in Wikis, etherpads and other digital writing tools. Log files and so-called “diffs” are automatically saved to make the incremental process of shared editing transparent, or at least to machines, since any action can be reversed or repeated at any time; errors or unwanted inputs can be later corrected. Even if the conventional narrative of “versioning” is one of streamlining collaboration and producing consensus, these techniques and technologies do pay attention to difference.
Four years later, we are starting to see the possibilities and limitations of what versioning might do for e-collections. Beyond being a technocratic solution for large-scale software production, versioning helps to insist that the framing of any cultural object is processual and never finite. It supports reflexive modes of doing by making processes interrogable and creates openings for intervention and response; if only because it allows for a comparison between different phases in a project and provides the means to take a step back if needed. But the mechanics of versioning are only a small part of the puzzle. One of the limitations of conventional versioning practice for example, is the assumption of linearity which too easily confirms a sense of progressive evolution, especially when latest counts as best. The awkwardness of numbering versions becomes apparent when considering the various elements they interact with: time, urgencies, geographies, (un)welcome shifts between digital and physical, sociopolitical climates, etc. How to express versions as stops, u-turns, parallel tracks, bumps and slips that happen throughout a process?
It is here that the decolonial and intersectional potential of versioning starts to emerge. By providing different points of intervention, versioning can support a culture of critique that contributes to the flourishing of politically urgent practices for re-doing, re-thinking, re-stituting and re-orienting. Decolonial and intersectional modes of versioning seek polyphony and demand read-write access to histories. They make sure various versions not only co-exist but also interact in ways that can take the complexities related to heritage into account. This potential is linked to the fact that digital collections can technically be copied, repeated, downloaded, and used in many contexts at once. In contrast with some of the arguments against restitution for example, it means that the physical vulnerability, material and historical value of objects is no reason for keeping them in place. This opens up possibilities for other accounts of heritage, provenance and ownership and even makes it imaginable that Western institutions could let go of physical objects that were not theirs to begin with.
To consider other narratives means to open up digital collections and their stories as collective authorship, an understanding of heritage that is neither individually owned nor arranged along linear lines. Some institutions apply Open Content licenses to give diverse audiences permission to use and re-use e-collections, others deploy digitization to communicate and assert their authority over the presentation and representation of objects. In both cases, relations to digital objects are framed by the Western approach to intellectual property which equates ownership with authorship. Developing other relations with digital cultural heritage objects therefore is not a simple matter of releasing digital doubles under open licenses, but involves an opening up of the conceptual, legal and technical frameworks they operate in.
DiVersions started with a worksession organized by Constant in 2016 in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels.[1] With the neologism “DiVersions” we wanted to allude to the possibility that technologies of “versioning” might foreground divergent histories. In Dutch, this became “di-versies” as a play on divergent or diverse versions. Translated to English and French, DiVersions also evokes “diversity”, a term that we increasingly struggled with as it started to circulate as a blanket term for covering up issues of inequality and oppression, especially in institutional contexts. When the worksession took place, the Museum was in the final stages of digitizing its eclectic collection: some 330,000 objects including clay tablets, tapestries, mummies, ancient jewelry, vases, coins had been inventoried. Our presence at this moment in time allowed us to put the concrete practices of art-history, cataloging and digitization technologies in relation with performances, reflections, prototypes and other types of experiments.[2]
The project revived a few years later, in 2019, to pursue and deepen the interrogations we touched upon during the worksession. This restart happened in a social-political context that was already very different than the one in 2016. By then, many discussions about museums and their archives were taking place as the former Museum of Central Africa reopened its doors after 5 years of renovation. Along extensive and expensive renovation works, the museum claimed to be going through a decolonial process. This assertion attracted critiques, but also much discussion regarding whether such institution, which is thought and created as an agent of the Belgian colonial enterprise, was in a position to even attend to such a critical process. As a result, the problematization of Belgium's colonial heritage in relation to its symbols and institutions, such as museums, became a point of attention and contention in national debates to a degree and visibility that was rather unusual in Belgium so far. Following these debates, the potential of DiVersions to work with and through these concerns appeared to be even more evident, though it required us to articulate the politics of the project more explicitly.
DiVersions organized around seven artistic experiments which each deploy their own artistic strategies to test out how techniques and technologies of networked collaboration might generate other imaginations. The projects are collectively developed in dialogue with each other and in conversation with partner institutions. How can different orders coexist in online collections? In what way do we make room for material and immaterial heritage of the future, for things that are felt to be beyond the scope of museums and archives, or for other things that are consciously being ignored? How can these digital environments allow us to open up a discussion on relations between categorization, colonization and heritage? How can online collections accommodate radically different, and sometimes opposing perspectives?
For the first materialization in October 2019, seven installations were activated in De Pianofabriek (Brussels), accompanied by a first version of this publication. Brought together in a sensitive and humorous scenography proposed by Mia Melvaer and Cristina Cochior, the installations formed a context for multiple meetings, discussions and guided tours which invited participants, project partners and visitors to consider e-collections with a decolonial and intersectional perspective.
The second unfolding of DiVersions was prepared in collaboration with De Krook (Ghent) and UGent. It would have been an exciting occasion to share our findings with the many visitors passing every day through the library but due to pandemic conditions, this final event transformed into a digital exhibition that was launched in June 2020. While the shift on-line came first from constraint, it brought also another dimension to the installations that foregrounded and questioned the technologies which surround e-collections. For some projects such as The Weight of things, the digital shift felt as a logic extension to their research. Other projects such as A new fire ceremony and Material Journeys Through Other Realities had to radically rethink the tools and interfaces by which they were addressing e-collections. For again others such as Sketchy Recognition, Diff3r3ntVversionsArePOSSIBLE?!. and Collection of uncertainties, the on-line exhibition provided an occasion to extend and document the ongoing process and When organic trees meet the data tree decided to propose an entirely new project.
The contributions to this second publication, project documentation included, each in their own way resist simplification and homogenization. They pay attention to the historicity and performativity of digital archives and work with their contradictions rather than against them. This book is an attempt to articulate interconnected threads such as authorship, ownership, revision and restitution that emerged over time, and to make explicit things that were sometimes latent. The generative potential of the artist propositions is activated through their multi-layered documentation and by additional ‘prosms’ such as the intervention of Anne Laforet who took a close look at each of the artistic propositions to render them for us in the publication.
There is also a careful weaving work at play in between the two versions of this publication. Republished contributions are challenged by extensions and new additions; there are explicit reworkings and corrections; others are addressed with direct responses. Together with the designers from Open Source Publishing we brought these materials together in a multi-track book and interconnected wiki that invites the reader to explore different temporalities and non-linear versions.
Our commitment to intersectional and decolonial perspectives made us pay attention to an understanding of histories in plural and to efforts that try to grasp how they entangle with one another. If we consider decolonial work as a proposal for generative gestures of thinking and doing, starting elsewhere than at the ongoing historical and neo-colonial regimes, versioning might be a way for considering different interfering patterns. By accounting for the inclusions and exclusions that are acting on the digital archive, the violence of these archives effectively emerges from the obscurity preserved by cultural institutions’ operations, but also opens up tracks for imagining the agency of collections and their items outside of normalized frameworks of authority and ownership.
This publication marks the last iteration of DiVersions, but it is not an ending. DiVersions provided an environment to together engage with some of the complexities and urgencies around e-collections, over several rounds and in different constellations. It is this temporary context that we close off now, but the intricacies of working through all those scales collectively, is something that we will stay with and come back to.
- ↑ The Museum has in the mean time shed its royal reference and was renamed into Museum for Art & History.
- ↑ DiVersions started with a worksession in December 2016, organised in collaboration with the Museum for Arts and History. Documentation: http://constantvzw.org/w/?u=http://media.constantvzw.org/wefts/41/
DiVersies: een inleiding
DiVersions engaged with the potential of on-linedigital cultural heritage forto experiment with its potential for welcoming various forms of collaboration, for conflicts to show up, and to make space for other narratives. In dialogue with cultural institutions and their e-collections, DiVersions experimented with digitized and digital heritage to opened up metadata, databases, catalogs and digital infrastructures for other imaginations.
The four year project was organized around seven artistic experiments that evolved in response to specific digital and digitized collections such as WikiMedia, the Carmentis database from the Museum for Art & History and the website of Werkplaats immaterieel erfgoed.
DiVersions committed to decolonial and intersectional perspectives. We felt that e-collections and other digital cultural heritage manifestations hold possibilities for marginalized and non-normative narratives; that they can and should be self-reflexive and aware of the colonial violence that powers them and keeps them in place. Even if we consider e-collections as potential tools for resistance against oppression and annihilation, the institutional and technological practice of constructing them is deeply entrenched in efforts to sort out and categorize the world. If we do not pay attention, normative and invisibilizing modes such as the application of seemingly neutral criteria, templates, standards, and so on will continue and intensify the epistemic and sometimes physical colonial violence that brought these collections together in the first place. For example, database technologies routinely affirm the authority of certain kinds of experts and not others; algorithms corroborate gender cliches and Wikipedia has surprisingly little space for deviating world views. By omitting to question the many complex layers that hold e-collections together, digitization will contribute to keeping representation, conservation and conditions for access firmly in the hands of colonial and institutional powers. DiVersions therefore not only attended to which items are brought together in e-collections, but also to the way metadata, software packages and web technologies prevent or provide space for “Di-Versions”.
When we initiated DiVersions in 2016, we intuitively felt that the potential in on-line collections might be activated if crossed with the software-practice of “versioning”. Versioning is a method for dealing with divergence in networked collaborations. While originally developed to track software production, it is implemented in Wikis, etherpads and other digital writing tools. Log files and so-called “diffs” are automatically saved to make the incremental process of shared editing transparent, or at least to machines, since any action can be reversed or repeated at any time; errors or unwanted inputs can be later corrected. Even if the conventional narrative of “versioning” is one of streamlining collaboration and producing consensus, these techniques and technologies do pay attention to difference.
Four years later, we are starting to see the possibilities and limitations of what versioning might do for e-collections. Beyond being a technocratic solution for large-scale software production, versioning helps to insist that the framing of any cultural object is processual and never finite. It supports reflexive modes of doing by making processes interrogable and creates openings for intervention and response; if only because it allows for a comparison between different phases in a project and provides the means to take a step back if needed. But the mechanics of versioning are only a small part of the puzzle. One of the limitations of conventional versioning practice for example, is the assumption of linearity which too easily confirms a sense of progressive evolution, especially when latest counts as best. The awkwardness of numbering versions becomes apparent when considering the various elements they interact with: time, urgencies, geographies, (un)welcome shifts between digital and physical, sociopolitical climates, etc. How to express versions as stops, u-turns, parallel tracks, bumps and slips that happen throughout a process?
It is here that the decolonial and intersectional potential of versioning starts to emerge. By providing different points of intervention, versioning can support a culture of critique that contributes to the flourishing of politically urgent practices for re-doing, re-thinking, re-stituting and re-orienting. Decolonial and intersectional modes of versioning seek polyphony and demand read-write access to histories. They make sure various versions not only co-exist but also interact in ways that can take the complexities related to heritage into account. This potential is linked to the fact that digital collections can technically be copied, repeated, downloaded, and used in many contexts at once. In contrast with some of the arguments against restitution for example, it means that the physical vulnerability, material and historical value of objects is no reason for keeping them in place. This opens up possibilities for other accounts of heritage, provenance and ownership and even makes it imaginable that Western institutions could let go of physical objects that were not theirs to begin with.
To consider other narratives means to open up digital collections and their stories as collective authorship, an understanding of heritage that is neither individually owned nor arranged along linear lines. Some institutions apply Open Content licenses to give diverse audiences permission to use and re-use e-collections, others deploy digitization to communicate and assert their authority over the presentation and representation of objects. In both cases, relations to digital objects are framed by the Western approach to intellectual property which equates ownership with authorship. Developing other relations with digital cultural heritage objects therefore is not a simple matter of releasing digital doubles under open licenses, but involves an opening up of the conceptual, legal and technical frameworks they operate in.
DiVersions started with a worksession organized by Constant in 2016 in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels.[1] With the neologism “DiVersions” we wanted to allude to the possibility that technologies of “versioning” might foreground divergent histories. In Dutch, this became “di-versies” as a play on divergent or diverse versions. Translated to English and French, DiVersions also evokes “diversity”, a term that we increasingly struggled with as it started to circulate as a blanket term for covering up issues of inequality and oppression, especially in institutional contexts. When the worksession took place, the Museum was in the final stages of digitizing its eclectic collection: some 330,000 objects including clay tablets, tapestries, mummies, ancient jewelry, vases, coins had been inventoried. Our presence at this moment in time allowed us to put the concrete practices of art-history, cataloging and digitization technologies in relation with performances, reflections, prototypes and other types of experiments.[2]
The project revived a few years later, in 2019, to pursue and deepen the interrogations we touched upon during the worksession. This restart happened in a social-political context that was already very different than the one in 2016. By then, many discussions about museums and their archives were taking place as the former Museum of Central Africa reopened its doors after 5 years of renovation. Along extensive and expensive renovation works, the museum claimed to be going through a decolonial process. This assertion attracted critiques, but also much discussion regarding whether such institution, which is thought and created as an agent of the Belgian colonial enterprise, was in a position to even attend to such a critical process. As a result, the problematization of Belgium's colonial heritage in relation to its symbols and institutions, such as museums, became a point of attention and contention in national debates to a degree and visibility that was rather unusual in Belgium so far. Following these debates, the potential of DiVersions to work with and through these concerns appeared to be even more evident, though it required us to articulate the politics of the project more explicitly.
DiVersions organized around seven artistic experiments which each deploy their own artistic strategies to test out how techniques and technologies of networked collaboration might generate other imaginations. The projects are collectively developed in dialogue with each other and in conversation with partner institutions. How can different orders coexist in online collections? In what way do we make room for material and immaterial heritage of the future, for things that are felt to be beyond the scope of museums and archives, or for other things that are consciously being ignored? How can these digital environments allow us to open up a discussion on relations between categorization, colonization and heritage? How can online collections accommodate radically different, and sometimes opposing perspectives?
For the first materialization in October 2019, seven installations were activated in De Pianofabriek (Brussels), accompanied by a first version of this publication. Brought together in a sensitive and humorous scenography proposed by Mia Melvaer and Cristina Cochior, the installations formed a context for multiple meetings, discussions and guided tours which invited participants, project partners and visitors to consider e-collections with a decolonial and intersectional perspective.
The second unfolding of DiVersions was prepared in collaboration with De Krook (Ghent) and UGent. It would have been an exciting occasion to share our findings with the many visitors passing every day through the library but due to pandemic conditions, this final event transformed into a digital exhibition that was launched in June 2020. While the shift on-line came first from constraint, it brought also another dimension to the installations that foregrounded and questioned the technologies which surround e-collections. For some projects such as The Weight of things, the digital shift felt as a logic extension to their research. Other projects such as A new fire ceremony and Material Journeys Through Other Realities had to radically rethink the tools and interfaces by which they were addressing e-collections. For again others such as Sketchy Recognition, Diff3r3ntVversionsArePOSSIBLE?!. and Collection of uncertainties, the on-line exhibition provided an occasion to extend and document the ongoing process and When organic trees meet the data tree decided to propose an entirely new project.
The contributions to this second publication, project documentation included, each in their own way resist simplification and homogenization. They pay attention to the historicity and performativity of digital archives and work with their contradictions rather than against them. This book is an attempt to articulate interconnected threads such as authorship, ownership, revision and restitution that emerged over time, and to make explicit things that were sometimes latent. The generative potential of the artist propositions is activated through their multi-layered documentation and by additional ‘prosms’ such as the intervention of Anne Laforet who took a close look at each of the artistic propositions to render them for us in the publication.
There is also a careful weaving work at play in between the two versions of this publication. Republished contributions are challenged by extensions and new additions; there are explicit reworkings and corrections; others are addressed with direct responses. Together with the designers from Open Source Publishing we brought these materials together in a multi-track book and interconnected wiki that invites the reader to explore different temporalities and non-linear versions.
Our commitment to intersectional and decolonial perspectives made us pay attention to an understanding of histories in plural and to efforts that try to grasp how they entangle with one another. If we consider decolonial work as a proposal for generative gestures of thinking and doing, starting elsewhere than at the ongoing historical and neo-colonial regimes, versioning might be a way for considering different interfering patterns. By accounting for the inclusions and exclusions that are acting on the digital archive, the violence of these archives effectively emerges from the obscurity preserved by cultural institutions’ operations, but also opens up tracks for imagining the agency of collections and their items outside of normalized frameworks of authority and ownership.
This publication marks the last iteration of DiVersions, but it is not an ending. DiVersions provided an environment to together engage with some of the complexities and urgencies around e-collections, over several rounds and in different constellations. It is this temporary context that we close off now, but the intricacies of working through all those scales collectively, is something that we will stay with and come back to.
- ↑ The Museum has in the mean time shed its royal reference and was renamed into Museum for Art & History.
- ↑ DiVersions started with a worksession in December 2016, organised in collaboration with the Museum for Arts and History. Documentation: http://constantvzw.org/w/?u=http://media.constantvzw.org/wefts/41/
