In this blog post, I will be discovering the concept of digital materiality. With the rapid digitization of our online society, comes the inevitable digitizing of collections. When analyzing objects in a collection, the material qualities of the object are just as important as the content. Therefore, when analyzing a collection digitally, it is important that this materiality of the collection is also conveyed. Especially now, in times of a global pandemic, analyzing the way materiality is mediated in digital collections is of great significance. As it is at the moment often not possible to research a collection in its physical form, it is now more important than ever that the materiality of the objects is conveyed well. Therefore, in this post, I will define through relevant academic scholars the importance of materiality of collections, the concerns about digital materiality and ways that materiality can possibly be conveyed in digital collections. Lastly, I will analyze the way materiality is mediated in the digital collection of “The Gallery of Honor” by the Rijksmuseum.
The Importance of Materiality within Collections
In recent scholarly research, the importance of the materiality of objects within collections is discussed heavily. The term materiality indicates the physical features, which are actually tangible, of an object. Here you can think of for example the weight and size, or any other material characteristics. Peter Lester (2018), explains that the materiality of objects was previously mostly unacknowledged (p. 73). Traditionally, almost all attention is directed towards the informational content of collections. Additionally, this informational content is then used to describe the objects. Subsequently, the physicality of the objects is only seen as to allow the information to be conveyed (p. 75). Yet, Lester (2018) stresses that an experience that includes both the “cognitive and physical reactions” (p. 73) is actually very important. Lester (2018) explains that objects that are part of a collection are simultaneously a source of information and a tangible object. This physical factor is so essential, because this can possibly provoke emotional and sensory responses (p. 74). In addition to emotional responses, the materiality of an object can also provide information on “the social, cultural and economic context of time” by for example showing how an object was made. This knowledge can provide valuable information about the society that created the object, explains Lester (2018, p. 77). Therefore he argues, that the informational and physical aspect of an object cannot be seen separate as they shape each other, and together attribute to the meaning.
Concerns about Digital Materiality
Yet, with the increasing digitalization of our society, this conversation inherently gets more complex. Information is increasingly digitized, and in a rapid pace as well. Digital collections include physical existing collections that are remediated into digital collections, and born-digital collections. Born-digital collections are collections that are created and only exist in digital form. The immediate benefits of digital collections are that the accessibility of knowledge is increased. This increasing accessibility enables access to a collection from almost any geographical location and by more people. Additionally, growing accessibility enhances the distribution of knowledge and increases the availability of tools for academic research. Nevertheless, even though there are valuable benefits to the digitization of collections, this does raise discussion about the materiality of these digital objects.
Therefore, scholars are discussing the digital materiality of digital objects and considering the effect this has on the information and meaning that is elicited from them, according to Marline Manoff (2006). More precisely, she explains: “Our evolving collection practices promote new ways of conducting research and limit or constrain others. We must try to understand the implication of our decisions as we allocate our resources and decide what to acquire.” (Manoff, p. 312). Manoff (2006) claims that medium shapes the message of an object, because material qualities shape the experience. Therefore, it is often hard and even tricky to transform a physical object into a digital one. Manoff (2006) is of the opinion that this process will always result in loss of meaning, because a physical object always contains information that the digital reproductions do not. Yet, this is also true when conducting this process the other way around (p. 313-314). Manoff (2006) thus claims that a digitalization can never replace the physical object, and should always be handled with care (p. 314).
Lester (2018) shares this concern whether digitization is able to translate materiality in a successful manner. On the one hand, Lester (2018) proposes a theory that because more and more digital collections are being created, there is a “heightened materiality” (p. 76). With this concept, he implies a heightened awareness of materiality when handling digital objects, because of the sparked conversation between scholars. On the other hand, agreeing with Manoff (2016), stating that materiality of objects and digital objects is still often easily deemed subordinate to the information content. Lester (2018) stresses that the materiality is likewise important, because “In effect, the content and the material are entwined in a close synergy, acting upon, affecting and shaping meaning around the other” (p. 78).
Ways of Conveying Materiality in Digital Collections.
Stefania Forlini and Uta Hinrichs (2017) similarly acknowledge the fact that physical characteristics are often not evident in digital collections while they are of value to the significance of the objects and the collection. They even speak of a “devaluation of materiality” (Forlini & Hinrichs, 2017, p. 1) that haunts our digital society. Consequently, Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) ask themselves the question how to preserve material qualities within digital collections. In their research, Forlini and Hinrichs specify their analysis to specifically digitized print collections and present ways to translate the sensory experience of materiality from this collection to the digital sphere. Here, Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) focus on remediating sensory experiences that the physical prints posses through digital means by “coupling visual representations with cues for other sensory modalities” (p. 2). They call this process synthetic visualization, of which Forlini and Hinrichs describe two forms: “On-Screen Representation of Material Features” and “Digitally-Enhanced Physicalization” (2017, p. 2-3). The first form entails exploring ways of showing physical features digitally. Here, Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) focus on “visual, auditory and screen-based interaction” (p. 2). As examples they explain showing signs of usage over time visually and adding sounds when you digitally engage with the item. The second form is based on enhancing meta-data about materiality, based on anthologies, to create more possibilities to explore through material features of collections. Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) explain that engaging and interacting with existing collections and creating personal ones also help reflect on the overarching material characteristics.
Mark Tebeau (2016) likewise in his article “Engaging the Materiality of the Archive in the Digital Age” describes ways technology can help improve the sense of materiality in the viewers of collections (here specifically archival collections). Within the debate of digital materiality, he argues a different angle. Tebeau (2016) mentions; “It is not so much that digital has replaced the physical archive and artifact but that the digital has altered our relation to physical archives and artifacts in ways that have accentuated their importance” (p. 476). Tebeau (2016) explains that technologies are great ways to enhance interactivity between the viewers and a collection, and can actually blur the line between physical and digital objects (p. 476). One of the examples he mentions in this article is using the sensory experience of sound. This could be in the form of a voice reading out a specific archival piece of written text. Experiencing this sound can enhance the sensory experience of a viewer (p. 480-481). Another example of Tebeau (2016) is that because of technologies inherent user-generated design, it can create a more interactive environment within collections. This interactivity “Creates rich new connections between the physical and digital, between individuals, and between institutions and their communities” (Tebeau, 2016, p. 479).
Case Study: The Gallery of Honor by The Rijksmuseum
We have explored the importance of materiality of objects in digital collections and seen examples of ways that the experience of materiality in a digital environment can be enhanced according to scholars. Now, I will be analyzing a digital collection and see how digital materiality is mediated in this digital environment. For this, I will be analyzing the ways materiality is experienced through the digital collection “The Gallery of Honor” of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. This is not a born-digital but a physical collection of paintings that is displayed in the Gallery of Honor in the Rijksmuseum. Yet, now the Rijksmuseum has made this collection available as a digital collection as well. This digital collection is particularly interesting as it allows you to walk through the Gallery of Honor that is in the Rijksmuseum, but now virtually. This digital collection was actually created only last year, because of the effects of COVID-19. The museum was actually forced to close its doors indefinitely, but still wanted its collection to be available to the public. Similar to this collection, the Rijksmuseum has also started other initiatives to make their collections digitally accessible and more interactive like the “RijksmuseumFromHome” collection, the video tour of the museum and the possibility to create your own collection with pieces from the museum.
The most interesting aspect of this “The Gallery of Honor” digital collection is the fact that the visitor can virtually walk through the physical space that the artifacts are in. This gives the viewer the freedom to walk and view the objects in any order you prefer. Obviously you cannot actually feel the materiality of the space, but this does make the visitor come closer to this experience. In some way, it does create a sense of physically being and walking through this impressive space, creating a more sensory experience than just looking at the masterpieces separately in a different digital space. Simultaneously, this makes the digital collection an interactive experience, which Tebeau (2016) and Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) both describe as a way to increase the mediation of materiality of digital collections. The visitor of the digital space is in complete control of where to go and which items to look at more closely. The interactivity provides a sense of freedom to experience the materiality of this collection like one would have when visiting the collection. This freedom makes it easier to imagine being physically in the presence of the collection. Being able to see the whole space of the physical collection digitally has even more benefits for mediating the materiality of the paintings. Because of this feature, the viewer is able to see for example how big the piece is in relation to its surrounding, the frame the artwork is in and even have a better sense of how heavy it would be. All of these material qualities are important when trying to create a sense the physicality’s of the objects in this collection. Placing the digital collection in this digitally mediated environment really recreates a physical experience when analyzing this collection.
Other interesting observations I made regarding digital materiality took place when clicking on the artworks that are part of the collection. What immediately caught my attention is the availability of someone reading out information about the artworks, adding another sense to the experience. Both Tebeau (2016) and Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) both also address the effect sound can add to the sensory experience of materiality. Yet, this is only a specialist talking about the item, not any sounds that the item itself produces as Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) proposed. Nevertheless, it does make the experience of the collection more engaging. Additionally, while the viewer is listening to the voice explaining certain aspect of the masterpieces, the visual of the paintings is zooming in on different parts. This zooming in allows the viewer to get a better sense of the physical features of the artworks. A great example of this is being able to see the cracks in the paint, or the paint chipping away at the edges. This can give researchers for example an indication of the age, or the materials used in an artwork in this collection.
Nevertheless, unfortunately the meta-data of this digital collection, concerning information on material features is not very extensive. The meta-data for the artworks in this digital collection is given in the form of a story. These stories mostly just focus on the story behind what is pictured in the paintings and why it was created. Here, in order to get a good sense of the materiality of the objects in this collection, it would be very useful to get some more extensive data. Knowing more about the materiality, for example the material of the canvas that the painting is on, the kind of wood the frame is made out of and the paint that is uses, would give the viewer of the digital object way more indication of the materiality. Having this information increases the knowledge about the artwork and makes it easier to imagine how it would for example feel or smell. These material characteristics are important in forming the way we engage with the object and could possibly contain valuable information for research. I think adding this sort of information can improve the experience of digital materiality in the viewer even more, as Forlini and Hinrichs (2017) also stress.
Ultimately, in the actual textual information this digital collection of “The Gallery of Honor” by the Rijksmuseum provides, there is room for a lot more emphasis on materiality. This could possibly be in the form of more extensive meta-data as I just discussed. Yet, the digital visualization of this digital collection does provide a lot of interactive and sensory experiences that in turn lay emphasis on the materiality of the artworks that are part of this collection.
All in all, in this blog post I have, by the means of relevant academic scholars, explored the debate concerning the importance of materiality within digital collections. Additionally, I explained different ways that scholars suppose that the materiality of objects within digital collections would still be experienced by the viewer. Hereafter I turned to a case study of “The Gallery of Honor”; a digital collection by the Rijksmuseum to analyze to what extend the materiality of the objects in this digital collection is or is not conveyed. Here I found that the interactive nature and the multi-sensory experience of this digital collection did help translate the materiality through a digital medium. Yet, I think this could be enhanced even further by providing the artifacts in this digital collection with more extensive meta-data about the material features of the objects. Conclusively, I think this digital collection of “The Gallery of Honor” by the Rijksmuseum is an innovating way of presenting digital collection and has made valuable steps towards experiencing the full materiality of collections digitally.
If you have not already, I will leave the link to “The Gallery of Honor” collection here again, so you can explore this collection yourself! I will additionally link other mentioned digital collections and initiatives here again for your convenience, in case you have missed the previous links:
- Gallery Of Honor Collection
- “RijksmuseumFromHome” collection
- Video tour of the museum
- Create your own collection
Reference List
Forlini , S & Hinrichs , U. (2017). Synesthetic visualization: balancing sensate experience and sense making in digitized print collections, In Proceedings of the conference on Digital Preservation for Social Sciences and Humanities. Digital Preservation for Social Sciences and Humanities, Brighton, United Kingdom, 14/06/17. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/11041
Lester, P. (2018). Of mind and matter: the archive as object. Archives and Records, 39:1, 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/23257962.2017.1407748
Manoff, M. (2006). The materiality of digital collections: Theoretical and historical perspectives. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/155019061601200411
Tebeau, M. (2016). Engaging the Materiality of the Archive in the Digital Age. Collections, 12(4), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/155019061601200411
List of Illustrations
Figure 1: Screenshot Rijksmuseum, (2021). Rijksmuseum Masterpieces Up Close. Retrieved from: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/masterpieces-up-close
Figure 2: Screenshot Rijksmuseum, (2021). Rijksmuseum Virtual Honor Gallery. Retrieved from: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/masterpieces-up-close
Figure 3: Screenshot Rijksmuseum, (2021). Het Melkmeisje, Johannes Vermeer. Retrieved from: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/masterpieces-up-close