The Materiality of a Blue Macaw

1.    Introduction

What is our understanding of materiality in today’s world?

Although we all have an idea of what is meant by the term material, the definition of the concept of materiality remains unclear to many. Scholars describe it as the physical properties of an artifact, which have an influence over how the object is used (Lievrouw, 2014). For decades, digital objects were believed to have no material nor materiality to them. But the consensus within science shifted in the last few years. The main idea came from Matt Kirschenbaum, who stressed the materiality behind computers, which in his eyes was a pivotal part of operating digital media (Drucker, 2013). Due to his efforts the definition of digital objects started to include material characteristics (Manoff, 2006).

The fact that researchers were increasingly considering digital objects as something with material characteristics also helped to push the idea of digitalized collections. Museums like the Amsterdam based Rijksmuseum were on the forefront of this trend and used an extended renovation period in order to digitize all of their collections (History, 2021). For instance the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to the long-term closure of many cultural institutions, further fueled this trend. In unprecedented times where people cannot visit a museum and therefore see a collection, it becomes all the more important to be able to experience a collection in innovative ways. Ultimately, institutions which have digitized collections can easily provide this service, but simply digitalizing an object does not do justice to its material aspects and materiality. Due to the fact that the web comes with different conditions than a real-life experience, the objects themselves have to be presented in a new way as well. These changed affordances are closely related to the materiality of an object and play an important factor in how it is presented through the institute. One example for a digitized real-life museum collection is the Rijksmuseum’s Birds collection.

The following paper will continue to further detail the concept of digital materiality, followed by an introduction of the collection and highlighting one object and discussing its materiality in context of the whole collection. Within the case study different affordances of this digitized collection will be explored and compared. These ideas will be answered through the following guiding question: In which ways is digital materiality manifested in individual objects of the Rijksmuseum’s Birds collection?

 

2.    Digital Materiality

The term material originates from the Latin word materia, which stands for substance or stuff (Browaeys, 2019). This showcases that for thousands of years synonyms have been developed in order to describe the consistency of an object. An example being that nature can entail everything from structure to smell, weight or haptic experiences (Leonardi, 2010). A person is able to explore these characteristics through their five senses. Materiality on the other hand, is seen as the physical properties of an artifact, which have an influence over how the object is used (Lievrouw, 2014).

When the first digitized versions of objects emerged, scholars saw this as a critical development. It was often argued that digital objects cannot come with any materiality as it was defined to relate to the physical properties of an object. An object being displayed on a screen without any physical elements attached to it could therefore not contain materiality and is deemed immaterial (Drucker, 2013). Matt Kirschenbaum opposed this stance in arguing that the device which displays digital objects has physical properties to it and influences how the object is used (Drucker, 2013). Katherine Hayles (2003) further argued that an electronic piece always relates to a physical manifestation.

According to Kirschenbaum, the terms forensic, formal and performative materiality are possible ways to discuss how materiality is presented within digital objects (Drucker, 2013).

Forensic materiality describes aspects of evidence and therefore refers to elements such as ink, paper, stains, fingerprints or other physical traces, which can be observed within the digital object. Formal materiality on the other hand refers to codes and structures of human expression. Formal aspects of materiality manifest through the organization of the layout and design or relations between image and text, as well as the overall composition of the object on display (Drucker, 2013). Performative materiality revolves around the aspect of interaction between human and machine (Forlini et al., 2018). The focus is hereby on how the design of a website influences how the reader perceives what is displayed. This perception influences how much materiality can be ascribed to the digital object.

The discussion around digital museum objects is also shaped by a lack of consensus in finding a clear definition. Whereas some see it as the digital representation of the physical object, represents the term for others just the aggregation of different digital content, which is comprised in one unit (Meehan, 2020). This aggregation of material content, consisting of metadata, images, audio or video items, is crucial for the material effect of an object and helps in understanding it, similar to performative materiality. The senses also still prove to be a way to understand an object, even though it might be digital. The important difference might be that you use different ones. The association of materiality is also depended on the position the digital has. If it is seen as something of lower worth or just as an addition to the physical, then it will continue to be seen as having less materiality (Meehan, 2020). Ideally digital collections of museums can be seen as their own entities rather than simply being compared to their physical counterpart. Nevertheless, these are some additional ways to analyze aspects of materiality in order to define how much a digitized object may encapsulate.

Comprehensively, these concepts provide different aspects in order to analyze the materiality of a digital collection. The fact that digital collections often times resemble physical exhibitions makes it sometimes more difficult to recognize the novelties of the digital counterpart (Flanders, 2014). In that context, it should also be noted that an interaction with a document is always a personal experience and there are many different ways to respond and interact with an object, whether online or offline (Lester, 2018).

This means that possible findings within a research or case study should not be generalized.

3.    Case study

As a case study I will look into the Rijksmuseum’s Birds collection and pick one object, which is called the Blue Macaw, as a reference to showcase how materiality is displayed (Blue Macaw, 2021). I will highlight this object as a reference due to the fact that the digital display of all objects is done in the same way (see Figure 1). Subsequently, I will be looking at the context of the whole collection.

Figure 1, Online Displays of the Blue Macaw and the Cockatoo (Screenshot)

The museum itself is the national museum of the Netherlands and covers 800 years of Dutch history. After being renovated for several years it reopened in 2013 with the vision to link individuals with art and history. During the time of renovation, the museum began to digitize its whole collection, which can now be explored under the label Rijksstudio on their website (History, 2021). The collection to be examined in the concepts of materiality is called the Birds. It focuses on the display of birds throughout different kinds of visual art in the 16th and 17th century in Dutch and Asian art. The collection ranges from porcelain objects to tile panels and paintings, all showing birds in different contexts. Some of the objects are displayed within the same room, others in different exhibitions and some are not on display at all (Birds, 2021). This design allows for the objects to come together and build a collection, which was on display however is not disclosed by the website.

The object at closer examination, the Blue Macaw, is displayed as the first object within the collection and originates from the Meissner Porzellan Manufaktur in Germany and was manufactured in 1731. The factory was the first in Europe able to produce hard-past porcelain, which is historically known to come from China and Japan. The Macaw was specifically made for Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland with the intention to be part of his so-called Japanese Palace. Augustus the Strong was also the owner of the manufacture. The Rijksmuseum acquired the object in 1960 (Blue Macaw, 2021).

In the following examination I will discuss the different modes in which digital materiality is presented within one object as well as its broader context within the collection.

3.1 Aspects of Materiality

As described before, the materiality of a digital object is influenced by many different aspects. I want to begin with looking at some forensic aspects of the Blue Macaw in order to see if the objects materiality can manifest through them. The high quality of the objects picture in combination with the zoom function makes it possible to examine the objects’ structure from a remarkably close distance and therefore get a sense of it. However, as only one picture of the front of the object is available some physical traces of the object get lost. The object is over 250 years old, yet it looks fairly new on the digital display. As a result, the true conditions of the physical display are unaccounted for and lost in translation, when only one picture acts as a basis for interpretation (Blue Macaw, 2021). According to Meehan (2020) this form of inauthenticity can often be a problem with digital museum objects.

Formal aspects, like the page layout show that the object is clearly highlighted. The picture (see Figure 2) greets you on top of the site and on the bottom of it you get more options related to the object like an info text in addition to options for saving and downloading the picture as well as zooming in and out. Further down there is a sidebar, consisting of a color code of the picture, a download option as well as an audio snippet from the museum’s multimedia tour (Blue Macaw, 2021). Part of the page also has highlight tours as well as a small display of the main collection. These options all add value and give the user different perspectives to look at the object. These different modes add depth to the objects display and therefore add to the materiality of the digital display.

Figure 2, Online Display of the Blue Macaw (Screenshot)

However, the collections main page (Birds, 2021; see Figure 3) has little of these elements. The viewer is presented with only general information about the context of the collection and an overview. This weakens the individual objects materiality as further information beneath the objects also shows that only a few birds are part of the same exhibition room and many are not on display at all. This gives the individual objects little relation to each other and the whole collection stays very distant to the viewer.

Figure 3, Online display of the Birds collection (Screenshot)

This relationship between the human and the digital display is what performative materiality describes. Whereas it was just shown how little the overall collection does in this regard, the individual objects display it differently. Especially the audio file, which is only available for some objects however (see Figure 1), strengthens this relationship. This background information helps to make the object livelier in the listeners mind and therefore give the object a sense of materiality. Other interactive elements like the color code or the zoom option also help to give the user an interactive feel with the object. As some of these options are only available for certain objects within the collection, there is a feeling of loss in regard to the materiality of some of the objects.

3.2 Digital Representation

As mentioned before, digital representation is important for the materiality of a digitized museum collection. The Birds collection is displayed in a simple grid overview of the objects, accompanied by a text. This rather simple display gives little depth to the materiality of the individual objects, nonetheless the collection as a whole. The display of the objects itself however differs. It is rich in material content like metadata, images and audio snippets with whom the user can interact to a certain degree. Most notably the audio fragment makes the objects livelier and therefore add to their sense of materiality. After all materiality is a way of thinking or showing emotion about material aspects of an object (Browaeys, 2019), which the audio greatly enhances.

 

4.    Discussion

Different aspects of materiality were analyzed in relation to one highlighted object as well as in the context of the whole collection. The individual objects display often enhances certain elements of the objects and therefore is able to give more depth to their sense of materiality, especially in regards to formal or performative aspects.

However, the display of the collection itself and how the individual objects are embedded in it make it hard to get a sense for the collection. Further, this also weakens the individual attribution of materiality to the objects as they do not seem to come together in a clear way. The whole collection and its objects seem assembled by chance and it is not clearly explained how they fit within the bird theme. This is exactly the problem of its digital display, the viewer is not presented with clear information in regards to the collection, for example how and why it was assembled and what roles the individual objects have in this context. The combination of it clearly weakens all possible attributions of materiality. Especially in a digital display is it important to give more context to everything and make it possible to interact with it through various ways. This then adds depth to individual objects and the collection and therefore provides a sense of materiality, which the user then is able to associate with it. The Rijksmuseum is able to provide some of this for the individual objects through the availability of different modes to experience and interact with the digital objects. However, the collection is not providing any of these and therefore weakens the sense of materiality for it as a whole. A better display with more information, a backstory to the collection and how the objects tie into it, would have further strengthened the materiality, which is enabled within the objects pages. The way the digitization is done, the collection conveys way less materiality than the physical display. The remediation into digital objects seem just as an addition in comparison and therefore transmit less materiality, something Meehan (2020) highlighted as a possible problem. A digital collection should aim to be seen as its own entity in the societal context and the Rijksmuseum’s Birds collection falls short of this claim.

 

5.    Conclusion

In the beginning materiality was defined as the physical properties of an artifact, which influence the objects use (Lievrouw, 2014). Later on, different aspects of materiality were established and applied to the case study.

By examining forensic, formal and performative aspects on one object it was shown that the Rijksmuseum is able to transmit a feeling of materiality within the objects display. The overall presentation of the collection however weakens this attribution of materiality as the collection seems just to be an addition to the physical one. The fact that the collection as a whole is rather intangible to the user and therefore provides little sense of overall materiality, leads to the loss in materiality. After all materiality is also a way of thinking or feeling emotion about material aspects of an object (Browaeys, 2019) and the display of the collection is not able to properly provide this.

The case study’s aim was to closely examine one object, which was representative for the whole collection, in order to show the good but also expandable parts of the digitized display. Some aspects of materiality are greatly enhanced but others fall short of their potential. This makes it difficult to associate many aspects of materiality with the collection in general. In order to give the viewer the means to experience the full materiality of the objects it would be more effective to include 3D versions, as well as a better integration of the whole collection. These options would present the viewer with a variety of options to experience the full materiality of the digital objects.

 

 

Reference list

Birds. (2021, Janurary 25). Rijksmuseum. https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio/subjects/birds

Blue Macaw. (2021, January 25). Rijksmuseum.  https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio/subjects/birds/objects#/BK-17496,0

Browaeys. C. (2019). Materiality in the digital age. Human beings connected to matter. Presses universitaires de Grenoble.

Drucker, J. (2013). Performative Materiality and Theoretical Approaches to Interface. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 7(1).

Flanders, J. (2014). Rethinking Collections . In P. Arthur & K. Bode (Eds.), Advancing Digital Humanities (pp. 163-174). Palgrave Macmillan.

Forlini, S., Hinrichs, U. & Brosz, J. (2018). Mining the Material Archive: Balancing Sensate Experience and Sense-Making in Digitized Print Collections. Open Library of Humanities, 4(2), 1-36.

Hayles, N. K. (2003). Translating media: Why we should rethink textuality. The Yale Journal of Criticism, 16(2), 263-290.

History. (2021, January 24). Rijksmuseum. https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/about-us

Lester, P. (2018). Of mind and matter: the archive as object. Archives and Records, 39(1), 73-87.

Leonardi, P. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6).

Lievrouw, L. (2014). 2: Materiality and Media. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 21-51). The MIT Press.

Manoff, M. (2006). The Materiality of Digital Collections: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 311-325.

Meehan, N. (2020). Digital Museum Objects and Memory: Postdigital Materiality, Aura and Value. Curator: The Museum Journal, 1-17.

Tabeau, M. (2016). Engaging the Materiality of the Archive in the Digital Age. Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, 12(4), 475-487.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *