In the article, “Community makers, major museums, and the Keet S’aaxw: Learning about the role of museums in interpreting cultural objects,” written by Charles Zange, Zange discusses new wave aim of museums trying to embody cultures in technology in efforts to preserve something that truly cannot be contained. This article illicit reminders of my last quarter in DH150, of SANAA coming to visit the class and discussing how community can be given a voice over the platform of the internet. However, in later classes, it was much discussed that culture cannot be fully understood by these modes of data — as data is merely a representation.
SANAA aims to illustrate the stories of people of color who have been marginalized due to the misrepresentation of the South Asian people in mass media after the 9/11 attack. However, it was important that they mentioned how although these are the stories of the people who face the trials of immigration, that one cannot truly live out the experiences expressed through mere reading. This database and site furthers the argument that Zange creates as to “… take a closer look at a few examples of how museums work with community makers; and second, to begin a discussion that critically evaluates the future of community-driven digital projects.”
Please excuse the mistake, for I’ve accidentally confused SAADA (South Asian American Digital Archive) with SANAA (UCLA’s Social Awareness Network for Activism through Art). Honest apologies.
This comment was interesting for me to consider because it relates back to discussions we have had in class about the intangible or ephemeral element of an object. Considering which aspects of culture we can document is extremely different from considering which elements of culture we cannot capture. This notion is similar when we consider objects, because we still not not have a vocabulary to describe what we cannot capture.