Cited by 2Museums and Cultural HeritageCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Platforming digital cultural heritage: history, curation, and platform governance on Google Arts & Culture

Open access
Cao, Tiancheng Leo, 0000-0002-0341-0633·2024·The University of Texas at Austin

Abstract

This dissertation examines the intersection of cultural institutions and digital platforms, using Google Arts & Culture (GA&C) as a case study of platformization in the cultural sector. Theoretically, it situates GA&C within the intellectual and institutional lineage of the virtual museum, frames the platform as a networked memory institution with risks of digital enclosure and privatization, and unpacks its sociotechnical power through its various governance mechanisms. This study addresses three primary research questions: How did the platform evolve from the original Google Art Project into the current iteration of GA&C? How do the platform’s curatorial interventions and interface design shape content presentation? How do cultural institutions use the platform? A mixed-methods approach is adopted, including archival analysis of the platform’s website, mobile app, and outreach emails, content analysis of a highly curated section of the platform, visual analysis of the platform’s interface architecture, and semi-structured interviews with partner institutions. Key findings reveal a history of convergence among different cultural institutions on the platform but also a divergence from facilitating cultural institutions to engaging audiences through playful experience. The GA&C team plays an essential curatorial and editorial role in deciding project topics and managing featured content, while the platform’s interface prescribes a passive mode of user engagement that falls short of the promises of a truly participatory culture. While cultural institutions hoped for an aggregate portal with technological support from Google to expand their digital presence, the alignment between the platform and the partners, often a response to the partner’s internal digital strategy or external factors such as the global pandemic, ended up being contingent and experimental due to various issues on both sides. Finally, this dissertation also discusses the implications of GA&C for the participatory culture, the editorial role of digital platforms, and the datafication of arts and culture.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.26153/tsw/55818

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Cao, T. L., & 0000-0002-0341-0633
Corresponding author
Cao, Tiancheng Leo
Venue
The University of Texas at Austin
Publisher
The University of Texas at Austin
Published
2024-08
OpenAlex
W6908596680
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Texas Digital Library (University of Texas)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Museums and Cultural Heritage
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Cultural Insights and Digital Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Keywords
Google Arts & Culture, platformization, digital heritage, virtual museum, platform governance, interface design, cultural institutions, digital enclosure, privatization, participatory culture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review