"You can feel the character's emotions throughout the film, each and every scene. Perfect short film for October"
- review on IMDB
"You can feel the character's emotions throughout the film, each and every scene. Perfect short film for October"
- review on IMDB
Traveling to the ‘Dam
My view from the terminal at SeaTac
TODAY IS A DAY FULL OF “FIRSTS” FOR ME. IT’S MY FIRST INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT, MY FIRST 10 HOUR FLIGHT, MY FIRST FLIGHT BY MYSELF. COMING TO AMSTERDAM, IT’S MY FIRST TIME IN EUROPE, MY FIRST TIME IN ANY COUNTRY BESIDES THE UNITED STATES OR CANADA, AND MY FIRST TIME IN ANOTHER TIME ZONE. IT’S MY FIRST TIME BEING AWAY FROM MY FAMILY FOR SO LONG. I GOT MY FIRST PASSPORT, COMPLETE WITH A PIC OF ME MEAN-MUGGING (I TOOK THE “DON’T SMILE” RULE TOO LITERALLY). AS WE GET MORE AND MORE INTO THE PROGRAM, I’M EXCITED TO HAVE MORE NEW EXPERIENCES AND MEMORIES.
MY FLIGHT WAS…INTERESTING. I’M SURE IT WAS NORMAL TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE LONG FLIGHTS BEFORE, BUT MY LONGEST FLIGHT BEFORE THIS WAS ONLY 3 HOURS. BEING ON A MUGGY, CROWDED PLANE FOR 10 HOURS WAS NOT FUN. I COULDN’T SLEEP, SO I SPENT MOST OF MY TIME WATCHING THE FLIGHT TRACKER. I WATCHED AS THE PLANE ICON FLEW FROM SEATTLE, OVER MOST OF CANADA, ACROSS THE ATLANTIC, THEN OVER GREENLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND. WHILE I WAS TIRED AND UNCOMFORTABLE, MY ENTHUSIASM GREW AS WE GOT CLOSER AND CLOSER TO AMSTERDAM.
ONCE WE LANDED, I FELT LIKE THE MAIN CHARACTER IN SOME FANTASY NOVEL, ABOUT TO EMBARK ON A GRAND ADVENTURE. MY FIRST IMPRESSION OF AMSTERDAM WAS THE AIRPORT, WHICH WAS QUIET, CLEAN, AND WELL-MANAGED, A STARK CONTRAST FROM THE CHAOS OF SEATAC. I MANAGED TO EASILY FIND THE TRAIN, BUT ALMOST MISSED MY FIRST STOP DUE TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT BEING IN DUTCH. THANKFULLY, WHEN GETTING ONTO THE ELEVATOR, I RAN INTO A FELLOW UW STUDENT, SO WE HELPED EACH OTHER FIND THE HOTEL.
As this trip begins, i’M excited for a few Specific things, mainly learning more about the culture, spending time as a local, and all the field trips. I’m ready to fully lean into european sam.
MY FLIGHT WAS…INTERESTING. I’M SURE IT WAS NORMAL TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE LONG FLIGHTS BEFORE, BUT MY LONGEST FLIGHT BEFORE THIS WAS ONLY 3 HOURS. BEING ON A MUGGY, CROWDED PLANE FOR 10 HOURS WAS NOT FUN. I COULDN’T SLEEP, SO I SPENT MOST OF MY TIME WATCHING THE FLIGHT TRACKER. I WATCHED AS THE PLANE ICON FLEW FROM SEATTLE, OVER MOST OF CANADA, ACROSS THE ATLANTIC, THEN OVER GREENLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND. WHILE I WAS TIRED AND UNCOMFORTABLE, MY ENTHUSIASM GREW AS WE GOT CLOSER AND CLOSER TO AMSTERDAM.
ONCE WE LANDED, I FELT LIKE THE MAIN CHARACTER IN SOME FANTASY NOVEL, ABOUT TO EMBARK ON A GRAND ADVENTURE. MY FIRST IMPRESSION OF AMSTERDAM WAS THE AIRPORT, WHICH WAS QUIET, CLEAN, AND WELL-MANAGED, A STARK CONTRAST FROM THE CHAOS OF SEATAC. I MANAGED TO EASILY FIND THE TRAIN, BUT ALMOST MISSED MY FIRST STOP DUE TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT BEING IN DUTCH. THANKFULLY, WHEN GETTING ONTO THE ELEVATOR, I RAN INTO A FELLOW UW STUDENT, SO WE HELPED EACH OTHER FIND THE HOTEL.
As this trip begins, i’M excited for a few Specific things, mainly learning more about the culture, spending time as a local, and all the field trips. I’m ready to fully lean into european sam.
Ámsterdam Public Library
At home, my public library is a single story, probably only around 1600 square feet. Despite its small stature, I’ve always found it a good place to be, a library that makes good use of their space. But, visiting the central branch of the Amsterdam Public Library (OBA), my mind was blown as I saw the possibilities of what a library could be.
Eight stories tall, OBA absolutely exploded the mold of what a library could be, expanding far beyond the stereotype of a quiet place for books. It included a cafe, a bar, a movie theater, a forum for presentations, and much more. Of course, it also included the pieces you would expect, like a reference desk, self check-outs, stacks of literature of all kinds, and desks for students to study at.
But, overall, the building reminded me of a department store instead of a library. Escalators in the center of each level connected all the floors, reminiscent of the layout of a Nordstrom. It’s the type of place where you could get lost exploring for hours, even without picking up a single book.
While my local library is a place where you theoretically could spend hours, it doesn’t truly have the capacity to support this. Yes, you could sit and spend hours reading, but what about those who are less literarily inclined? They could perhaps attend programs or use the computers, but this doesn’t foster the feeling of being able to spend your whole day there. For example, even if someone spent time browsing the web in the computer lab, there’s a limit of only 2 hours.
Meanwhile, OBA, through their mall-esque design, inspires you to get lost, explore, and spend your whole day there. You could get breakfast at the cafe, browse the web for a few hours, explore The House of All Languages, go up to the rooftop deck for a drink, then finish your day by attending a performance in the theater.
The innovation of moving beyond the typical stereotype of traditional libraries is important for the profession as a whole. Not only does it better serve our patrons, building a deeper sense of community, but it helps ensure the library’s longevity. We need to be adaptable and always thinking of how we can improve to make sure that 1.) we aren’t becoming stagnant or irrelevant and 2.) we are continually proving our worth to the communities we serve.
As a library sciences major, I personally think public libraries are priceless. But to some, they may seem redundant. Why are we spending tax dollars on a place for books? No one reads books anymore! And aren’t print books obsolete anyway? But, if libraries continue to innovate beyond what those very, very misguided people think, they will continue to show their societal value. With that value, we can ensure continued funding and protect ourselves against the push for privatization.
Eight stories tall, OBA absolutely exploded the mold of what a library could be, expanding far beyond the stereotype of a quiet place for books. It included a cafe, a bar, a movie theater, a forum for presentations, and much more. Of course, it also included the pieces you would expect, like a reference desk, self check-outs, stacks of literature of all kinds, and desks for students to study at.
But, overall, the building reminded me of a department store instead of a library. Escalators in the center of each level connected all the floors, reminiscent of the layout of a Nordstrom. It’s the type of place where you could get lost exploring for hours, even without picking up a single book.
While my local library is a place where you theoretically could spend hours, it doesn’t truly have the capacity to support this. Yes, you could sit and spend hours reading, but what about those who are less literarily inclined? They could perhaps attend programs or use the computers, but this doesn’t foster the feeling of being able to spend your whole day there. For example, even if someone spent time browsing the web in the computer lab, there’s a limit of only 2 hours.
Meanwhile, OBA, through their mall-esque design, inspires you to get lost, explore, and spend your whole day there. You could get breakfast at the cafe, browse the web for a few hours, explore The House of All Languages, go up to the rooftop deck for a drink, then finish your day by attending a performance in the theater.
The innovation of moving beyond the typical stereotype of traditional libraries is important for the profession as a whole. Not only does it better serve our patrons, building a deeper sense of community, but it helps ensure the library’s longevity. We need to be adaptable and always thinking of how we can improve to make sure that 1.) we aren’t becoming stagnant or irrelevant and 2.) we are continually proving our worth to the communities we serve.
As a library sciences major, I personally think public libraries are priceless. But to some, they may seem redundant. Why are we spending tax dollars on a place for books? No one reads books anymore! And aren’t print books obsolete anyway? But, if libraries continue to innovate beyond what those very, very misguided people think, they will continue to show their societal value. With that value, we can ensure continued funding and protect ourselves against the push for privatization.
Stained glass installation of an owl, representing wisdom and knowledge.
The National Library
How can you make a bunch of library science students weep tears of joy? Just show them a microfilm machine.
On June 24th, we visited Amsterdam’s National Library, known in Dutch as Koninklijke Bibliotheek. The National Library started 225 years ago, beginning with a royal’s collection of 5,000 books. Throughout the years, the library has evolved to meet the needs of its patrons. In 1877, they opened their first reading room, giving scholars the chance to explore the collections and work on their various research projects. While the librarians typically focused their collections on items they found to be popular, useful, or relevant, that all changed in the 1970s. In 1974, the Dutch government redefined the library’s scope, specifying that librarians should focus on building collections that included all books either 1.) published in the Netherlands or 2.) translated into Dutch. The aim of this refocusing was a mixture of nationalist pride and wanting their collections to reflect what people in the Netherlands were actually reading.
Since then, the library has continued to evolve, adding new spaces and technologies, adapting the ways in which information is presented, stored, and made accessible to potential users. While you need a membership to use most of the facilities (a mere €15 per year, or €7.50 for students), they do have an area open to all, free of charge.
Nicknamed the “hotel lobby”, this space truly embodies the spirit of hospitality. An informal area, this space features comfy couches, plush rugs, refreshing drink options, and the freedom to chat with friends or simply hang out. Another casual space they have is referred to as the “knowledge square”. Filled with large tables and located right next to the reading rooms, this space is meant to inspire collaboration and conversation. While many libraries are considered silent spaces meant for solitary study, the National Library has created different spaces where each type of learner can flourish.
In The 10 Faces of Innovation (Kelley, 2006), the author describes different learner personas. Each persona explains the different ways people vary in how they gather new sources of information. There’s the “anthropologist”, who observes the world around them, using their observations to create ideas for innovation. Then, there’s the “experimenter”, who learns through trial-and-error, finding out what works and what doesn’t through real-life application. Lastly, there’s the “cross-pollinator” who learns by drawing lots of different ideas together, even those that seem as if they wouldn’t work together.
On June 24th, we visited Amsterdam’s National Library, known in Dutch as Koninklijke Bibliotheek. The National Library started 225 years ago, beginning with a royal’s collection of 5,000 books. Throughout the years, the library has evolved to meet the needs of its patrons. In 1877, they opened their first reading room, giving scholars the chance to explore the collections and work on their various research projects. While the librarians typically focused their collections on items they found to be popular, useful, or relevant, that all changed in the 1970s. In 1974, the Dutch government redefined the library’s scope, specifying that librarians should focus on building collections that included all books either 1.) published in the Netherlands or 2.) translated into Dutch. The aim of this refocusing was a mixture of nationalist pride and wanting their collections to reflect what people in the Netherlands were actually reading.
Since then, the library has continued to evolve, adding new spaces and technologies, adapting the ways in which information is presented, stored, and made accessible to potential users. While you need a membership to use most of the facilities (a mere €15 per year, or €7.50 for students), they do have an area open to all, free of charge.
Nicknamed the “hotel lobby”, this space truly embodies the spirit of hospitality. An informal area, this space features comfy couches, plush rugs, refreshing drink options, and the freedom to chat with friends or simply hang out. Another casual space they have is referred to as the “knowledge square”. Filled with large tables and located right next to the reading rooms, this space is meant to inspire collaboration and conversation. While many libraries are considered silent spaces meant for solitary study, the National Library has created different spaces where each type of learner can flourish.
In The 10 Faces of Innovation (Kelley, 2006), the author describes different learner personas. Each persona explains the different ways people vary in how they gather new sources of information. There’s the “anthropologist”, who observes the world around them, using their observations to create ideas for innovation. Then, there’s the “experimenter”, who learns through trial-and-error, finding out what works and what doesn’t through real-life application. Lastly, there’s the “cross-pollinator” who learns by drawing lots of different ideas together, even those that seem as if they wouldn’t work together.
Part of the library’s resources is their vast newspaper collection. Here is me holding a newspaper from 1792 (!!!) in my bare hands.
While Kelley’s idea about learning personas isn’t new, as many have theorized we all learn differently, it can be applied to the National Library as a way to view their different spaces. For example, an “anthropologist” may find it best to hang out in the casual spaces of the library, where they are able to watch people and observe them. Or the “experimenter” could find the “knowledge square” advantageous, as they can bounce their ideas off of each other and work together on experiments.
One of my favorite spaces in the library was one I had never considered before. With a stark red color palette, Club Erasmus is more like…well, a club, than an area for library use. This space is used to encourage public interactions, a hip place where people can gather for a variety of events, from author talks, debates, forums, or more. All it’s missing is a disco ball and hot playlist.
After visiting the National Library, I’m left with two main takeaways. One - cultural institutions need to consider the different ways in which people learn, providing spaces for all. Two - to make a variety of spaces, we need to reconsider what we consider “proper” for a library to have. While a library may have used to be a quiet place, it isn’t anymore. It’s more of a community center, a mix of both quiet and loud, studious and fun, and everything in between.
One of my favorite spaces in the library was one I had never considered before. With a stark red color palette, Club Erasmus is more like…well, a club, than an area for library use. This space is used to encourage public interactions, a hip place where people can gather for a variety of events, from author talks, debates, forums, or more. All it’s missing is a disco ball and hot playlist.
After visiting the National Library, I’m left with two main takeaways. One - cultural institutions need to consider the different ways in which people learn, providing spaces for all. Two - to make a variety of spaces, we need to reconsider what we consider “proper” for a library to have. While a library may have used to be a quiet place, it isn’t anymore. It’s more of a community center, a mix of both quiet and loud, studious and fun, and everything in between.
Weekend at Mona’s
This week, our professor made the mistake of giving us a three-day weekend. With the excitement of a bunch of 20-something year olds let loose in a foreign continent , we all embarked on adventures.
I was part of a group of girls that traveled to Paris. Ah, the city of love. We had a packed weekend, filled with museums, tourist attractions, and decadent desserts. While some things were amazing, some things were…flat out bad. The city of love is more like the city of meh.
The Louvre was amazing. Seeing all the pieces of art felt like a once-in-a-lifetime experience, as it’s truly THE museum of all museums. Seeing the Mona Lisa in person felt like a religious experience. From now on, my life will be segmented into BM and AM - before Mona and after Mona. While the exhibit was (rightfully) crowded, I was able to use my height as an advantage, getting some great pictures. Plus, the crowd added to the experience, all of us eager for a glimpse at the soft smile of Ms. Lisa.
That night, we walked to the Eiffel Tower, getting good seats to watch the twinkle show. As soon as the tower came into view, I couldn’t help but shout out “There she is!”. Admittedly, I was prepared to not be that impressed, my cyanism as a Seattle native making me think it wouldn’t be as cool as the Space Needle. But I was wrong, the tower is a beauty. And when she started sparkling? 10/10
The greatest part of the trip was my visit to the Catacombs. As a certified creepy kid™️, I’ve been obsessed with the Catacombs for as long as I could remember. The thought of millions of bones underneath the streets of Paris, traversing the city while people walk around unaware, is spooky. But actually seeing it, it was incredibly humbling and enlightening to me to see all the skulls, and think about how each one used to be a person. A person with a family, friends, dreams, aspirations, hobbies, regrets, hopes, etc. It made me think more about how humans have always been, well, human.
Now, in the year of 2024, Pulitzer Prize Winner and West Coast icon Kendrick Lamar taught us all to hate at the highest level. So, while I enjoyed Paris and am grateful for the opportunity, I would like to now introduce my diss track. The following list is things I loathed about the so-called city of love (meh):
I was part of a group of girls that traveled to Paris. Ah, the city of love. We had a packed weekend, filled with museums, tourist attractions, and decadent desserts. While some things were amazing, some things were…flat out bad. The city of love is more like the city of meh.
The Louvre was amazing. Seeing all the pieces of art felt like a once-in-a-lifetime experience, as it’s truly THE museum of all museums. Seeing the Mona Lisa in person felt like a religious experience. From now on, my life will be segmented into BM and AM - before Mona and after Mona. While the exhibit was (rightfully) crowded, I was able to use my height as an advantage, getting some great pictures. Plus, the crowd added to the experience, all of us eager for a glimpse at the soft smile of Ms. Lisa.
That night, we walked to the Eiffel Tower, getting good seats to watch the twinkle show. As soon as the tower came into view, I couldn’t help but shout out “There she is!”. Admittedly, I was prepared to not be that impressed, my cyanism as a Seattle native making me think it wouldn’t be as cool as the Space Needle. But I was wrong, the tower is a beauty. And when she started sparkling? 10/10
The greatest part of the trip was my visit to the Catacombs. As a certified creepy kid™️, I’ve been obsessed with the Catacombs for as long as I could remember. The thought of millions of bones underneath the streets of Paris, traversing the city while people walk around unaware, is spooky. But actually seeing it, it was incredibly humbling and enlightening to me to see all the skulls, and think about how each one used to be a person. A person with a family, friends, dreams, aspirations, hobbies, regrets, hopes, etc. It made me think more about how humans have always been, well, human.
Now, in the year of 2024, Pulitzer Prize Winner and West Coast icon Kendrick Lamar taught us all to hate at the highest level. So, while I enjoyed Paris and am grateful for the opportunity, I would like to now introduce my diss track. The following list is things I loathed about the so-called city of love (meh):
- The griminess. IT IS SO DIRTY. WHY DO SO MANY STREETS SMELL LIKE BODILY FLUIDS???
- The transit system, truly a lawless land. Not only do they not announce what stop you’re at, the metro tunnels are confusing, winding around, and easy to get lost in.
- The pickpockets. While crime can happen in any major city (cough, cough, Seattle), I have never actually seen someone get robbed…until Paris! Not only was the thief standing right next to me before his heist, but it was in the middle of the afternoon! With children around! Mon Dieu!
- The drunks. Not only are they loud, but two got into a fist fight outside our Airbnb. What I learned was that the sound of a fist hitting flesh is a very distinct sound.
- The drivers. Like the metro, the roads are also a lawless land, where drivers swerve in and out of lanes, vespas swerve around the cars, and everyone is driving like their in the next installment of The Fast and the Furious. Taking an Uber, I almost had to speak up and tell the guy I wasn’t in that much of a hurry.
A heart shaped organization method at the Catacombs.
WHY VAN GOGH?
Ever since I was accepted into the program, I’ve been looking forward to one specific site visit - The Van Gogh Museum. As specified by the name, this museum focuses solely on the life and works of Vincent Van Gogh, arguably one of the most well-known and beloved painters of all time. Everyone, even those who could care less about art, know of Starry Night, one of his most famous paintings.
The focus of the museum is to preserve and present his paintings for both current audiences and future generations. While it has a very defined purpose, it’s also open to public dialogue, wanting to explore how Van Gogh’s works are relevant and potential reflections of the modern world. But, with such a definite purpose, how can they innovate?
They have a whole team who works on potential innovations - The Reframers. The goal of this team is to “reframe” how people view and connect with Van Gogh’s works (hence the name). The people on this team come from diverse backgrounds, allowing further ideas than those that may be typically thought of in museum or archival studies. They work based upon the principle that art is not for historians or critics, but for the general public to enjoy and experience.
Their newest exhibit aims to explore the difference between how others see us, versus how we see ourselves. Called “No Filter”, the exhibit asks the question, “who are we when no one is looking?”. The exhibit of course features works by Van Gogh, but also includes interactive components that ask the patrons to look at their own reflections and reflect on their innermost thoughts. There were mirrors throughout, including a section where patrons were able to write their thoughts on the glass.
The focus of the museum is to preserve and present his paintings for both current audiences and future generations. While it has a very defined purpose, it’s also open to public dialogue, wanting to explore how Van Gogh’s works are relevant and potential reflections of the modern world. But, with such a definite purpose, how can they innovate?
They have a whole team who works on potential innovations - The Reframers. The goal of this team is to “reframe” how people view and connect with Van Gogh’s works (hence the name). The people on this team come from diverse backgrounds, allowing further ideas than those that may be typically thought of in museum or archival studies. They work based upon the principle that art is not for historians or critics, but for the general public to enjoy and experience.
Their newest exhibit aims to explore the difference between how others see us, versus how we see ourselves. Called “No Filter”, the exhibit asks the question, “who are we when no one is looking?”. The exhibit of course features works by Van Gogh, but also includes interactive components that ask the patrons to look at their own reflections and reflect on their innermost thoughts. There were mirrors throughout, including a section where patrons were able to write their thoughts on the glass.
The mirror in which patrons could write their own thoughts. My favorite: “Inside of me, I feel a storm sea.”
This exhibit puts Van Gogh’s mental health struggles in a more relatable light. Everyone deals with expectations, both from society and others, and from ourselves. Van Gogh didn’t start painting until he was 27 years old, having to deal with his own self-doubt and figuring out what kind of artist he wanted to be. As someone who is almost 27, I understand how he felt.
We put so much pressure to be something great or noteworthy by our 30’s, regardless of our field. Ignoring the fact that we’re basically only starting out in our 20’s, this expectation is not only unrealistic, but unfair. It seems we always put this pressure on ourselves, but don’t hold others to the same standards. Why are we always our own toughest critics?
Van Gogh painted the everyday and mundane, not just the “pretty” subjects, meaning he showed a more realistic version of the world than others. Like, a dark landscape, reflecting his dark mind frame. Or, a portrait of a plain-looking, tired girl. He didn’t try to make everything perfect or “presentable”. Instead, he painted the truth.
This reminds me of how curated social media is. Everyone is trying to present the most fun/positive/pretty/acceptable versions of themselves, making our feeds fake and manufactured. But, if Van Gogh had social media, he would post his real-life, unfiltered, his feed clogged with pics of wilting flowers and interesting people he saw on his daily commute.
This exhibit was exciting to me for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, it conceptualized Van Gogh’s work in a more accessible way, letting the viewers relate to him. He’s not the tortured artist stereotype, who cut off his ear for a lover. He’s a human, real and messy, conflicted and insecure, doubtful yet still hopeful.
Secondly, it reframes his art through more of a modern lens. With such a strignight focus on Van Gogh, it can be hard for the museum to come up with new ways to view and experience his art. But this exhibit moves away from the traditional museum experience, where a patron views the art and maybe learns who painted it and in what context. Instead, it lets the viewer themselves be a part of the dialogue.
In the future, I’m excited to see the further work the Reframers complete. Perhaps their goal of “reframing art” can inspire other institutions, creating ways to interact with patrons and rethink the art in a more relatable context.
We put so much pressure to be something great or noteworthy by our 30’s, regardless of our field. Ignoring the fact that we’re basically only starting out in our 20’s, this expectation is not only unrealistic, but unfair. It seems we always put this pressure on ourselves, but don’t hold others to the same standards. Why are we always our own toughest critics?
Van Gogh painted the everyday and mundane, not just the “pretty” subjects, meaning he showed a more realistic version of the world than others. Like, a dark landscape, reflecting his dark mind frame. Or, a portrait of a plain-looking, tired girl. He didn’t try to make everything perfect or “presentable”. Instead, he painted the truth.
This reminds me of how curated social media is. Everyone is trying to present the most fun/positive/pretty/acceptable versions of themselves, making our feeds fake and manufactured. But, if Van Gogh had social media, he would post his real-life, unfiltered, his feed clogged with pics of wilting flowers and interesting people he saw on his daily commute.
This exhibit was exciting to me for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, it conceptualized Van Gogh’s work in a more accessible way, letting the viewers relate to him. He’s not the tortured artist stereotype, who cut off his ear for a lover. He’s a human, real and messy, conflicted and insecure, doubtful yet still hopeful.
Secondly, it reframes his art through more of a modern lens. With such a strignight focus on Van Gogh, it can be hard for the museum to come up with new ways to view and experience his art. But this exhibit moves away from the traditional museum experience, where a patron views the art and maybe learns who painted it and in what context. Instead, it lets the viewer themselves be a part of the dialogue.
In the future, I’m excited to see the further work the Reframers complete. Perhaps their goal of “reframing art” can inspire other institutions, creating ways to interact with patrons and rethink the art in a more relatable context.
Photo of me with Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” - my favorite painting of all time!
Considerations on Colonization Faucets
In a class discussion, we learned about the 4 main faucets, or types, of colonization that may occur. Firstly, there’s “military or oppressive”. There’s “political or policy-based”, as well as “economical”. Then, finally, there’s “cultural or affective”. In terms of Dutch colonization, I think it pretty firmly falls under the umbrella of oppressive, as the Dutch used its military to terrorize people, stow discord, and use violence with dissenters.
But, thinking in terms of cultural context, I’m wondering how each type would affect how cultural heritage sites show collections. Like, should pieces from an oppressive faucet be handled with more emotional consideration, as they’re violent and could be triggering? Or, is there a type that is easier to present than the others? Like, could economical colonization be easier to represent, because finances are considered more “black-and-white”, since the data is available in straightforward numbers and figures?
I think as cultural institutions show certain collections, the types of colonization may come into play, but not in a significant enough way. It may be important for the research team, or for writing item descriptions, but thinking too much about what type it is seems like a weird version of the Trauma Olympics. All colonization is bad, regardless or not if it was overtly violent. But, it may be useful for curators to consider the type during planning discussions, although I don’t see it playing a role past then. For example, patrons aren’t going to care about which type it is, outside of it maybe adding some context.
But, thinking in terms of cultural context, I’m wondering how each type would affect how cultural heritage sites show collections. Like, should pieces from an oppressive faucet be handled with more emotional consideration, as they’re violent and could be triggering? Or, is there a type that is easier to present than the others? Like, could economical colonization be easier to represent, because finances are considered more “black-and-white”, since the data is available in straightforward numbers and figures?
I think as cultural institutions show certain collections, the types of colonization may come into play, but not in a significant enough way. It may be important for the research team, or for writing item descriptions, but thinking too much about what type it is seems like a weird version of the Trauma Olympics. All colonization is bad, regardless or not if it was overtly violent. But, it may be useful for curators to consider the type during planning discussions, although I don’t see it playing a role past then. For example, patrons aren’t going to care about which type it is, outside of it maybe adding some context.
Is Decolonization feasible?
Throughout this program, our class has examined and discussed what decolonization means for libraries, museums, and other cultural heritage institutions. Viewing it purely through the lens of the sites we’ve visited while in the Netherlands, it’s interesting to see the differences between them and American institutions.
Before I examine the decolonization efforts we witnessed, I want to discuss more what decolonization actually means. Libraries are inherently colonized spaces because they are built upon the institutional racism that’s prevalent throughout society. For example, the Dewey Decimal System is quite Eurocentric, in that it defaults subjects to white, cis, Christian, heteronormative points of views, while the rest of the world is considered “other”. To decolonize these spaces means that we need to move away from the Eurocentric model, changing our way of thinking, which then changes how we present, organize, and display information (Jensen, 2018).
But while the movement to decolonize cultural heritage spaces is important to think about and discuss as applicable, what change is actually happening? Are changes actually being implemented? If so, how? If not, for what reason? These are questions we need to keep in mind when discussing decolonization. It’s not enough to say “we want decolonization” - we need to want it and find out how to actually achieve it. Otherwise, it’s just pretty words and empty promises.
There’s a lot of good work being done that we were able to witness first-hand. Like, at the Resistance Museum, there was a small exhibit about the Dutch colonies and how people from these colonies were involved in the resistance movement during WWII. This brings their stories to the forefront, giving them representation and moving away from the stereotype of who was involved. I saw similar stuff at the Jewish Museum, in which they had interactive exhibits (like the phone-booth videos) which aimed to show the truth beyond stereotypes, which can update our ways of thinking.
Another example I noticed was at DANS. Their focus on accessibility, the FAIR standards, and open science principles aims to remove barriers to access. The scientific world is traditionally very white and male, which can be hard to diversify. Not because there aren’t brilliant researchers that are more diverse, but because of the barriers in place that prevent them from the data and other resources that are important to maintain the information life cycle.
Now, while there were good things we saw, there were things that were a little iffy. Like, the African Studies Centre and the issue of their book acquisition trips. They go to different African countries to get books that are supposed to represent that specific country’s culture and interests. While it sounds good on paper, it’s not…that great.
They don’t have any partnerships in these countries. Instead, they focus on going to book fairs and buying directly from vendors. While this is good for the vendors, it doesn’t really do anything to give back to these communities. The Centre bragged about how cheaply they can get books, which makes one wonder if the vendors are being taken advantage of. Furthermore, by having no partnerships, how can they truly know the books they’re buying are representing the local culture? They told a story about how a staff member accidentally bought a copy of Animal Farm in Swahili. But this book neither represents Africa nor is written by an African author. So how does it add value to the Centre’s collection?
Decolonization isn’t something that’s going to happen overnight, or even probably in a few years. It’s going to be an ongoing process that changes as we learn more and begin to work together. While there are both good and bad efforts, isn’t any effort good? If you take one step back, then one step forward, can you still say you’re moving?
Before I examine the decolonization efforts we witnessed, I want to discuss more what decolonization actually means. Libraries are inherently colonized spaces because they are built upon the institutional racism that’s prevalent throughout society. For example, the Dewey Decimal System is quite Eurocentric, in that it defaults subjects to white, cis, Christian, heteronormative points of views, while the rest of the world is considered “other”. To decolonize these spaces means that we need to move away from the Eurocentric model, changing our way of thinking, which then changes how we present, organize, and display information (Jensen, 2018).
But while the movement to decolonize cultural heritage spaces is important to think about and discuss as applicable, what change is actually happening? Are changes actually being implemented? If so, how? If not, for what reason? These are questions we need to keep in mind when discussing decolonization. It’s not enough to say “we want decolonization” - we need to want it and find out how to actually achieve it. Otherwise, it’s just pretty words and empty promises.
There’s a lot of good work being done that we were able to witness first-hand. Like, at the Resistance Museum, there was a small exhibit about the Dutch colonies and how people from these colonies were involved in the resistance movement during WWII. This brings their stories to the forefront, giving them representation and moving away from the stereotype of who was involved. I saw similar stuff at the Jewish Museum, in which they had interactive exhibits (like the phone-booth videos) which aimed to show the truth beyond stereotypes, which can update our ways of thinking.
Another example I noticed was at DANS. Their focus on accessibility, the FAIR standards, and open science principles aims to remove barriers to access. The scientific world is traditionally very white and male, which can be hard to diversify. Not because there aren’t brilliant researchers that are more diverse, but because of the barriers in place that prevent them from the data and other resources that are important to maintain the information life cycle.
Now, while there were good things we saw, there were things that were a little iffy. Like, the African Studies Centre and the issue of their book acquisition trips. They go to different African countries to get books that are supposed to represent that specific country’s culture and interests. While it sounds good on paper, it’s not…that great.
They don’t have any partnerships in these countries. Instead, they focus on going to book fairs and buying directly from vendors. While this is good for the vendors, it doesn’t really do anything to give back to these communities. The Centre bragged about how cheaply they can get books, which makes one wonder if the vendors are being taken advantage of. Furthermore, by having no partnerships, how can they truly know the books they’re buying are representing the local culture? They told a story about how a staff member accidentally bought a copy of Animal Farm in Swahili. But this book neither represents Africa nor is written by an African author. So how does it add value to the Centre’s collection?
Decolonization isn’t something that’s going to happen overnight, or even probably in a few years. It’s going to be an ongoing process that changes as we learn more and begin to work together. While there are both good and bad efforts, isn’t any effort good? If you take one step back, then one step forward, can you still say you’re moving?
How can we turn this Megan thee Stallion concert into a cultural heritage site?
Recently, our class visited DANS - Digital Archiving and Networked Services. Admittedly, I was prepared for this site to go a little over my head. I’m not good with technology and couldn’t imagine what it meant that they were a “data archive”, at least not in terms of real-world applications. But, I was pleasantly surprised to not only learn what their work entails, but also about the different ways they promote the concept of open access.
DANS is an institute funded by the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as the Dutch Research Council. The main goal of DANS is to advance science by making publications easily accessible by “enhancing the reusability of research data.” By working with researchers to make their data accessible for reuse, it helps future researchers by allowing data to be used for new studies.
This is important as it makes the data not only reusable, but verifiable. For example, a scientist may publish groundbreaking research that could prove a far-out theory. But, unless their study can be replicated and reproduced, it’s just a theory - not a proven fact. DANS helps the scientific community by making data accessible, so it can be reproduced and proven, keeping the flow of the scientific process moving smoothly and without barriers.
One of their main services is their repository, one of the most important data repositories in all of Europe. There are multiple aspects, like the different data categories - archaeology, social sciences/humanities, life sciences, and physical/technical sciences. Another aspect is dataverseNL, a software program that allows independent organizations to build their own repositories. All of these aspects are saved in the data vault, which stores both the data itself and the metadata. As of right now, DANS stores a total of 314,732 datasets.
Something I really enjoyed learning about at DANS was how they incorporate the principles of free science and open access into their work. One project, called Fair-Impact, explores how these principles can be made applicable. While the principles are important (and may even seem like common sense to some) applicability is something that we need to understand better. If we don’t know the best way for it to be applied, then it can all fall apart, or even back-fire, making people question if the principles are actually important.
As the presenters discussed, not only does open science entail the data being, well, open, institutions also need to think about the data’s longevity. Like, you can’t just upload it to the data vault, pat yourself on the back, and move onwards and upwards. Maintenance is something that should be regular and on-going.
If technology changes, we need to change our technology so the data can still be viewed. If there’s problems in how the data is stored or managed, those problems need to be addressed before the data is inaccessible. Datasets, especially for cultural institutions, change over time, making them mutable objects. If we as institutions are not also mutable, then we run the risk of losing the data’s accessibility, which completely contradicts open access.
While our visit to DANS was exciting, it wasn’t the most exciting thing I did that day. I was lucky enough to have tickets to see Megan Thee Stallion! For her first tour! Her first time performing in Europe! My first time ever seeing her!
It was an amazing show. I didn’t know who the opener was, but she was catchy. Then, Megan came out, opening up with “Hiss”, her diss track that made a lot of sexist men (and some women) lose their minds. She not only rapped but danced the whole time, performing for almost 2 hours straight! I need to know what her cardio routine is.
DANS is an institute funded by the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as the Dutch Research Council. The main goal of DANS is to advance science by making publications easily accessible by “enhancing the reusability of research data.” By working with researchers to make their data accessible for reuse, it helps future researchers by allowing data to be used for new studies.
This is important as it makes the data not only reusable, but verifiable. For example, a scientist may publish groundbreaking research that could prove a far-out theory. But, unless their study can be replicated and reproduced, it’s just a theory - not a proven fact. DANS helps the scientific community by making data accessible, so it can be reproduced and proven, keeping the flow of the scientific process moving smoothly and without barriers.
One of their main services is their repository, one of the most important data repositories in all of Europe. There are multiple aspects, like the different data categories - archaeology, social sciences/humanities, life sciences, and physical/technical sciences. Another aspect is dataverseNL, a software program that allows independent organizations to build their own repositories. All of these aspects are saved in the data vault, which stores both the data itself and the metadata. As of right now, DANS stores a total of 314,732 datasets.
Something I really enjoyed learning about at DANS was how they incorporate the principles of free science and open access into their work. One project, called Fair-Impact, explores how these principles can be made applicable. While the principles are important (and may even seem like common sense to some) applicability is something that we need to understand better. If we don’t know the best way for it to be applied, then it can all fall apart, or even back-fire, making people question if the principles are actually important.
As the presenters discussed, not only does open science entail the data being, well, open, institutions also need to think about the data’s longevity. Like, you can’t just upload it to the data vault, pat yourself on the back, and move onwards and upwards. Maintenance is something that should be regular and on-going.
If technology changes, we need to change our technology so the data can still be viewed. If there’s problems in how the data is stored or managed, those problems need to be addressed before the data is inaccessible. Datasets, especially for cultural institutions, change over time, making them mutable objects. If we as institutions are not also mutable, then we run the risk of losing the data’s accessibility, which completely contradicts open access.
While our visit to DANS was exciting, it wasn’t the most exciting thing I did that day. I was lucky enough to have tickets to see Megan Thee Stallion! For her first tour! Her first time performing in Europe! My first time ever seeing her!
It was an amazing show. I didn’t know who the opener was, but she was catchy. Then, Megan came out, opening up with “Hiss”, her diss track that made a lot of sexist men (and some women) lose their minds. She not only rapped but danced the whole time, performing for almost 2 hours straight! I need to know what her cardio routine is.
The Queen herself - deluding myself into thinking we made eye contact