Imputación del resultado:

Rather   contradictory   to   the   common   perception   the   digital   is   also   empowered   along   similar   lines.   In   an   epoch   that   values   originality   and   materiality,   it   has   long   been   painted   with   the   brush   of   mere   mimesis.   Often   disregarded   entirely   or   seen   as   an   inferiority  that  may  have  detrimental  effects  upon  the  material,  its  (lack  of)  attributes   has   seen   the   digital   devoid   of   any   worth   (Cameron,   2007;   McCourt,   2005).   However   what   the   digital   encompasses   requires   further   examination.   The   digital   has   a   history   and   scope   beyond   contemporary   understandings   (Bagnall,   2008).   However   at   its   simplest   here,   the   digital   can   be   defined   as   something   that   operates   through   the   transmission  of  electronic  signals  that  are  interpreted  by  a  device  or  devices  as  a  series   of   discrete   values,   commonly   zeros   and   ones   (Allison,   Currall,   Moss   &   Stuart,   2005).   When   these   zeros   and   ones   are   part   of   a   bitstream,   they   can   be   taken   together   and   encode   information   into   a   particular   format   and   in   doing   so   become   they   a  digital   object  (ibid.,  p.  368).    

Moreover,   fundamental   to   understanding   the   digital   is   the   notion   of   fixity,   or   more   specifically  the  lack  of  it  in  the  digital  object.  Unlike  its  physical  counterpart  the  digital   object  is  inherently  malleable.  In  Kallinikos,  Aaltonen  and  Marton’s  (2010)  A  theory  of   digital  objects  four  defining  features  are  posited.  Away  from  the  limits  of  fixity  a  digital   object  is  editable,  interactive,  open  and  distributed,  as  well  as  being  both  granular  and   modular   in   compositional   texture.   These,   with   the   binary   nuclei   at   the   heart   of   the   digital   object,   have   given   it   a   distinct   genesis   and   an   ontological   potentiality   that   mimics   that   imbued   in   the   virtual.   This   is   something   echoed   by   Evens   (2010),   in   his   observation   that   the   digital   is   something   of   a   paradoxical   entity   in   its   limited   yet   limitless  form.  Reflecting  the  finite’s  possibility  of  infinite  variations  within  the  study  of   complex  systems  or  a  Spinozan  syllogistic  determination,  the  digital  under  these  tenets   represents  a  non-­‐lineal,  non-­‐fixed  space.48  

Recognising  that  this  pliable  and  transfigurable  nature  has  the  potential  to  produce  a   less   accountable   environment,   Kallinikos   et   al.   (2010)   also   argues   that   disconnecting   the   digital   object   from   its   inherent   attributes   and   creating   the  digital   document   is   a   practice   base   less   on   capturing   cultural   artefacts   than   constructing   them.   This   implicates   two   practices,   firstly   a   denouncing   of   the   predicate   to   which   traditional   objects  are  generally  collected,  based  upon  premises  of  authenticity,  provenance,  and   integrity   (Seadle   &   Greifeneder,   2008).   Secondly,   a   new   object   is   created   that   is   delimited  by  its  own  catchable  determinates.  Therefore,  what  is  captured  as  a  digital   document  is  often  selected  based  upon  it  catchability  rather  than  legitimacy  as  cultural   artefact.   This   reflexivity   dictates   that   what   is   caught   is   not   a   unique   artefact   but   a   transformed  version  that  represents  a  closed,  fixed  or  determinable  understanding  or   representation  of  it.49  

Nevertheless,   utilising   the   digital   objects   conceptual   framework   it   is   possible   to   contrast  the  digital  with  that  outlined  of  Deleuze  and  Ngā  kete  o  Mātauranga.  Although   ostensibly  limited  to  non-­‐materiality  the  digital  in  its  pure  form  (energy)  is  unknowable   but  through  the  process  of  coding  (differentiation/differenciated)  the  potential  begins  

48  _{See  Faulkner  and  Runde  (2011)  for  an  alternative  exploration  of  non-­‐material  (quasi)  objects.}   49  _{This  echoes  the  structured/structuring  nature  of  Bourdieu’s  habitus  and  Kirshenblatt-­‐}

to  assume  form  until  it  is  actualised  into  existence.50  _{Again  this  implies  that  the  digital}   is   a   processual   entity   with   its   capture   (in   a   digital   document)   never   constituting   the   entirety  of  the  digital  environ.    

Thus  in  drawing  comparison  between  Maori  epistemology  and  Deleuzean  philosophy,  it   is  intended  to  acknowledge  that  Māori  and  Western  conceptuality  are  not  irrevocably   disconnected   but   can   be   understood   along   comparable   lines   of   thought.   By   focusing   upon   taonga   as   a   uniquely   active   agent,   it   acts   as   the   filter   to   which   these   normally   perceived   divergent   modalities   can   be   articulated.   More   so,   as   a   non-­‐Māori,   this   researcher  must  recognise  his  own  position  that  necessarily  distances  himself  from  any   Māori   experience.   And   thereby   precludes   any   attempt   to   articulate   a   genuine   Māori   understanding.   Thus,   Deleuze   will   be   acknowledged   as   the   bridge   from   which   the   researcher’s   comprehension   of   interactions   occurring   shall   be   mediated   through.   In   determining   the   digital   space   as   field   to   which   this   research   plays,   this   offers   a   third   option  to  Srinivasan’s  contention  of  cultural  the  hegemony  of  the  internet  and  digital   systems  in  general.  It  is  not  to  suggest  that  taonga  are  comparable  to  the  digital,  this  is   not  the  researcher’s  intention  nor  his  right,  rather  the  distinctly  malleable  qualities  of   the   digital,   the   digitality,   offer   a   space   to   which   Brown   (2008),   Mills   (2009),   Greenwood,   Te   Aika   and   Davis   (2011)   have   all   recognised   is   uniquely   well   suited   in   articulating  some  of  the  complex  facets  of  Māori  culture.  

50  _{Energy  is  determined  to  be  unknowable  through  its  abstractedness  that  necessitates}  

formulae  are  required  to  define  it  by  its  measureable  effects  without  determining  energy’s   actuality.  As  exemplified  by  the  wave-­‐particle  duality  of  quantum  physics,  in  which  energy  as   matter  (light)  is  able  to  exhibit  properties  of  both  particles  and  waves.  It  is  through  observing   that  determines  the  outcome.  Constituting  a  quantum  event.  This  is  equally  understandable   through  Deleuze’s  virtuality.    

Case  Studies  –  Māori  culture  in  the  digital  environ  

Within   this   chapter   the   three   case   studies   are   examined   in   detail.   Each   will   be   discussed  in  accordance  to  their  specific  origins  and  practices.  Throughout  all  of  which,   special   focus   will   be   given   to   taonga   and   the   digital   realm,   and   how   their   particular   aspects  manifest  themselves.  However,  as  the  case  studies  all  hark  from  different  areas   of   New   Zealand’s   cultural   production,   there   is   no   intention   to   seek   a   compare   and   contrast  model.  Rather  as  individuals  and  a  collective  there  is  hope  to  reinvigorate  the   continued  validity  of  Robert  Sullivan’s  questions  posed  over  a  decade  ago.  

When  digitizing  cultural  materials,  the  important  questions  are:  How  do  we   send  a  message  that  strengthens  the  holistic  context  of  each  cultural  item  and   collection?  How  do  we  ensure  that  both  indigenous  and  non-­‐indigenous   peoples  receive  the  message?  How  do  we  digitize  material  taking  into  account   its  metaphysical  as  well  as  its  digital  life?  (Sullivan,  2002)  

Te  Papa  and  the  Google  Art  Project  

In  this  case  study  the  Museum  of  New  Zealand  Te  Papa  Tongarewa  (Te  Papa  hereafter)   presence   on   the   Google   Art   Project   will   be   examined.   While   firstly   providing   a   brief   introduction  to  Te  Papa,  the  Google  Art  Project  and  Te  Papa’s  overall  presence  in  the   Google  Art  Project.  It  will  then  move  on  to  examine  the  objects  from  the  Taonga  Māori   collection   selected   to   be   part   of   the   project.   Particular   attention   will   be   paid   to   a   handful  of  individual  taonga,  before  collectively  discussing  all  of  the  Māori  objects  in   contrast  to  Te  Papa’s  Google  Art  Project  collection  in  general.  

Te  Papa  introduction  

Amalgamating  the  National  Museum  of  New  Zealand  (formally  The  Dominion  Museum)   and  the  National  Art  Gallery,  Te  Papa  opened  its  doors  on  Wellington’s  waterfront  with   much  fanfare  on  February  14,  1998.  Developed  out  of  the  post  Te  Maori  New  Zealand   cultural   sector   and   the   simultaneous   shift   to   the  New   Museology,   Te   Papa   was   an   institution   that   was   to   reflect   a   contemporaneous   view   of   New   Zealand   culture   and   museological   practice   (McCarthy,   2007,   p.   167).51   _{Soon   after   the   Museum   of   New}  

51  _{According  to  McCarthy  (2013),  while  Te  Papa’s  practice  early  blurred  traditional  boundaries}