Infrastructuring for Collective Heritage Knowledge Production

. We look at relational processes of engagement, negotiation and articulation of digital heritage knowledge production. By looking at creative reuse and remix of digital cultural heritage we focus on how those processes manifest at the intersection of established cultural institutions and people outside of these institutions Two experimental arrangements are described that seek to understand how human-computer interaction and design interventions might contribute new forms of heritage knowledge production and collective memory-making by mobilizing infrastructuring interventions to question knowledge production, politics and ownership. We conclude by proposing that HCI can contribute to infrastructuring for collective knowledge production by supporting arrangements that open access to digital cultural heritage, open heritage knowledge and its practices, and reimagine authorship and ownership of contributions to heritage.


Introduction
The UNESCO Charter on the Preservation of Cultural Heritage (2003) defines digital cultural heritage as "resources of information and creative expression are increasingly produced, distributed, accessed and maintained in digital form, creating a new legacythe digital heritage".This charter recognized how emerging technologies have been rapidly changing how people engage and experience their history and heritage.Importantly, the charter also hints at ways in which these new forms of engagement and interaction also enable people to produce heritage knowledge in myriad, sometimes unidentified, ways.These ways range from enriching, annotating and preserving existing historical records, producing and pooling shared resources of heritage, and also creating and sharing cultural narratives.In this sense it is important to remember that heritage is not in itself a given, or a legacy waiting to be discovered and recognized.
How and what becomes considered heritage is rather the product of particular processes of construction and production (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1995) that both rely on infrastructures, and become infrastructures in themselves (Marttila 2018).Because of their infrastructural qualities (Star 1999) these processes are subject to the dynamics of particular forms of social practices that Kuutma (2009) links to knowledge production, heritage politics, and also to questions of ownership.All these pose important challenges for design approaches engaging with this domain.As more and more conservation and digitization initiatives build more encompassing infrastructures for archiving and providing access to cultural heritage in digital forms; rethinking how heritage knowledge production processes can become more collaborative is urgent (Marttila & Botero 2017, Ciolfi 2013, Stuedahl and Mörtberg 2012).
In the past decades HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) has already made a range of knowledge contributions to the digital cultural heritage domain.In her literature review Ciolfi (2013) traces work linking heritage institutions and digital technologies to three key areas of interest: the first one, an interest in the social interaction, engagement, and experience of visitors to heritage collections.The second one relates to the design and development of technologies in relation to cultural heritage, including how this technology use could enhance and mediate visits to the existing heritage sites or institutions.And the third one deals more with the design and creation of interactive installations, artistic objects and performances that, in themselves, form "a heritage artefact".So far, the largest body of work in HCI in relation to digital heritage relates to technology, in particular novel interactive systems, standards and services that support cultural heritage sites or physical organizations (see e.g.Ficarra et al. 2012, Ciolfi andMcLoughlin 2013).The issue of how social practices are linked to heritage knowledge production and their (digital) infrastructuring processes is still under-studied within the HCI literature.In addition, as pointed out by Avram, Ciolfi and Maye (2019) a focus on longterm perspective in cultural heritage work in HCI remains uncommon.
There is an emerging body of knowledge that has applied participatory design tools and techniques to engage audiences and communities in participatory practices within cultural heritage institutions (e.g.Salgado and Botero 2008, Dindler et al. 2010, Bossen et al. 2012, Stuedahl and Lowe 2013), to experiment with for example social media production (e.g.Giaccardi 2012, Stuedahl andSmørdal 2015), in designing exhibitions, encounters and experiences with digital cultural heritage (e.g.Salgado 2009, Avram and Maye 2016, Ciolfi et al. 2016).As opportunities are opening for more on-going and sustained relationships between heritage institutions and the communities they serve (Ciolfi et al. 2017), the need for more horizontal design approaches and strategies for digital cultural heritage become more topical.Therefore, there is also a need for larger inquiry on how digital cultural heritage, and its associated infrastructures could be concerned not only with preservation and access to digital cultural heritage, but also on their potential role as catalyst or barriers for the construction of shared cultural resources and heritage knowledge (Marttila andBotero 2017, Stuedahl andMörtberg 2012).In this paper we are interested in some of these relational processes of engagement, negotiation and articulation of digital cultural heritage and heritage knowledge production, and therefore of collective remembering and value.By focusing on how these relational processes manifest at the intersection of established cultural institutions and people outside of these institutions we will take a look at how creative re-use of digital cultural heritage might contribute to new forms of heritage knowledge production and participatory memory-making processes.We arrive at this discussion with the particular angle of what might be the role of design-oriented forms of human computer interaction (HCI) in these processes, and the things we should consider when designing for and contributing to infrastructures for digital heritage.We share the interest in understanding better the types of "connectivities" that need to be established between cultural institutions and people outside of these institutions; as Koch (2021) points in her introductory article to our panel.For bringing between these two entities, in our earlier work (Marttila 2018, Marttila andBotero 2017) we have suggested two key infrastructuring strategies for digital cultural heritage: gateways and in-between infrastructures.Thus, for our exploration of these questions we are drawing insights from two experimental arrangements that deal with creative reuse of digital cultural heritage1 in which these strategies were further developed.Both experiments invited people -in this case professional artists, designers and practitioners -to explicitly remix digital cultural heritage materials without copyright restrictions that are provided by particular European heritage institutions.The first arrangement involved setting up an experimental exhibition of remix pieces from an emerging open collection of digital visual art, at a large national museum in Denmark (Mix it Up!Open culture exhibition 2015).The second one involved exploring visual sampling and image searching strategies of European digital cultural heritage that are part of public domain, in two sites: at workshops with professional design practitioners (Culture Cam workshops 2015) and at a creative jam in a FabLab (Culture Jam Helsinki 2015).
In the following we trace some of the conceptual themes and tensions that informed these explorations to lay the ground to consider them particular ways of "participatory infrastructuring" (Karasti 2014); teasing some of the frictions existing in digital cultural heritage to experiment with collaborative knowledge production from within.We proceed to describe the objectives, settings and interventive aspirations of each experimental arrangement and conclude with a reflection on the possibilities that participatory oriented HCI and design has for infrastructuring processes aimed at opening heritage and its knowledge practices.

Frictions in digital cultural heritage
The notion of digital cultural heritage mobilized in this work is threefold: First, digital cultural heritage understood as digital artefacts and materials that are implemented in digital technologies, and secondly as interactions, relationships and boundaries created and performed in the digital domain (cf.Cameron and Kenderdine 2007).Thirdly, digital cultural heritage is understood as a cultural practice, an on-going dynamic and relational process of engagement, of negotiation and articulation of identity, values and cultural and social meanings, practiced by citizens and institutions (Smith 2006).In this paper we focus especially on the interconnections, gaps and crossings between digital cultural heritage, either digitized or born-digital assets, and various forms of digital cultural production by individuals and groups within and outside of official institutional settings.We also approach the notion of heritage knowledge using two lenses, first, as a practice of preserving, producing, sharing and disseminating knowledge and creating cultural narratives about heritage, second, as a practice of documenting, sharing and developing creative practice and "craft knowledge" (Stuedahl and Mörtberg 2012).We address heritage knowledge both from professional and from non-professional perspective, including individuals, groups, institutions, and other heritage stakeholders.
The interventions we worked with payed special attention to digital cultural heritage in the public domain (PD).Intellectual Property (IP) issues and other policy frameworks such as PD have had a signifying role in defining the relationship, and level of access, to digital cultural heritage.Perhaps the most known part of IP is copyright law 2.  Copyrights grant exclusive rights and control to an author or creator of original works and their use, access and distribution.As a historical conception and social agreement copyright regime has fundamentally shaped both understanding of the originality of creations, and also how the notion of authorship and ownership in Western societies (cf.Boyle 2008).Well known counter narratives and arguments for access and appropriation surely exists, e.g., Hyde (2010) makes a plea for our common culture, emphasizing how knowledge is common to all and should be safeguarded from purely commercial interests.Similarly, other authors such as Lessig (2004) and Boyle (2008) argue that IP regimes hinder creativity and democratic innovation.In this framework, PD comprises knowledge and information (in the form of for example books, pictures and audiovisual works) that no longer have copyright protection and therefore can be used without restriction, by everyone (Europeana 2010).Historically, PD has provided a balance to the copyrights assigned to creators, for example in Eurore 70 years after the death of an author their works are assigned to PD.In the case of digital cultural heritage, cultural works under PD have been deemed essential to collective memory and to the emerging knowledge base of societies.However, access to digitized public domain cultural heritage has not always actualize in the practices of many digital cultural heritage infrastructures and their hosting institutions (Wallace and Matas 2021).For example, in the last decades many of these institutions have used digitization process to revert copyrights of works that in their analogue form have already been in the PD (see e.g., Europeana 2010).In practice copyrights of digital cultural heritage have also placed tight constraints on both the selection of heritage and on its use (Marttila and Hyyppä 2008).More over the politics of creating access to digital cultural heritage and heritage knowledge have revolved around giving recognition and attribution to the original authors as well as the hosting art and culture institutions for their efforts.
As we already mentioned, the production and designation of culture and of heritage is highly complex, contested and political endeavor (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1995, Ahmad 2006, Dalbello 2009, Cameron 2010, Silvermann 2016).Bourdieu (1983Bourdieu ( /1993) ) described well how individuals, groups and institutions are constantly shaping and competing over the power to create meaning and value of cultural works, and to control or influence what is considered art and culture.Bourdieu's notion of 'field of cultural production' combines aspects of social conditions, circulation and consumption of cultural materials and their relations.This field is occupied by various actors competing for the resources, positions, symbolic power and capital (e.g.authority, recognition, legitimacy) that the field has to offer.This cultural capital is unevenly distributed among different groups and individuals.Some individuals and institutions, according to Bourdieu, have more accumulated capital and can use this to determine, for example, what is considered art and what is designated as heritage.These accumulations and imbalances separate and create tensions between the actors involved creating friction.
In digital cultural heritage this friction is multifaceted, and sometimes has been increased by digitalization processes.Currently, the friction manifests at least in two important ways: First, if we agree that cultural heritage is collaboratively made and constructed, Kuutma reminds us that it also "needs to be imagined" (Kuutma 2009:7).Heritage becomes real when someone labels and designates it as such.Achieving the status of heritage entails a process of knowledge production that remains highly professionalized.Despite the long-standing efforts to increase access to digital cultural heritage, today only a small fraction of the digital holdings in Europe are being made available to the wider public by art and cultural institutions (Stroeker and Vogels 2014).Moreover, even if the designation of cultural heritage resources is often considered as of public interest, often only official institutional heritage knowledge processes and mechanisms direct the selection of heritage assets (e.g.objects, intangible culture) to be reproduced as digital cultural heritage, with little or no input from other heritage stakeholders.Furthermore, the maintenance and enrichment of these digitized cultural collections is often guided by rigorously defined best practices, policies and standards that is result of centralized expertise.This has resulted in a situation in which in application fields like digital heritage oriented HCI there is limited amount of discussion regarding the convergence and co-existence of institutional cultural heritage practices and the production and appropriation practices of their publics (see Marttila 2018, Koch 2021).This lack of discussion, plays a role in cultural heritage institutions' continuous struggle with forming fruitful relationships with their audiences and with understanding their emerging digital engagements.More importantly, it is also one of the main factors in perpetuating the practices that continue to limit, and sometimes deny, larger involvement in governance processes of digital cultural heritage materials.This is problematic as heritage is designated in the name of the public, collected for their benefit, and (typically) managed and maintained at the public's expense.
Secondly, if heritage is about belonging, identifying and managing, these processes are mediated by selection, exclusion and ownership (Kuutma 2009).In digital cultural heritage this is reflected by the strong emphasis that has been given to the practical technological and legal issues and challenges hindering digitalization.Aspects related to preservation, management and documentation, technical interoperability, and the development of shared schemas, standards and formats, have received a lot of attention both in academic discourse and in practical work.Large efforts have been invested in designing digitization processes and forming interoperable digital collections with shared data standards and formats (see e.g.Ioannides et al. 2016, Hemsley et al. 2017).
In many cases, however, the existing legal frameworks and lack of rights prevents cultural heritage institutions from using technology platforms and available tools that could allow making their digitized collections available.Again, issues of ownership and authorship frame what becomes imaginable.In cases where digital cultural heritage materials have been made accessible online, they are often released under restrictive terms of use (Bellini et al. 2014, Estermann et al. 2015, Estermann 2015) and the scope for their circulation and collaborative reuse is often limited (Terras 2015, Marttila and Hyyppä.2014a).As argued by many scholars (Tsolis et al. 2011, Anderson 2013), intellectual property rights and other rights issues such as privacy are important factors preventing open access to and use of digital cultural heritage materials.Some of these limitations have practical reasons: the legal regulations and terms of use of digital cultural heritage materials vary greatly, and there is a need for harmonizing the rights and exceptions to copyrights (e.g.non-commercial use, educational use).In addition, often many cultural heritage institutions do not hold the rights to their assets in the digital collections, or institutions do not have enough resources to conduct the process of clearing those rights.Sometimes also other actors than heritage institutions have a stake and claim for digitalized heritage, such as minority groups, indigenous people and other communities.Commentators also point out that many cultural heritage institutions fear a loss of authority and control over their collections curatorial process, which remain quite traditional and opaque to certain extent.This is coupled with institution's hesitation of releasing digital cultural materials under more open terms, due to fear of losing a source of future revenue (Tsolis et al. 2011, Verwayen et al. 2011).
As we have seen, the digital cultural heritage infrastructures that have been built in the past decades have a fundamental role in the configuration of these frictions.To move forward we propose the notion of infrastructuring as a relevant conceptual and practical device that can help to analyze how design can contribute to bridge gaps and shape shared digital cultural resources (Marttila and Botero 2017, Marttila 2018).We build on work around infrastructures (Star1999) that brought to the fore the importance to focus on relational and contextual aspects of information infrastructures, considering people and their situated actions; when involved in infrastructural development rather than giving priority to individual technology systems or artefacts.The idea of understanding aspects of design as infrastructuring (Karasti 2014) shifts then the focus of design from a particular information artefact or a single project outcome to the conditions surrounding infrastructures (Pipek and Wulf 2009).Doing infrastructuring work is a continuous effort -before, after and during use and infrastructural development -of constructing, facilitating and maintaining complex socio-material-technical conditions, configurations and relations, while forming alliances and aligning interests and concerns (Karasti andSyrjänen 2004, Lyle et al. 2018).Our approach proposes first, probing an infrastructure's installed base to better identify infrastructural challenges and to orientate infrastructuring activities aimed at building future infrastructures, fostering infrastructural change during the design and development process (Marttila 2018).Second, it proposes stimulating and simulating design and use through gateways -here considered as a passage connecting and giving access to otherwise incompatible parts -and in-between infrastructures to identify and locate incompatible socio-technical infrastructures and practices.This process gives direction and orientation to design experiments and to the arrangements necessary to bridge them.These strategies are also a useful tool to consider when designing new configurations, as they can aid future practices and arrangements between heterogeneous systems and actors and their practices before an infrastructure or its future practices have been settled (Marttila and Botero 2017).Previous infrastructures provide an installed base, a foundation to a new one, and at the same time provide direction for designers and other participants for the participatory infrastructuring efforts needed.Designed gateways, such as prototypes and experiments, allow infrastructuring processes to happen by enabling experimentation before the final decisions on infrastructural development have been settled.

Infrastructuring explorations for bridging a gap
The following infrastructuring interventions have been approached in the spirit of inventive methods (Lury and Wakeford 2012) and design research.We draw from elements of action research and from ethnographically informed qualitative research to structure our design involvement bringing to them particular designs, and actively intervening in the processes we are observing.The first author of the current paper has participated with an active role in all of the experiments, while the second author has participated only in specific instances.Our data includes: Participant observation and field notes from design meetings and planning workshops where the teams in charge of the events and the prototype development planned and defined concept and production details and also from the events themselves.We also draw from documentation (images, texts descriptions and sketches) of the resulting remixed artefacts and works and participants answers to online feedback questionnaires in the events.Drawing on these materials, we crafted textual narratives of the events that have then been analyzed and compared by both authors, using an inductive, qualitative analysis approach (Miles and Huberman 1994).

Staging digital cultural heritage at Mix it Up! Open culture exhibition
This experimental pop-up exhibition was carried out through a collaboration between the Statens Museum for Kunst (SMK) or Danish National Gallery, and Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture.SMKs holds an art collection that spans 700 years of art history, presenting works from Denmark, Europe, and the rest of the world.At the time of this intervention a good portion of the pieces in the collection were in the public domain, free from copyrights to be reutilized.That made them good candidates to be reused and remixed in new cultural forms.SMK's had initiated efforts to freely release digital copies of the artworks in their SMK Open initiative platform 3 without copyright restrictions, however according to the curator in charge, the awareness of the open collections among the public was limited, and its value inside the institution also far from clear (Sanderhoff 2015).The experiment was set up as an infrastructuring activity with the intention to collect concreate examples of what sorts results and new value could be expected from more explicit reuse interventions into the collection and create conditions for a dialogue between curators, audiences and other professionals outside the heritage domain so that they will not happen in the abstract.
The basis of the Mix it Up!Open culture exhibition 4 was an invitation issued to a group of artists, designers and practitioners to explore and experiment with a selection of the high-resolution images of artworks from the SMK's open collection in the public domain.Participants were encouraged to send proposals for derivative creative works that could rethink, remix and redesign items from the open collections.The medium, and the approach to new creations was left up to the individual artists.A curatorial team was assembled, including members of SMK and the collaborators in the project, as well as invited experts.The curatorial team was in charge of reviewing the early concept proposals and provided feedback to the artists prior to the production phase.Altogether 13 artists and designers completed the process and created new artworks.The remixes took different forms including e.g. a digital rendering of Danish Golden Age paintings mashed up and projected onto the ceiling of the museum, new ceramic bowls with patterns from paintings, a deconstructed painting turned into an electromechanical machine installation and also sportswear clothing featuring prints of a19th century landscape painting.The participating designers and artists retained intellectual ownership for their creative works.However, as prerequisite for participation in the exhibition, participants agreed to release documentation of their works under a Creative Commons attribution share-alike license (CC BY-SA).
The interpretations and appropriations were featured at SMK in the form of a weekend pop-up exhibition in late May 2015.No separate space was allocated to the exhibition, instead, the new creations were shown in the gallery side by side to the original artworks which had inspired them giving the spectators, and artists, the chance to reflect on the connections between the two (see Fig. 1.).Participating artists enjoyed this rare opportunity to exhibit their creations next to original works; "It was a very strong symbiotic experience to be in so close dialogue with the original work.It added a fresh dimension to the permanent collections."(an artist).Being able to see them as part of a bigger whole:

"It was very important to have the visual and conceptual bridge between the two artworks, as it established a historical link. The two artworks sort of became one new artwork together as the commentary between them went both ways, talking about our understanding of our society and our understanding of previous societies." (an artist). "It made a nice contrast between the more traditional technique and new. Also, the original painting maybe opened up more -hopefully -to the audience". (an artist)
The exhibition was part of the larger SMK Fridays event, which is a monthly evening event that caters for a young urban audience.The event brought over 6000 visitors to the exhibition and associated activities.From the feedback responses we learnt that indeed most of the visitors were unaware of the museum's open collections.Also, many felt that as an institution, the museum was still very traditional, "You know, sometimes art can feel a bit inaccessible.[And] when it is just set free like this, then people can do with it what they want.I think that's pretty nice."(feedback from a visitor).
Participating curators also provided feedback.They found the intervention interesting at the conceptual level and they found themselves "positively surprised by the commitment and investment by the artists and designers" which was not something they saw clearly in the beginning.They also considered that the decision-making process was "too rushed and unclear" and would have preferred a tighter integration with the curatorial "workflows of SMK".Their established process for selection of pieces versus the more rapid response and risk-taking attitude of the experiment were sometimes in tension.Some of the remixes presented bold questions to the collection, opening up meanings and new interpretations of them.For example, in the installation Free? (Fig. 1.), the painting selected by the artist for remix features two sisters with a caged bird.This has been interpreted as a symbol of the lives of young women at the time, who were, like the bird, trapped inside their family and by society's expectations of them.In her laser cut installation, Neea Laakso set the bird free from the cage (using elements from another painting), offering a sharp comment on the topic of freedom.She said this in her artist statement: Today we have a lot of freedom, yet still many of us feel trapped within thoughts, beliefs, expectations, habits etc.The question is how to let go of all that?
Guided tours and artists talks were also organized through the weekend in the exhibition.In them creators shed further light on their works and experiences with digital heritage with those visiting the galleries, and with the other artists.One of the authors reflected: "I have been creating collages using international museum collections for something like 20-25 years already (...) But I have only share them with my friends and family, knowing that if I were to present them publicly, I could face legal retribution.Now I am, for the first time, allowed to share my perspective."(an artist).We learned that participating artists' intentions with their remixes varied, yet often they addressed history and present time.Some of the authors aimed specifically to explore and communicate cultural heritage and knowledge: "I wanted to show how there was similarities and differences regarding the position and role of the artist (and citizen) in the 400year gap between the two artworks."(an artist)."The two artworks sort of became one new artwork together as the commentary between them went both ways, talking about our understanding of our society and our understanding of previous societies."(an artist).Some authors focused exploring the creative practice itself, one of the authors even stated that "a piece of artwork is never complete".In addition, some of the designers and artists also carefully documented their process step-by-step with images and videos online for the public, offering resources for others5 (See Fig. 2.) The questionnaire that was carried out after the Mix it up!exhibition revealed that the majority of authors were not familiar with the SMK's open collection nor other similar initiatives prior to the exhibition.Similarly, only few of them had previous knowledge about the Creative Commons (CC) licensing framework and tool or had used the licenses themselves for their creations.Some authors had not even considered this kind of interpretative practice before participating in the exhibition.

Visual sampling, visual explorations and remixing at Culture Cam workshops and a Culture Jam
The second arrangement also involves staging an event; however, we also included an experimental prototype built to act as a gateway to an existing digital heritage infrastructure.Culture Cam6 prototype is a search tool for a non-text based visual search interface to European digital cultural heritage (See Fig. 3).It was developed by the design collective Spild af Tid (SAT) 7 in collaboration with designers, developers and researchers at Aalto University school of Arts and Design8 and the Austrian Institute of Technology 9 .The basic idea behind Culture Cam was to experiment with a digital similarity search tool to make it easy and intuitive to browse digital heritage content by other means than text-based search (Gordea, Vignoli and Marttila 2016).Culture Cam uses content from Europeana 10 , a digital infrastructure created by the European Union that provided -at the time of the arrangement -access to digitalized heritage collections of more than 3,000 institutions across Europe.This application interface aims at creating an alternative entry point to Europeana that would support playful exploration of digital heritage and encourage creative reuse.For the first prototype a pre-selected subset of images was handpicked from the Europeana collection.Unlike in many curated collections of digital cultural heritage, images in Culture Cam dataset were selected solely by their visual quality -both content and resolution -and by terms of use.The searchable corpus consists only of images under the public domain and Creative Commons Zero license (CC0) meaning that all their copyrights are waived or expired.This combination of features had the ambition to encourage experimentation with the content, in visual creative terms, as all items included could be re-used legally.The corpus was also curated to filter items that would not be so interesting visually or that lacked quality that could hinder possibilities to manipulate it further (e.g.low resolution that hinders sampling or good quality printing).The application works so that a user "scans" an object in front of the computer's webcam or mobile phone camera, and the tool captures and analyses the picture of the given object.It then provides a search result displaying items similar in colour, shape and pattern from the sub collection from Europana's PD collection.The resulting search provides the searcher a possibility to compare items at a glance, and find similarities which might be too complex to describe in words.Also, as the interaction is mostly done via a webcam, it can be used without typing search words or specific language skills.Moreover, search results also allow diving deeper into each record´s metadata, to learn more about the pieces, their history, current location and time.
We used Culture Cam as a central element in the two arrangements.First, we brought the first stable prototypes of Culture Cam to two co-creation workshops held at professional design and artists working spaces and studios.We searched for graphic designers, illustrators, textile and fashion designers who are used to, and need to, perform visual searches for their work and had sophisticated practices around that.We also considered them experienced in reusing and remixing digital culture professionally.Each of these sessions had 6-7 participants an included a short introduction to our project and to the theme of digital cultural heritage.After that we asked them to helped us map their everyday professional visual search and sampling practices, both with open questions and specific tasks.We then gave an overview of the prototype and a series of specific tasks.They were also free to explore the tool and its collection and provided detail feedback on some of the functionality as well.Broadly we wanted to discuss the place of digital cultural heritage in their work and learn about challenges and possibilities they saw on reusing digital heritage images.We also wanted to understand -if and how -a tool like Culture Cam could be useful for their own (highly visual) practices.
After this first experiences, we also organized an open creative culture jam 11 that welcomed a broader sample of creative tinkerers: DIY practitioners, designers and developers interested in exploring and engaging with open digital cultural heritage, using the tools and resources available in a digital fabrication laboratory (AaltoFabLab) 12 .The invitation was opened to co-create prototypes (for artworks or design artefacts, mobile/web application mockups, ready-made physical products, 3D printed or laser cut objects) that would re-use digital heritage content made available by Europeana.The Culture Jam Helsinki session gathered a group on enthusiast, mainly young adults, from different backgrounds including interactive media, furniture design and environmental art.Some had previous knowledge of open cultural heritage, while others experimented with digital heritage for the first time.The session was organized with an introductory part providing a general view of what is open digital heritage content and why it could be important for creative practices and series of group discussions on themes related to the topic.After that pairs were formed to discuss initial ideas for new creative works.Pair had the opportunity to use a new iteration of the Culture Cam application to search Europeana, find inspiration and relevant material to download and manipulate further.Various experiments were carried out using sampled content and the equipment and facilities available in the FabLab.They included a line of jewelry inspired by images of paleolithic objects such as shells and bones.Natural shapes also inspired others to create 3D printed loudspeakers in the form of seashells.Vintage printed graphic patterns were turned into diary-style books and another team cut vinyl stickers using ornaments from the British Library collection.As in the case with the previous exhibition creators retained intellectual ownership of what they had created during the Culture Jam, but they were asked that pictures and other recorded formats of the results were shared with a Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA) for documentation purposes and for sharing the experience with others.
When doing searchers for material people used Culture Cam as well as other open repositories for digital cultural heritage.Participants also searched expertise advice outside from the events and institutional settings, e.g. during the Culture Jam questions were posted on Twitter to seek guidance on existing 3D models of cultural heritage objects to save time.When using Culture Cam participants often used pattern from their cloths and from their surroundings, they also used sample printed images and objects they have brought with them or found in the surroundings.Like with the case of other image similarity tools Culture Cam retrieved unexpected search results that lead to further explorations.While getting lost in one of her searches one of the designers commented "It is interesting to think how this kind of historical material changes views, as [the] material has not been easily reachable before...all the information about the images, the times that they were made etc.Is really interesting and brings added value to the work.(a practitioner).The experience was compared to browsing in a workshop or toolbox full of materials and inspiration that could provide a broader context to situate their work more collectively.Most of the participants found the process of search by visual intuition rewarding way to approach digital visual heritage to learn more about it and could see themselves using it more "Nowadays I mostly browse and sample items in Pinterest, this [points at the search results] made me wonder from what, and from whom, I am building from there?Probably quite limited and very USA centered?"(a practitioner).Participants also reflected on how the visual sampling and search processes they did compared to what they do in normal circumstances, bringing to the fore questions of authorship, ownership and aesthetics decisions "For example, a project of mine [points at a vintage illustration in her moodboard]: I found an old image of a pointing hand and wanted to use it but couldn't find who had made it, even though [I] spent a lot of time trying.It most likely was so old that the copyright had already expired, but [I] couldn't be sure.So, in the end [a friend] drew something similar which I used.I did not use the original source, even though I liked better how it "felt".(a practitioner).
Using Culture Cam has also influence on designers' heritage knowledge.Some designers noted that when performing the similarity search using a picture their own designs and illustrations, the search tool's results enabled them to locate their own work in a continuum and historical context of previous creations.In one hand the similarity search tool increased designers' knowledge about earlier creations and authors, and on the other hand, inspired their future work and sometimes even so-called raw materiala starting point -for their new creations.
While working on the remixes many questions also aroused in relation to authorship and ownership of heritage.Discussions rose on practical issues of creative reuse such as giving credit to the sources one was using even if digital heritage under PD does not require it, or how they would hope in the future their own interpretation could be credited and appropriated.In addition, question of collective authorship came to foreground.To give a practical example, it is a favored practice jams and hackathons that individuals or groups continue the work somebody else had started in another context.From the legal viewpoint these efforts have collective authorship but public 'ownership' as anyone with needed capabilities and skills could enhance these creations or utilize them for their own varying purposes if the chosen license agreement was respected.Rewards or gain of such of work, such as prices after events, were questioned by the participants as the chosen 'winner' was only representing one individual in a chain of creators over a long period of time.

Towards collective heritage knowledge production?
A central contention of the two experiments we presented here is the intention to bridge aspects of the gap that exists between established cultural institutions and people outside of these institutions when it comes to processes of heritage knowledge production.Each of the arrangements described explored particular tensions between on one side the official institutional digital cultural heritage collections, systems and practices that have been built to accumulate, govern and make digital cultural heritage materials accessible -and on the other side the social practices and tools through which individuals and communities create and share, or would like to create and share digital cultural works.Through this work we have identified at least three tensions that revolve around issues on 1) opening access to digital cultural heritage, 2) heritage knowledge and its practices, and 3) authorship and ownership of contributions to heritage.In our experimental arrangements the side of official institutional digital cultural heritage collections are represented by an established national museum (Statens Museum for Kunst, SMK) with its nascent open digital collection, and by a Pan-European digital heritage infrastructure (Europeana).Albeit being already invested in opening up processes, the experiences setting up these experimental arrangements point out that they can still get paralyzed by preservation, celebration and protection of the past, and less moved by the processes of transformation in which they are but one of the actors.The setting up of the arrangements included provision to initiate processes that could provide concrete examples (remixes) of what people could do with the collections in a controlled environment, by for example concentrating on works in the public domain.The results were also displayed and staged.Particular decisions involved setting the pieces together with their original sources, making open calls and releasing documentation with a sharing license to increase the possibility of generating conversations about what could be possible.The experiences confirmed the idea that also in digital cultural heritage only "setting things free" is not enough and that supporting the learning processes of all (institutions and people) demand careful orchestration and alignment of motivations, practices and sometimes new tools; in other words, "artful infrastructuring" (Karasti and Syrjänen 2004).
The non-institutional side -citizens -is represented in both cases by professional and non-professional creative practitioners, designers and artists.Our intention to engage with this group was deliberate.While they are not representative of all citizens, creative practitioners, by virtue of their personal interests and professional demands, are professional users of cultural products and cultural heritage consuming, circulating and recreating it.Unlike professional cultural heritage stakeholders, heritage is not a foreground preoccupation for them.However, heritage does sit as a background infrastructural resource, albeit one they do not frequently question.They too are contributing to reinterpret heritage and create "future" heritage in invisible ways both for themselves, and for the institutions.Their contributions too, like that of institutional actors are embedded in ambivalent temporal entanglements (Kuuma 2009) that require enquiry from heritage knowledge production process, heritage politics, and ownership points of view.By using them as proxy we hoped to help everyone involved to understand and imagine what it will take to develop more collaborative arrangements in heritage knowledge production.
First and foremost, the key value in creating gateways such as Culture Cam and inbetween infrastructural arrangements such as the Mix it up!exhibition, lies in the possibilities they offer for rehearsing, enacting and negotiating together possible future scenarios.For example, questions revolving around ownership and rights -both copyrights and moral rights -to use previous creations can be made through actual heritagemaking in real-life, in co-created and supportive environment.These kinds of rehearsals and 'learning-by-doing' collaborations between heritage institutions, practitioners and other actors can be staged in settings that nurture participants possible future practices, collective arrangements and creative activities (Stuedahl and Mörtberg 2012, Marttila 2018).Importantly, these arrangements can offer a possibility to on one hand to rehearse future conditions, and on the other hand to experiment in public with and through the digital heritage artefacts.Presenting new creations in public -in situ at the event or online through various technology platforms -also opened-up the heritage knowledge production process to a dialogue, for evaluation and assessment.
There are many challenges for HCI in supporting and facilitating open creative reuse of digital cultural heritage.We concentrated on strategic interventions in the form of experimental events and a prototype, together with resources in the public domain, in one hand to make experimentation easier to control, and on the other hand, to advocate for freely accessible culture and knowledge, however that created also constrains for participating authors and practitioners.For example, even though Europeana provides access to 10s of millions digitized objects available for legal creative reuse, finding high-resolution and suitable content was still found difficult and time-consuming.This hopefully becomes easier as filtering content through various technical and IP related attributes advances.Other examples are pointing to new future heritage practices that are not currently well accommodated by infrastructures for digital heritage.Accessing and appropriating open digital heritage for creative reuse is not only an issue of technical barriers, it becomes also a question of finding more multidimensional and fluid understandings of authorship that question the idea stemming from copyright law.In seek for alternatives, people will configure fluid forms of participation and new modes of creation that rely also on social agreements mediated by technology platforms and open knowledge resources online.
Our experiences also point out to a lack of acknowledgment of various forms of creative reuse in infrastructural development for digital cultural heritage.In most cases individuals engaged in production of heritage knowledge make so called micro-contributions, (e.g., provide feedback to APIs, test technology prototypes, annotate, tag or enrich digital artefacts, write strings of code and so forth) In doing so they are building upon the work of previous authors.These outcomes are partial, yet sometimes important contributions for the infrastructural development.However, they are not often recognized and utilized by official institutions with centralized expertise.
Sharing creative practices and experiences available online, not only open the heritage knowledge production for wider participation but can enable others to learn new skills and perhaps reuse some of the elements produced.When some of the authors documented their creative process step-by-step with images and videos online for public; this guidance supports not only novel heritage knowledge production linked to original heritage artefacts; it also built resources about the practice of creative reuse that is an essential part of a living heritage and future heritage.Collectively produced and accumulated heritage knowledge (e.g., documentation of good practices, standards, tools) acts as a resource for individuals and institutions alike through online platforms (see also Botero and Saad-Sulonen 2018).These pooled resources then can become sites for varying participatory heritage knowledge activities useful for both professionals and non-professionals.Although, we noticed that if these resources are not interwoven with existing practices or linked to original, and are not updated regularly by its users, they lose their nature of being common knowledge resources.Open and common resources can frame and organize the creative re-use activities, and can enable the emergence of novel cultural heritage practices and future heritage.
Creating access to and opening heritage and its institutional practices is a complex issue.Even more as the notions of authorship, ownership, access and open have various dimensions in scholarly discussions and in practitioners accounts (Anderson et

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1. (left) Free?A laser cut light-and-shadow installation by Neea Laakso is displayed at Mix it up!exhibition SMK side-by side the original work of C.W. Eckersberg's 'Bella and Hanna.The Eldest Daughters of M.L. Nathanson' (1820) that provided components for her installation.(right) details of the laser cuts (Photo credit: Neea Laakso).

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. Sample of the documentation of "As Light Goes by" an electromechanical installation by Kati Hyypää at display in the Mix it Up!Exhibition.The work was inspired by Vilhelm Hammershøi's painting "Interior in Strandgade, Sunlight on the Floor" (1901).(Photo credit: Kati Hyyppä, CC BY)

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3. (left) A group of creative professionals uses Culture Cam to explore the public domain content of Europeana.(right) A pattern is shown to Culture Cam webcam, the visual search result provides a selection of similar items in the public domain (Photo credit: the Europeana Creative project) al 2013, Boyle 2008, Estermann et al 2015, Hyde 2010).In the past decade there has been an increased interest in opening collections of digital cultural heritage.There are more examples of cultural institutions making a statement and releasing their holdings with a view to support learning and creativity for more people.However, what is an open collection and what kind of value it offers to society is far from clear, also in our experiments.Nonetheless the need for supporting various actors to work towards more shared arrangements where digital cultural heritage knowledge production could be more collectively maintained, enriched and cared for, continue to exist.