When a cultural institution uploads its collection to the internet, it performs a gesture that appears to be one of justice: that which previously required travel, payment, and prior knowledge of its existence is now available to anyone with a single click. The promise is compelling and frequently repeated—that digital media democratises, dismantles barriers, and renders culture accessible to all. I work within the digital sphere and believe in much of that promise. However, it warrants closer examination, as the data reveals a narrative less seamless than one might desire.
The most disquieting study I have encountered on this subject analysed cultural participation in the United Kingdom over the course of a decade. Its conclusion dismantles facile optimism: digital media do indeed attract new audiences, yet inequality persists—and, in museums and galleries, the disparity between advantaged and disadvantaged audiences proved even greater in online access than in physical visits. This should be read with care, for it is counterintuitive: the screen, which promised to equalise, in this instance created further division. Those who already possessed the habit, cultural capital, and digital competencies capitalised on the online offering; those who did not remained just as excluded, if not more so. Technical access was expanded for all; the capacity to appropriate it was not.
This possesses its own logic, upon reflection. Placing content on the internet is not equivalent to rendering it accessible. A digitised archive continues to require knowledge of its existence, the ability to search for it, an understanding of its language, prior interest, and the equipment and connection necessary to enjoy it. The symbolic barrier to which I refer in other texts does not remain at the threshold of the physical museum: it travels intact to the screen, and is at times exacerbated, as the digital realm lacks even the human accompaniment that might have provided a bridge within the gallery.
Furthermore, there is a new layer, inherent to the digital, which warrants identification: the algorithm. Increasingly, what we encounter is not entirely of our own choosing; it is proposed by a recommendation system that determines what becomes visible and what remains obscured. This has been well-documented in music. An analysis of consumption on Spotify found that listening guided by algorithmic recommendation is associated with reduced diversity: the system is effective at providing more of what one already enjoys, and for that very reason, it tends to narrow one's scope. Another study concerning Deezer nuanced the concept of the filter bubble—the algorithm may introduce novelty, even more so than that which one seeks independently—but it is a confined novelty, proximate to the familiar, devoid of significant departures. Recommendation does not entirely imprison, yet it rarely leads one far afield.
Applied to culture, this presents a serious challenge for anyone engaged in mediation. For centuries, mediation involved constructing a bridge towards the unknown: the librarian who introduced an author, the programmer who took risks, the teacher who propelled one beyond one's established tastes. Algorithmic recommendation largely achieves the opposite: it returns to you, refined, what you already were. Comfortable, certainly; yet culture that merely confirms is not that which reorganises anything, and that which reorganises nothing can scarcely broaden anyone. If we permit access to culture to be governed by systems designed to maximise retention and clicks, we shall witness increased consumption and diminished discovery.
None of this constitutes a plea against the digital, and it would be foolish for it to be so, coming from one who works within the field. The digital has enabled forms of access, archiving, and encounter that did not previously exist, and to abandon it would be to surrender that territory to those who manage it less effectively. The point is otherwise: that digitisation is not, in itself, democratisation. That uploading a collection to the network or opening a profile does not fulfil the promise of access if it is not accompanied by genuine mediation—by someone who continues to construct bridges, even within the screen. Digital infrastructure, like any infrastructure, is not neutral: it favours certain outcomes and hinders others, and determining which is a responsibility, not an automatic effect of technology.
And therein lies the cause for hope, which is not insignificant. Precisely because the screen does not democratise in isolation, the human labour of mediation becomes decisive once more, perhaps more so than ever. An algorithm optimises; a person can surprise. The task of those who mediate in the digital realm is not to compete with the machine in providing each individual with more of their own preferences, but to perform what the machine cannot: to open doors towards that which no one had requested, to construct the unexpected bridge, to defend discovery against convenience. Technology distributes access; the meaning of that access remains ours to define. And that, far from being superfluous, is the only element that can ensure the promise of the screen is, one day, truly fulfilled.
On open conversation
This text concludes my sub-series Art and Society, and carries its underlying theme into the digital realm: what culture promises socially and what it truly delivers; here, why digitisation is not, in itself, democratisation. Should anyone wish to intervene from the fields of platform studies, digital culture, or online cultural mediation, the notebook remains open.
Sources
Mihelj, Sabina, Adrian Leguina and John Downey. “Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity and the digital divide”. New Media & Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1465-1485.
Anderson, Ashton, Lucas Maystre, Rishabh Mehrotra, Ian Anderson and Mounia Lalmas. “Algorithmic Effects on the Diversity of Consumption on Spotify”. Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020.
Shakespeare, Dougal, Victor Chareyron and Camille Roth. “Reframing the filter bubble through diverse scale effects in online music consumption”. Scientific Reports 15 (2025): art. 4071.
Poell, Thomas, David Nieborg and José van Dijck. “Platformisation”. Internet Policy Review 8, no. 4 (2019).