Clearly, if you have read any of these articles I have written, you know that I have a deep interest in technology; however, Opus does not aspire to Venn diagram collections and tech. Simply put, I think that in the field of collections stewardship, our use of and level of technological innovation goes lacking and, as such, is an area in which we should look to avidly explore and exploit since we interact with it constantly through our computers, phones, and tablets. It is the voice with which we speak to the future about our knowledge of the past and present as well as the oil in the engine that efficiently documents that knowledge.
With that declaration, I want to investigate this hotly discussed Web 3.0 or “web3” buzzword that taunts me like a fly at a picnic. I will offer my quick take about this burgeoning phenomena like nachos at super bowl party: half-baked and over sensationalized. The sensation originates from the promise of a decentralized internet that claims to eliminate the ad-based, data-mining surveillance that consolidates authority into a handful of companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) and characterizes our current “web2” existence.
The Basics: What is Web 3.0?
This article in Forbes provides a decent, approachable description of these three generations of the internet and outlines the promise of web3.
In sum, Web 3.0 will bring us a fairer internet by enabling the individual to be a sovereign. True sovereignty implies owning and being able to control who profits from one’s time and information.
Another article to orient you on the concept more evenly balances the promise with the potential pitfalls.
Chances are at some point, blockchain, NFT, crypto, and even metaverse-adjacent features will slowly make their way into the browsers, apps, and devices we use every day. When that happens, we’ll be firmly in the “Web3” era, and hopefully have more freedom, anonymity, and agency over our lives online than we do today—but exactly how much more remains to be seen.
Significance
Our databases that contain the vast troves of knowledge about the cultural heritage we steward analog the difference between web2 and web3. When we catalog an object and upload our knowledge of an object to a database, we mostly aggregate and copy information (literally, ad nauseum for me this week) that already exists about an object and store it with one, centralized company. Thus, that company gains a certain amount of power over our data based on its size.
Imagine, however, that instead of copying an object’s date, provenance, author, dimensions, etc. into an object record and essentially “giving” it to a database company when you accession it into your collection, you actually tap into the broader network of the information that already exists. In other words, if you bought the object from an auction house, your database can, via blockchain, pull that data from them instead of making a copy that you store. Oh, and we know you own that data because of….drum roll…. NFTs. In other words, instead of centralizing the data about your collection in one spot and then centralizing multiple collections in a single database company and their server, every company, collection, gallery, user etc. becomes a “server” providing a bit of the information. The blockchain provides safe access to this information. (You do not have to understand how blockchain works to grasp what it can help you do. Besides, I cannot really explain the technical side.) Take this scenario and apply it to all business, to communication, to your smart refrigerator, to life. Then you create a web3 world.
Another, more speculative part conceives of the metaverse, or a shared digital/virtual universe. Once you blockchain your collection database you now have the ability to tap into and feed a global network of cultural heritage objects. Suddenly, every museum [that participates] creates virtual accessibility and shared information from their own institution. A single, global museum instead of the estimated 55,000 museums in the world. This is the aspiration anyway.
This means that we will not only have access to view everything but also to care for everything. Perhaps the best conservator for a certain object lives in another country. Can they assist you via the metaverse? In that ecosystem, they have access to not only the technical information you provide them but also everything else related provided by others. Or, either in addition to or exclusive of a human conservator, in the metaverse and/or web3 artificial intelligence will analyze the collected, shared data of how similar objects were treated previously and provide you/them with treatment options as opposed to a single person making a singular determination, albeit based on research and analysis. In other words, AI-based analysis of a shared network might provide data like “65% of people who treat dinosaur bones of a similar age and condition in this way and with these results.” This speculation on my part is likely primitive as well.
Before we balk at the seeming privacy invasion or decide that we would not want to share our data, we must first acknowledge how forthcoming we already are with our collections data. We openly share condition reports and transportation data with other institutions and companies or allow them access to our collections so they can create their own proprietary data about our collections. They condition report an object before they pack it. The report has more of the shared technical information in addition to photos they take. I could go on but will persist with the fact that many museums at least are public institutions and, as such, the public has some claim to the information they maintain. Private entities might have or develop other incentives to share. TBD.
For now, I find decentralization a compelling concept and seek to understand it better in order to help define its role in collection preservation as opposed to having it decided for me by those outside of the field – a.k.a. web 2.0.
