Voices of Makers: Mapping a new shared cultural space

Voices of Makers: Mapping a new shared cultural space


quote"More and more cultural institutions and creators are initiating a digital transformation. To do this successfully, an institution also needs an environment that encourages and advances this fundamentally different way of working. " — Maaike Verberk, director DEN.

DEN is the Dutch driving force of digital transformation in the cultural sector. For some time, the organisation has been researching what is needed to enable the digital transition for all players in the field. In doing so, they also like to take input from artists, designers and programmers, preferably creators who regularly find themselves in digital spaces. Voices of Makers is a programme of four mapping sessions that MU Hybrid Art House and The Hmm are conducting in the coming months on behalf of DEN with the help of visual storyteller and mapping designer Rogier Klomp. During the four sessions, each with a specific theme, reflectionwe will invite makers to think with us about an interactive public space for hybrid culture and draw maps of what is needed.

Table of Contents

Accessibility and Inclusion


The particiants, each hailing from diverse backgrounds in creative and design fields, share an interest for innovation and pushing boundaries. Whether exploring digital art, technology-driven design, or speculative futures, they collectively strive to break new ground. Additionally, a commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration underscores their ethos, as many bridge art with technology, anthropology with design, or AI with creative practice.

Florian: artist and designer within digital culture - moderation, hosting, designing, and so on

Victor: creative studio, design tech

Jonas: experience design studio in rotterdam - “Phygital Interfaces” - working with public institutions

Sand: designer, video, 4D, game design

Soyun: Rgbdog Studio, artist and designer

Quon: creative technologist and researcher, UvA, AI

Nadia: AIxDesign, global community on critical AI practices

Karl: digital designer, working with H&D

Yu: artist/designer

Bianca: 3D landscapes, speculate futures, designer and artist

Anania: indian/eindhoven based artist and designer

Alice: antropology

Lea: designer of hybrid spaces

Nika: visual and performance designer and artist

Martijn: artist, early computer art

The session was orchestrated and conceptualized by Angelique from Affect Lab, along with Lilian, Carolina, and Margot from The Hmm, joined by Harm from MU, and Rogier facilitating mappings. Alicia, a heritage professional, delivered a compelling presentation during the event.

After the presentation round, Lilian introduces the session and does a quick recap of last session about Utopia and Dystopia.


Alicia Hoorst

As a heritage professional with extensive experience in museums and cultural/heritage institutions, Alicia reflects on the accessibilityimportance of making collective heritage accessible, drawing from examples like the Van Gogh Museum, where accessibility means accessibilityacknowledging the shared memory of Dutch people and owning a collective heritage.

Alicia introduces a critical definition of “disabilities,” emphasizing the quoteimpact of design on diverse needs, considering factors such as the increasing numbers of people with disabilities and age-related disabilities, which can be permanent, temporary, or situational. Accessibility entails accessibilitybreaking the cycle of inaccessibility by making information, activities, and environments sensible, meaningful, and usable. It involves solutionincluding people with disabilities in every step of the process, fostering independence, and solutiontaking responsibility rather than assuming what it's like to have a disability. quoteDesign should cater to specific needs.

An example of accessibility in museums is inclusionthe use of AI to provide image descriptions, allowing visually impaired individuals to access collection objects efficiently at the Rijksmuseum. However, challengeAI implementation requires continual refinement, may not always consider intersectional perspectives, and can reflect biases inherent in the predominantly white data it is trained on, influenced by human decisions. Conversely, the Van Gogh multimedia tour presents challenges with its challengedifficult interface and heavy touch screen, indicating a need for solutionmore thoughtful testing and design considerations. Meanwhile, the Van Abbe Museum demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and accessibility by implementing inclusionfuture-focused solutions, such as a downstairs monitor for visitors unable to use stairs.


During the Q&A session, Karl discussed his approach to managing budgets creatively, highlighting the challenge of challengeknowledge retention within specific individuals rather than integrating it into the overall working process. Regarding the concept of delinking collections, Alicia who is partially sighted, underscores the challenge of accessibilitytranslating colors into textures, a process that can vary significantly based on the specific hues involved.

Jonas inquired about effective methods for engaging with the disability community during research and conducting initiatives. One approach is to solutiondirectly communicate with individuals within the disability community, either through challengepersonal interactions or by solutionfollowing disabled individuals online to gain insights into their experiences and perspectives. solutionBuilding networks within established disability organizations andsolutionattending events tailored for accessibility, such as museum evenings designed for those with light sensitivity, can also facilitate meaningful connections and collaborations with the disability community.

Leah asked Alicia, “questionWhere have you felt most and least cared for in terms of accessibility?” Alicia shared her experiences, noting that opinionshe felt least accommodated at the Eye Museum initially, but later was photographed and shown. On the other hand, opinionAlicia felt most accommodated at the ZieZo Beurs conference. She argues that quotethe concept of being accommodating is also reflected in one's mindset.


The group mapping and discussing

Accessibility needs

During our session, we reviewed several examples of accessibility considerations within different platforms. First, we examined NPO Start, focusing on features like the “tab” feature, language choices, and the overall framework of web development aimed at accessibility. Specific features discussed included a inclusioncontrast toggle for quiet or dark modes to accommodate users with color blindness and accessibilitylanguage adjustments to avoid using buzzwords (e.g., plus, start, max) that may be unclear to users. Additionally, we looked at issues with medium migration or integration, particularly in challengecombining television with website content, which led to an unclear identity and an overwhelming sense of clutter on the platform’s design choices. Next, we analyzed LI-MA, noting that itsinteresting-practiceorganization by last name alphabetically required users to know precisely what they were searching for, rather than allowing for serendipitous discovery. We also discussed the platformsneed for improved image descriptions to make images more informative rather than merely decorative. These examples highlighted the accessibilityimportance of thoughtful design choices and user-centered approaches in creating accessible digital experiences.

Collective mapping

Mapping together various considerations for inclusive design involves a holistic approach encompassing language use, navigation options catering to diverse preferences (e.g., search bars vs. tab and menus), considerations for accessibilitylow data accessibility, and inclusionbreaking down disciplinary boundaries to foster a more open platform. The discussion extends to the balance between anonymous participation and personalized features, exploring hybridity beyond traditional digital frameworks, and addressing diverse accessibility needs, including challengefinancial and cognitive aspects. The financial and cognitive aspects of design can sometimes pose challenges. For example, while using low-resolution images to cater to users with slower internet connections is beneficial for financial accessibility, it can inadvertently exclude visually impaired individuals who rely on clearer, more detailed images for accessibility purposes. An illustrative example is Martijn’s anecdote about his elderly mother navigating various types of media, highlighting the challenges posed by cognitive accessibility issues. This highlights the need to solutioncarefully balance different accessibility needs and find inclusive solutions that benefit a diverse range of users.

The conversation prompts ideas on platformsadaptable platforms that can solutioncustomize content based on individual needs without being overly restrictive like AI-driven solutions that can sometimes stereotype specific needs. Ultimately, the goal is to enhance user experience and foster inclusivity, drawing inspiration from platforms like platformsHet Hem that prioritize user customization and responsive design.

Additionally, quotewe emphasize the need for environmentally conscious design and advocate for government responsibility in providing equitable access, both physically and digitally.


Gathering thoughts

After this engaging first part of the session, we had lunch and resumed with the screening of the short film “Unforgetting as Caring” by MELT. This video work creatively reconstructs archival artifacts from disability and trans technoscience histories using everyday materials. It explores the complexities of challengereaching back in time to rediscover resonant experiences and expressions, some of which may be challenging to confront.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcWKcOHgVKU

Mapping in small groups

We conducted an ethical solar system mapping session in small groups.



Group maps hanging up while we discussed

Group 1

In the group discussion led by Alice, participants delved into the fundamental value of care within digital spaces. They questioned questionhow we can best demonstrate care and who requires the most attention in specific contexts. Their focus centered on advocating for the underrepresented by identifying and addressing questionwhat is missing in the digital realm. They debated the necessity of solutioncreating shared spaces to fill these gaps rather than seeking to solve every issue with a single massive platform.

Group 2

Martijn’s group concentrated on identifying and addressing wayfinding and cognitive needs within digital platforms. They recognized that individuals visiting such platforms often have platformsspecific goals in mind, underscoring the reflectionimportance of designing public technology with a user-centric approach. This discussion underscored theaccessibilitysignificance of transparency in translating diverse content into accessible media, emphasizing the need tochallengeset boundaries and recognize our limitations. The group highlighted examples of successful integration of physical and digital spaces, drawing on inclusioncultural spaces in Belgium where a tread goes through the space as illustrative case studies.

Group 3

Jonas’s group explored accessibilityenhancing accessibility through language, emphasizing the role of poetry and user-friendly design in artistic expression. They discussed the challenges posed by challengecomplex and personalized artistic practices(i.e., very personal, constructed and hard to follow), advocating for solutiondifferent entry points and viewing language as a versatile tool for inclusivity. The conversation highlighted the need to platformsbalance simplicity and complexity, embracing plurality and enabling users to switch between modes seamlessly. The group questioned questionwho should take the lead in implementing these approaches.

Group 4

Victor and Florian’s group tackled cognitive accessibility and language considerations, stressing the importance of platformsensuring that digital spaces do not replace physical ones (and the other way around). They drew inspiration from interesting-practiceopen-source technologies and the strong communities backing them. The discussion raised questions about the questiongovernment's role in these initiatives and cautioned opinionagainst reinventing the wheel, pointing to research and examples like the backlash against certain technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic such as the app dedicated to the COVID pass. They agreed on the opinionimportance of equitable compensation for those involved in research and development efforts.

Between Utopia and Dystopia


At 10:00, Angelique initiated the mapping session on the Utopia and Dystopia of the Voices of Makers. She began with an introduction to the day’s agenda, offering insights from Hmm and Rogier. Subsequently, all participants were introduced, revealing a collective interest in the intersections of the body and digital/virtual spaces.

Between 10:30 and 11:30, Maaike, a former business manager at STRP and ITA, introduced the project. She highlighted DEN’s collaboration primarily with traditional cultural organizations, emphasizing its role in driving digital transformation. Unlike focusing solely on creativity, DEN facilitates all elements essential for creativity to thrive. Maaike expressed curiosity about the needs of makers and encouraged participants to share their thoughts.

Maaike Verberk, DEN

Maaike underscored that digital transformation is a policy priority in the Netherlands, prompting the question of the urgency behind such transformation. One point she emphasized was the reflectionabundance of digital artworks not exhibited in museums and whether these should be collected. There’s a noticeable shift in audience behavior, especially among interesting-practiceyounger demographics, who increasingly prefer digital accessibility and other cultural references. A prime example is Travis Scott's virtual concert in Fortnite. Even prior to the Covid pandemic, interesting-practicefewer people were visiting cultural organizations like theaters. Instead, popular forms of entertainment such as live music and podcasts have garnered significant popularity. Furthermore, Maaike highlighted the role of AI in shaping this shift in art creation and consumption, citing examples such as the writers’ strike in the US and corresponding legal changes.

Maaike provided various examples highlighting the transition toward digital practices. Notably, in the art domain, the interesting-practicesurge of immersive experiences stands out. These experiences have begun to establish themselves as integral components of neighborhoods, reminiscent of the role once held by libraries. Additionally, amateur makers now find a stage online, where they not only showcase their work but also engage in self-education. Platforms like TikTok have also contributed significantly to music discovery.

With the implementation of the European Accessibility Act in 2025, accessibility measures have been greatly emphasized. As part of this, utopiafeatures like subtitles on AR goggles have become increasingly common, ensuring inclusivity for all users. In the modern era, the importance of such legislation is evident, as digital integration has become an integral part of our society, poised to endure as a permanent fixture. Young individuals are growing up within this digital landscape, wherein new opportunities for value creation emerge for cultural institutions. DEN advocates for the establishment of a red threadshared digital space to facilitate this evolution. Now, Generation Z anticipates personalized interactions across diverse channels, valuing traits such as individuality, integrity, trust, and transparency. They actively seek out conversations and engagements that pique their interests. Meanwhile, Generation Alpha is expected to witness significant impacts from educational technology (edutech). interesting-practiceRaised with screens serving various roles like pacifiers and entertainment, they are likely to embrace gamified educational experiences as a natural progression. These observations prompt the question: questionDoes Generation Z have a disruptive relationship with more traditional forms of culture

red threadDigital transformation represents a fundamental shift in customer interaction and experiences, value propositions, business models, operational processes, and the management and utilization of information (data). It permeates every aspect of an organization, yet it can be implemented gradually, step by step.

DEN focus model

Cultural organizations typically undertake digital projects, often focusing on a single aspect of the DEN focus model. For instance, Playgrounds initially emerged in the “value” quadrant. platformsOriginating in the physical realm with 4,000 participants, it transitioned to an online platform, attracting 40,000 participants from 42 countries. This progression began in the “creating value” quadrant and extended to other quadrants such as process, experience, and creation.


When Lilian questionquestionned about the challenges faced by non-digital organizations, Maaike shed light on several significant issues. She first pointed out the complexities surrounding author rights. Moreover, she emphasized the platformsdifficulty in pinpointing the requisite skills for digital endeavors, often stemming from a lack of clear online objectives. Additionally, Maaike noted a prevailing conservatism in these organizations’ approach to cultural production, where quotetraditional content-driven methods often take precedence over more innovative approaches. quoteThere is a desire for transformation, particularly from the audience perspective. Merely focusing on marketing adaptations falls short of true innovation.

When H questioninquired about a culture shift, Maaike firmly confirmed its existence. Regarding venue adaptation, there’s an assumption that the new generation effortlessly navigates between digital and physical realms. Failure to embrace this digital shift could result in overlooking an entire generation. interesting-practiceIn the Netherlands, there's a slightly lesser emphasis on commercial and big-tech influences, with funds available for critical, smaller-scale initiatives. However, while funding opens doors for new ventures, it can also hinder traditional institutions from innovating, as they’re often funded based on established practices.

Bert van Loon

Bert van Loon, with a background in publishing, asserted during his introduction that quoteinnovation primarily stems from individual efforts. He took as an example the attic room inventors.

During Bert’s presentation, the central query revolved around questiondefining the nature of a collective, interactive digital space. He posed questions regarding its design and formation: questionshould it be carefully constructed or allowed to organically evolve? Bert emphasized the necessity for traditional organizations to transition into this new digital realm. Conversely, platformsfor the makers present, digital is their natural habitat—a native environment where creativity flourishes effortlessly. Bert highlighted the tendency for interesting-practiceeach cultural institution to develop its own digital platform, leading to fragmentation. While this diversity fosters learning, he questioned whether reflectionresources could be better shared for the benefit of the broader audience. He drew parallels to a shared railway system, suggesting that opinionfragmentation might not be advantageous for the cultural sector or the public at large.

The question of what the future audience will resemble surfaced, prompting insights derived from project research focusing on the audience of tomorrow. Examining digital profiles and behaviors, key findings emerged:

  1. While full digital equivalents of traditional cultural experiences have yet to gain widespread acceptance among audiences, the potential for engagement with online cultural content offerings remains vast.
  2. platformsPersonalized online experiences hold unique value, considering that theater is traditionally a shared experience where sharing plays a pivotal role.
  3. There exists a platformssignificant opportunity for complementary content, which may not be the first consideration but adds substantial value to the overall experience.
  4. From the perspective of customers, platformsconvenience and accessibility are paramount. Just as in a traditional marketplace where one can find all necessities in one location, red threadthe aggregation of offerings in one place is appreciated in the digital realm. In examining market dynamics, it becomes apparent that interesting-practicepromotional platforms aggregating content tend to focus on a broad spectrum of leisure activities, rather than exclusively on cultural endeavors. Consequently, there arises a quoteneed to reassess our understanding of what constitutes culture within this evolving digital context. Furthermore, the landscape is characterized by continual evolution in platforms and technologies, presenting both challenges and opportunities. Notably, interesting-practiceestablished cultural institutions are increasingly carving out their own digital spaces, prompting considerations about their collective impact on the cultural sector as a whole. Meanwhile, channels for the distribution of cultural content vary widely, platformsspanning from broad and commercially driven platforms to niche and specialized channels.

From the perspective of makers,quotethey are actively engaged in navigating these market dynamics, collaborating with initiatives like Playgrounds. Their forthcoming insights, expectations, desires, and needs are anticipated, reflecting their experiences and endeavors within this ever-evolving digital landscape.

DEN introduction

The creation of a shared space prompts several pivotal questions:

  1. questionIs there a desire for a collaborative space where makers can collectively create? 1. Is there value in establishing a space for joint fundraising efforts or for exchanging perspectives on copyrights and intellectual property? 1. What methods are employed to interact with your audience, and is there an interest in sharing audiences? 1. What does "togetherness" entail, and do makers recognize its value? Is it perceived as a structural component or as an opportunity for collaboration? In addition, digital native creators are asked to consider reflectionwhether they view themselves as catalysts for change within the broader cultural sector, and if so, to articulate the ways in which they envision bringing about transformation.


After the morning introductions, the participants took a break until the question brainstorming session, which commenced at 11:45 and concluded at 13:00.

How do makers think of a shared digital space?

This overarching question leads to several subquestions, prompting participants to reflect on their wishes and needs, as well as explore potential dystopian and utopian scenarios.

Lilan provided examples of red threadshared spaces, such as Oh yay (from IDFA Doclab), HMM's Clean Core initiative, an open calendar project (now defunct), and a WhatsApp project (marred by privacy concerns).

When discussing the type of collective in question, B suggests it opinioncould be undefined, possibly focusing on the Dutch language space. H, on the other hand, sees it as opinioninvolving sharing and collaborative work in various capacities. R proposes a scenario wherein opinionmultiple cultural organizations share a collective space to showcase their work and share audiences. A suggests platformsusing the term "shared" instead of "collective". M agrees, adding that opinionaudiences themselves can be considered as creatives in this shared space.

During the discussion, K questioned reflectionwhether collectivity is solely expressed online or if it can also extend to physical spaces. Other participants argued that while opinionindividuals may come together for a common goal, it doesn't necessarily constitute a collective. M emphasized the necessity of collaboration, citing the sharing of knowledge about audiences as an example. Additionally, it was noted that it’s dystopiachallenging to attract "narrow" culture users to explore new domains or worlds. While this may be difficult in physical spaces, the dynamic may differ in the digital realm.

K expresses belief in the reciprocal structure discussed by Maaike, which involves transferring between different spaces. Maaike emphasizes that platformstraditional organizations transitioning to digital platforms require collaboration with others. A adds that quotethere must be an exchange between the real and virtual realms, advocating for a hybrid approach.

G raises the question: questionCan we effectively market something digital that isn't inherently digital? In response, M suggests that the opiniondigital realm comprises 10% technical elements and 90% interpersonal dynamics.


The group brainstorming together.

In the discussion, the reflectionhierarchy between traditional and 'infinite' digital culture was explored alongside the potential benefits. A suggested the opinionimportance of involving programmers and directors from traditional institutes to showcase the possibilities of digital culture, while M emphasized the opinionurgency of showcasing the new generation of makers and their role in driving transformation. H questioned reflectionwhether an opportunistic approach could be effective, to which M affirmed the need for a clear vision and inspiration for organizations. H further inquired about the reflectionbest method to change a director's perspective, with M noting the importance of demonstrating added value and considering associated costs. A proposed opinionframing digital as inherently physical to sway minds, while Angelique advocated for critical examination of existing digital practices.

The brainstorming session on this question spurred the need to delve into additional inquiries, particularly regarding the reflectionpotential integration of existing programs and strategies, as well as reflectionmethods for attracting audiences to digital collections in compelling ways.


Utopia/Dystopia map

The concept of ‘different layers’ entails engaging with diverse experiences. interesting-practiceFor instance, in Japan, not all activities occur at street level, prompting participants to think beyond architectural references.


Utopia and Dystopia map

Different POV

K highlighted opinionanonymity as a challenge, acknowledging that while anonymity may not always be an optimistic act, he values the concept itself differently as a consumer and a maker. quoteMakers want to be known.

N highlighted the availability of different modes and observed the prevalence of dystopian elements, dystopiaciting examples such as artist Instagrams or portfolio websites. She expressed her perspective that the utopian aspect of are.na isn’t derived from its design, arguing that the design itself isn’t particularly remarkable. Instead, she attributed the appeal of are.na to the creative activities people engage in on the platform. However, she acknowledged that the utopiaplatform does indeed stimulate makers' creativity. Meanwhile, P stressed the platformssignificance of institutions fostering open dialogue and cultivating healthy structures for discussion and feedback.

K expressed concerns regarding the fleeting nature of trendy platforms and pondered reflectionwhether new structures or content are necessary to maintain user interest, noting the platformsneed for continuous new experiences. In response, R metaphorically metaphorquestioned if a new train track is required for every new train, sparking a discussion about the significance of organizational frameworks. G reflected on this discussion by proposing an intriguing concept where interactions within a system, similar to how the color of a train changes based on what’s communicated through a microphone, could mutually influence one another. This idea leads to considering reflectionhow makers could showcase their work within such a system. H contributed to the debate by extending the train track metaphor, noting that the underlying technology has remained largely unchanged for a significant period. This underscores the importance of platformsconsidering foundational elements and the influence of commercial foundations on the resulting products, emphasizing that every element is built upon the initial idea.

Audience map

Audience map

The map delves into the needs of the audience, revealing similar answers across different perspectives and uncovering unexpected insights. It highlights a platformspressing need for equality that encompasses older generations. Participants engaged in reflection on the complexities of diversity, expressing a readiness to platformsremove curators and institutions from the process of shaping artistic narratives. They questioned questionhow these dynamics translate to social media platforms, acknowledging the challenges of authenticity within these spaces, where the dystopiaplatform itself often dictates interactions and messages.

M introduced the notion of negotiation in physical spaces, highlighting the dopinionecisions artists must make regarding where and how to display their work (e.g., white cube, experimental space, festival, cave). She suggested that replicating this negotiation process online could be beneficial. Nevertheless, H expressed contrasting views, noting that M’s negotiation process requires intermediaries, whereas opiniononline environments aim for a flat, diverse landscape where everyone acts as their own curator. He questioned questionhow this shift impacts the negotiation process valued by M. This conversation led to a thought-provoking question: questionwhat is the significance of touch in the mind of a cursor?

More Brainstorm

Around 14:00, participants were asked to delve deeper into brainstorming sessions concerning an imagined space. They explored questions such as: questionWhat common grounds could we think or imagine for this shared platform? Additionally, they pondered on the types of metaphors that could be useful to conceptualize this shared platform.

One participant shared a utopian vision of the utopiapost office space in Amsterdam, citing it as a prime example of a hybrid space.

G emphasized the concept of interesting-practicegatherings where individuals bring their own chairs, illustrating a sense of community and participation beyond traditional structures. This prompted a discussion on reflectionwhether audiences are evolving into makers themselves, to which G responded affirmatively, noting a definite shift towards greater participation. The conversation challenged conventional notions of audience roles, suggesting that certain metaphors necessitate a more active and participatory role from the audience, thereby reshaping traditional dynamics.

G emphasized the importance of utopiausing digital platforms not only to showcase work to new audiences but also as tools for personal development and learning from others across different disciplines. This approach, she suggested, implies a transformation for both individuals and institutions towards a more platformsinclusive and participatory digital landscape resembling a digital Gesamtkunstwerk. She is willing to opinionengage on the long term with people from different backgrounds, thus functioning akin to an institution. However, she acknowledged the dystopiachallenge of building and maintaining long-term engagement with audiences, particularly from a designer's perspective.

K emphasized the importance of platformsmaintaining a manageable scale to facilitate interaction among makers within digital spaces, viewing them as fertile ground for creativity. Angelique highlighted the platformsneed for platforms to adapt and respond to audience interactions dynamically, offering varying experiences based on user activity. H underscored the significance of platformsmaintenance in digital applications, often overlooked in their development.

Ultimately, Angelique emphasized the platformsdual role of digital platforms as public-facing examples for audiences and as platforms for makers, highlighting the importance of red threadcreating spaces that foster interaction and engagement for both parties.


Participants highlighted several positive aspects, including the effective mapping out of ideas in physical spaces, the smooth flow of discussions, and the excellent structure of the brainstorming steps. However, a negative aspect noted was the length of the opening keynotes.

Digital Space is...


Angelique welcomes participants and sets the schedule for the day. For this final session, makers are meeting at The Grey Space in the Middle in The Hague, a research space for residencies, music, parties, and supporting smaller artists by providing stages and opportunities. The Grey Space is known for its “non-disciplinary” and cross-disciplinary approach.


To refresh the makers, Rogier walks through the maps created during the last sessions, covering metaphors, examples, common grounds, values, accessibility, care rider, and more. He invites participants to review the maps, emphasizing the importance of having questions for DEN and fostering a collaborative environment. Each group will then present their work, and we will conclude with a plenary discussion, just like last time, ending with thoughts on how to continue and making a plan to turn our sessions into a manifesto/mind map.

In the second session, the discussion centered around developing a model that adheres to specific principles, translating these principles into the physical space itself, and creating a care rider map reflecting the role of the makers in this project and future spaces. Key themes that emerged included funding, engagement, and an open-source philosophy. Participants expressed concerns about becoming overly dependent on algorithms.

In the third session, participants’ fears, dreams, and key themes were explored through various scenarios focusing on ethics, core values, collectiveness (reflecting on engagement), and a multimodal platform (emphasizing accessibility). Participants were divided into diverse groups to tackle each scenario. One group reflected on how to implement a code of values in technology, while another group examined a scenario through the metaphor of “bringing a chair to the public space.” The OSET group concentrated on providing assistance to makers and organizations with infrastructural issues and questions. Another group envisioned a maker cafe where people could present their projects and connect, fostering meet-ups and a local dynamic similar to the hybrid events of The Hmm. The multimodal group aimed to facilitate connections among makers in a playful, professional manner, akin to a professional Tinder for makers. Finally, the hybrid scenario explored ways to blend digital and physical interactions, highlighting the need for a physical space where makers can meet and collaborate.

Today is more of a hands-on session. We recap all previous sessions and bring together all the elements in this fourth session. We aim to investigate how DEN approaches digital culture by stepping back from the specific scenarios to question the overarching assignment. It appears that DEN may hold outdated views of makers and might not fully consider the cultural aspects. Participants will first contemplate what they believe is important to share with DEN, identifying key themes. They will then be divided into groups based on these themes to reflect on and summarize their thoughts, ultimately coming to well-informed conclusions.

During the feedback session, participants noted some areas for improvement. They indicated that there were reflectioninconsistencies in the terminology used on each poster, raising questions about their interrelation. Rogier answered that there was a consensus that today’s activities would clarify these issues, acknowledging that they were working on the same topic from different perspectives. Moreover, participants found it challenging to challengeapply their ideas due to the multiple layers involved, leading to extensive questioning. They highlighted the importance of sharing with care and ensuring that the themes and questions presented serve as a recap of the overall sessions. Additionally, participants aimed to show DEN that the “black scenario” do not align with what creators want and need. The most important objective for the day was to have a meaningful discussion and collaborate effectively with DEN.


The groups have the opportunity to present their outcomes in any format they choose, such as creating a manifesto, video, workshop, or traditional presentation, to share their ideas with DEN. They have a total of two hours to create their presentations, followed by a discussion and presentation session with DEN.



1 - Digital Space is Down to Earth - Soyun, Kwan, Roberto, Jonas, Philip

Jonas raised the question of questionwhat can attract people to such initiatives and whether knowing where they are helps. Soyun noted that while people are fluid, opinionfeeling grounded by participating in something can be appealing. Kwan added that although some are accustomed to fluid spaces, not everyone is willing to dive in; opinionlabels and systems can provide comfort, pointing to the need for balancing digital literacy with concrete actions. Soyun appreciated that this conversation is already taking place. Moreover, Jonas wondered about reflectionbreaking assumptions regarding physical, hybrid, and online spaces. Phillip emphasized the opinionimportance of understanding the materiality of experiences, as digital media always has a physical component.

Key concepts discussed included desiregenerating new impulses to stimulate local communities and improving the accessibility of archived information. Jonas questioned whether they should present an idea, a format, or a brainstorm to DEN. Rogier provided context about DEN’s role in researching future audiences and aiding digitalization in the cultural sector. red threadDEN aims to build a "common space" online to help people find all cultural initiatives in the Netherlands. Jonas asked questionwhat resources could be shared on both a platform and in a physical space. They considered interesting-practicelocation-based ideas, like bike trips with stamps, reminiscent of the early days of the web, as a way to engage people and integrate both digital and physical experiences.

2 - Digital Space Celebrates Diversity - Alice, Genevra, Hermen

Angelique raised the question of questionhow accessibility solutions can be made bidirectional. Alice emphasized the opinionimportance of following a UX workflow that includes people from various roles—organizations, curators, artists, and especially a team of accessibility experts. Decisions need to come from a diverse team. Herman highlighted the desireneed for transparency in decision-making processes. Additionally, Angelique pointed out that interesting-practicetechno-centric solutions often fail, as evidenced by the Van Gogh museum example. Alice noted that the first step is always to ask, “What is needed?” Angelique suggested that opinionmatchmaking could be a starting point alongside addressing accessibility questions, emphasizing the importance of matching visitors with the right app or resources, as not everyone can be included in a one-size-fits-all approach. Futhermore, Genevra added that accessibilityaccess also involves sharing; for those without the means to travel, spaces can facilitate sharing through videos, descriptions, and other resources. Angelique questioned reflectionwhether people would be willing to pay for such accessand suggested different types of curatorship. She proposed a buddy system where people build bonds of trust and choose each other. Genevra stressed the importance of interesting-practicedesigning a format first, allowing modalities to develop from this framework through matchmaking. Teams could generate modalities and use the platform as a mediating tool. This approach could take various forms, such as encouraging users to put their phones away to engage more deeply.

The discussion touched on the danger of concernsimply replicating existing solutions, such as just creating a livestream. The core issue is determining reflectionwho makes decisions within institutions regarding access and how to include the audience in these decisions. Designing the format is crucial, as it lays the foundation for diverse and effective modalities to emerge.

3 - How to build the digital space? - Karl, Kay, Bianca, Oana, Yu

Bianca suggested using spaces in new, creative ways while sharing resources and interesting-practicebuilding bridges between platforms, people, and communities. Kay asked if this approach would require a larger audience, and Bianca affirmed, emphasizing the need to invite more people. Karl highlighted the opinionimportance of access to mentorship and orientation. He noted that interesting-practicenot being on social media excludes him from many things, so a more connected network of individual websites or spaces could foster independence and collaboration outside social media. Existing tools like newsletters are a start, but better platformsinfrastructure and protocols are needed to connect people sustainably, especially considering the potential decline of major platforms like Meta.

Harm questioned questionhow to include DEN in this conversation, to which Kay responded that the challenge lies in challengegetting people to pay attention. Yu shared that interesting-practicegetting honest reviews and feedback on her articles is difficult, suggesting that a opiniondigital space could facilitate an artist network with benefits like discounts, creating a new economy of the commons.

Besides, Bianca likened metaphorartists and organizations to pedestrians and buildings, suggesting that they can choose to open their doors. Harm emphasized the need to connect these actors to develop the pathway between them. Oana proposed the city metaphor as more useful, and Bianca agreed, suggesting the creation of a metaphorcity map for digital spaces. Harm added that this city should have many homes, starting with some of the significant existing buildings, envisioning a metaphordigital city with diverse and interconnected spaces.

4 - Digital Culture is about people - Lea, Ananya, Florian, Nikola,

Lea expressed confusion about the reflectionaudience targeted by DEN for the new platform, emphasizing the need to establish clear terminologies. The group wanted to understand DEN members’ views on digital culture by assigning them different roles and asking various questions. They aimed to uncover how DEN consumes digital culture, their screen time, the content they consume, the channels they use, and their perspective on the government’s role in creating new platforms.

Florian highlighted that the desireplatform's value lies in increasing the time makers spend together, whether online or offline. Lilian questioned the necessity of assigning roles, suggesting these inquiries were personal. Lea proposed agreeing on the intent behind these questions beforehand. Florian clarified that quotethe goal was not to make everyone digital natives but informed users, emphasizing the need to prioritize questions and determine the direction of the discussion.

The group considered an interactive format, with Florian suggesting anonymity through post-its and a moderator. There was a proposal to have participants guess who answered each question, but Lilian noted there wouldn’t be enough time. Lea suggested that each person could moderate a question, while Florian expected DEN to have their questions, proposing that they also use papers to write them down. Lilian suggested creating a mind map titled “Digital culture is…” to gain insights into DEN’s perspective and work towards a shared definition of digital culture.

For a 45-minute session with DEN, they decided to narrow down their questions. Each member marked their favorite questions, eliminating some like “What is your YouTube history?” and “Who do you want this platform to be for?” Ultimately, they chose “What is your screen time?” as an icebreaker. The final list included:

  1. What is your screen time?

  2. What was your first encounter/interaction with the digital?

  3. What is the most frequent app you use?

  4. What do you like about it? What do you not like about it?

  5. What app makes your life more fun?

  6. How do you like to consume culture?

  7. How has your online work/personal life changed over the last five years?

They planned to set a timer for each question to maintain structure and find a suitable order for the discussion.




The audience was asked, “questionWhen did you think a digital tool made you feel more connected to the physical space?” Responses included Facebook events, music apps, and local WhatsApp groups. They also discussed reflectionwhether there should be maps showing local physical resources and if local ambassadors should report on smaller spaces, raising questions about who decides these roles. Lea suggested feedback mechanisms like “cultural queering the map,” while Florian emphasized that real-life experiences are interconnected and opinionfeedback should be immediate, unlike current funding plans.

Group 2: digital space celebrates diversity

To design for groups that are typically left out, it’s crucial to inclusionfoster collaboration and ensure that participants do not feel lost in the process. While diverse modalities are common on websites, the goal here is desirenot to design the modalities themselves but to create a format that allows these modalities to emerge organically. This includes mechanisms like solutionmatchmaking and promoting long-term investment and engagement. By forming various teams, modalities can become desireopen-source formats that help multiple institutions rather than being owned by any single one. Multiple institutions could crowdfund a shared modality that benefits everyone, not tailored for specific institutions. This approach introduces inclusionalternative ways of navigating platforms for people with specific needs and ensures that these modalities continue to be tested and evolve based on user interaction, setting new standards for cultural institutions with more representation and participation. Designing these modalities would involve teams of artists, researchers, and organizations, with desireresearchers playing a key role in developing the modalities by leveraging their expertise to approach the problem from diverse perspectives. Institutions could inclusioncommission researchers to identify different needs and integrate them into the modalities. DEN might consider reflectionwhether these modalities can also serve as filters, depending on the audience and purpose, such as art performances connecting viewers differently than museum displays or passive live stream watching. Involving the audience as a fourth player in defining modalities, either through expert researchers or directly including users, can bring greater inclusivity and diversity into the process.

Group 3: How to build the digital space? - Karl, Kay, Bianca, Oana, Yu

The group discussed questionhow to create new connections between different, siloed spaces. Despite the abundance of open standards and practices for sharing data, active participation is essential. They envisioned a website, OSINT(https://etherport.org/publications/the-hmm/Voices_of_Makers/reports/7-scenarios.html), to house data such as events, calendars, open calls, job postings, and blog posts. However, challengemaintaining this resource up-to-date remains a challenge. The technical aspects are manageable, but the real hurdle is challengeidentifying each organization's incentives, as individuals and smaller organizations are the primary beneficiaries. The challenge lies in challengemotivating larger museums to participate. DEN recognized these concerns, with Herman questioning questionwhy museums would join. Oana responded that museums seek to reach new audiences, needing both artists and a combined audience of large and small entities.

DEN questioned the questionbalance between interest and idealism, emphasizing the project’s role in supporting smaller organizations while also needing champions from bigger institutions. Kay mentioned a past project where Wikipedians photographed archives and collections, noting that once the Van Gogh Museum participated, others quickly followed. Soyun highlighted a discussion about using existing resources, suggesting a solutionshared protocol to scrape data. Kay confirmed this concept exists in public spaces but hasn’t been adopted widely due to concerninstitutions not recognizing the urgency. With growing awareness of social media issues, people now desire more distance from it.

DEN asked about questionusing algorithms to steer audiences to new experiences. The group emphasized desireavoiding a single large platform and instead proposed systems tailored to each space. Karl suggested solutioncreating multiple entry points for information. DEN inquired questionhow this approach could feed audience curiosity and explore new spaces. Kay envisioned this as fostering solutioncross-institutional solidarity, supporting both larger and smaller entities in a collaborative ecosystem.

Group 4: Digital space is about people

The group crafted questions to engage the audience in reflecting on digital culture, asking: “questionWhat was your first encounter with the digital, and how did this experience change your life?” Participants shared diverse responses: Soyun mentioned a video game, Lea discussed how it influenced her perception of technology, Angelique described shifting from paper to a computer, which allowed her to manage notes more efficiently, and Pernilla from DEN recalled making a color book on the screen and printing it on a large plotting machine, transitioning from digital back to physical. These responses illustrated the multifaceted nature of digital engagement and experience. The second question was, “questionHow do you see the role of the government compared to market-driven consumption in the digital realm?” Here, opinions varied: Angelique noted that the government can support what the market neglects, though this could have negative aspects, while Florian pointed out that government reforms can inform market behavior. The discussion highlighted a recurring debate about the roles of public versus private sectors. DEN, acting as an NGO, aims to drive digital innovation in a culturally resistant sector. quoteThe government often funds initiatives to spur future-oriented possibilities, illustrated by the Ministry of Culture commissioning DEN to brainstorm a platform for makers. This approach provides a safer path for the ministry, which is not typically geared towards long-term innovation. interesting-practiceDespite ample funding for culture, the Netherlands still faces challenges in balancing innovation within this sector.




To continue with this project and ensure the group’s vision is effectively communicated and aligned with the Ministry of Culture’s goals, several key steps and roles for group members have been outlined. Maike from DEN highlighted the inclusion of artists and makers in the discussion on digital transformation, emphasizing the importance of leveraging their skills and creativity. This approach has opened up new possibilities for Maike and the group. Priscilla from DEN praised the creation of maps and identified key resonant topics: red threadopen-source data, accessible information, and the need for community and physical/digital connections. She emphasized that solutionDEN should present various scenarios rather than a single solution to the Ministry. Moreover, Beert from DEN expressed relief and gratitude for the valuable input from makers, which helped clarify the blueprint’s main axes: red threadprioritizing people over technology, balancing freedom and control, and focusing on accessibility and inclusivity. Maike sought the group’s input on the three main ideas to present to the Ministry, with Kay suggesting the importance of desiredistributing efforts across multiple initiatives, sharing open data, and fostering local making communities rather than centralizing everything. Lea emphasized that opiniondigital culture often defies expectations, while Florian stressed that opiniondigital culture is an integral part of overall culture, not just about technology. Interestingly, Alice viewed opiniondigital culture as a tool rather than a goal, and Genevra highlighted the importance of delegating to diverse stakeholders. Florian suggested applying resources from groups like theirs to support the initiative. Maike noted that concernorganizations are often resistant to change due to fear and cost, and stressed the need for organizational changes and upskilling. Beert acknowledged the expense of uncertainty with change.

To effectively present their ideas to the Ministry, the group agreed on using solutionsimple, relatable language, illustrations, and videos. Florian suggested starting with a common understanding of digital culture and digitalization. They planned to define what digital culture is and isn’t, and what changes they want to see. Herman noted that everything is now digital to some extent, and interestingly, VR/XR was not mentioned!
For the next step, DEN will schedule an online meeting to gather feedback from institutions, aiming to finalize the presentation before summer and present it to the Ministry in September, with a follow-up after the summer break. The makers are all excited to hear back from the Ministery’s opinion on their ideas!

Interactivity: the 7 scenarios of digital culture

Part 1 - Introduction & General Themes

All participants have previously attended at least one session. They return because they view it as a unique opportunity for independent makers to have a say and contribute. They appreciate the various brainstorming methods, such as using maps and metaphors. Participants believe it is important to collaboratively determine the future of a platform dedicated to makers. They are curious and excited about designing a platform for makers and gaining insights from different types of makers. Anania mentioned feeling like an outsider trapped in a bubble, and this opportunity helps her feel involved in something significant with other makers. Participants want to hear others’ perspectives and see this as a learning experience. However, they also questioned the project’s scale, finding it challenging to challengebuild a single platform. Reflecting on the last sessions, they noted there are still some loose ends and are looking forward to desiremaking the project more concrete.

Past sessions



Participants discuss and remember the previous maps

In the first two listening sessions, participants shared valuable insights and concerns. These sessions were primarily about listening, gathering values, and intentions. Today marks a shift from listening to action. DEN’s task is to gather opinions to design a suitable space, even if it might not exist. The group will now review various maps created during previous sessions, covering needs, desires, fears, commonalities, and accessibility requirements. Key desires include desirespaces to showcase work, authenticity, maker agency, and open-source principles. Key fears revolve around concernpolitical agendas, standardization, low quality, competitiveness, and algorithmic governance. Moving forward, the group aims to build upon six scenarios to create a proposal for DEN, acting as a bridge between ideas and practical implementation. They’ll assess the extent to which participants agree with the scenarios and explore potential combinations. These scenarios serve as foundational building blocks for the next phase, helping to refine the platform’s aim and structure.

General themes

Participants expressed a weariness of looking too much into the past and a desire to desiremove away from the era of independent but interconnected HTML websites. They found it challenging to challengeunderstand and envision an innovative future while recognizing a interesting-practicegrowing longing for physical spaces, especially among young people. The general theme revolved around revival and the cyclical nature of development, akin to AI generation, which builds only on past data. They mentioned potential fears in every new solution, arguing that they might be concerninvasive. This tendency often leads us back to default modes of thinking, neglecting those excluded from such designs, a habit reinforced by the influence of traditional media.

Part 2 - Scenarios & the Audience of the Future


List of all scenarios prepared

Rogier, Angelique, and Lilian presented scenarios representing diverse forms of digital platforms. Participants shared their opinions on these scenarios, discussing ways to improve and combine them for better functionality and inclusivity. Genevra marked her confusion because the scenarios seem to have different goals and audiences despite the connections between many scenarios, questioning whether reflectionmatchmaking is a desired feature. She pointed out a blindspot: the navigation and desire to navigate the platform vary depending on the user. She proposed considering a multi-matching model.


Scenarios as presented to the group and chosen by participants to further develop, with collective annotations

Black scenario

Form: basic website

This scenario illustrates a typical, conventional website, representing the standard digital platform we commonly envision. It lacks innovation and inclusivity, serving as a reference point for what creators should avoid.

Scenario # 1 The symbiotic rhizome

**Form: backend system **

The cultural digital space should be a symbiotic rhizome consisting of smaller independent websites. The priority is not to build a new all-encompassing website for all, but to create a support system for this network of already existing initiatives. This support system strengthens and empowers the cultural websites that are already there. It enables them to become more sustainable, more accessible and invest in long-term engagement. With support in the form of investments, backend technology, server space, digital tools, inter-linking and publicity. The support system functions like a fertile ground in which all kinds of smaller websites can flourish.

This rhizome scenario takes it inspiration from initiatives like WeArePublic, the Fediverse, publicdata.events, Wiki, de Digitale Stad, and the Open Source Community, https://etherport.org/publications/, https://www.fediverse.to/.

Participants’ opinion:

When discussing this scenario, participants discussed that it might involve an reflectionunderlying system customizable by each institution, focusing more on concernproviding a service than fostering a community, which they believe is crucial. They also feared that a rigid code of conduct, tied to specific cultures, could lead to concernstatic rules that do not adapt well to diverse cultural contexts.

Participants’ proposition:

Bianca, Karl, and Florian envision a solutionfoundation where various scenarios can converge and contribute, creating a robust support system for makers. This foundation would serve as a bedrock for other initiatives, fostering a collaborative environment. The implementation of this foundation would involve a desirecoalition of cultural organizations, tech companies committed to ethical practices, and government bodies. To ensure the foundation is free and intentional, substantial funding from grants, public funds, and private donations would be required. solutionPartnerships with educational institutions and tech companies could also provide resources and expertise. A key feature of this foundation would be an desireon-site assistance team, a dedicated desk offering personalized help to makers, guiding them in transforming their ideas into tangible products or services. This team would provide accessibilityethical, free expertise, including suggestions and proposals around accessibility, self-hosting, and open-source software. Establishing clear protocols on accessibility would be essential, accessibilityensuring that all digital products and services are accessible to everyone. Inspired by the Belgian system, where interesting-practiceorganizations in Flanders can earn a special stamp if they meet specific criteria such as inclusivity (as Karl noted) and receive assistance in digitizing makers’ collections (as Hay added), users could subscribe to these protocols to receive both guidance and potential funding. Rather than centralizing everything on one platform, solutionthe foundation would operate through a network of fragmented yet interconnected services. This approach resembles a library or social service for digital culture, offering practical support to organizations at no cost. Starting from a more theoretical standpoint, quotethe foundation highlights the current lack of assistance for makers and proposes a more ethical and free support system.

Scenario #2 The Digital Culture Code

Form: guideline

This scenario emphasises the need for a Digital Culture Code. Because before we can get anywhere near the creation of a shared digital cultural space, we first need a shared vision of what we think is important for digital culture. This scenario takes the shape of a sort of constitution for the digital cultural realm. A vision document that provides foresight, focus and guidelines. The goal here is to formulate ways to make digital cultural spaces inspirational and authentic. To provide guidelines that guarantee that audience and artists are taken care of. To set requirements to make a space truly accessible, transparent, privacy-friendly, and sustainable. And to set boundaries for what a space can or can’t commit to.

This scenario takes inspiration from forms like a code of conduct (like the Berlin Code of Conduct for user groups and conferences), the Fair Pay agreement, the Access Rider Open Template and the Bechdel test., https://varia.zone/en/pages/code-of-conduct.html,


Participants’ opinion:

Hay highlighted how reflectionlicenses and rules closely align with cultural codes, emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse cultural contexts. Karl proposed an intriguing alternative, suggesting a solutionfund where makers receive guidelines and trust to independently address questions, diverging from the current technology-centric approach. Lea raised concerns in this scenario regarding concernownership and the potential for individuals to become mere contributors to large entities, with machines doing the bulk of the work, prompting a deeper exploration into collaborative ownership models.

Scenario #3 The Digital Square

Form: collective platform

Welcome to the digital square. The motto here is: bring your own chair. It’s like we’re watching a football match together on the street. There’s a strong focus on collectivity and connectivity. A place for cross pollination. This collective platform strives for the feeling among audience and artists that ‘this is a community where I belong’. This isn’t a platform of ease and consumption, no everybody brings something to the table. This place asks you to be open to critical ideas and encounter different perspectives. The platform provides tools for discussion and knowledge sharing.

This scenario takes inspiration from Town Hall Meetings, Open Mic Nights, Peer-to-Peer Learning Networks, Discord, Bring Your Own Beamer, BBSs, https://www.softspace.world/index.html.

Participants’ opinion:

Bianca reflected this scenario, noting the shift from sustainable online communities to a dynamic where participants morph into audience and provider roles, with facilitators being active and readers passive. She found the concept of the opiniondigital square particularly relevant, highlighting the time investment required for participation and the challenge of maintaining equal positions within the community. Martijn pointed out the underlying problem of scenarios attempting to offer a concern"one size fits all" solution, stressing the diverse needs and scales of cultural spaces. However, he acknowledged the risk that without such universal solutions, the least demanding option might prevail. Besides, Lea expressed a preference for this scenario, emphasizing the shared experiences it fosters. Karl disagreed with this preference, suggesting opinionalternative perspectives might be needed to fully consider the square's potential. Moreover, Sondi pointed out that some communities might already engage in similar practices but require additional funding to sustain them. Filipp reiterated support for the digital square, emphasizing its potential as a opinionliberal and non-anarchic platform for interaction and self-presentation. He would choose to implement a selection process to actively promote diversity.

Participants’ proposition:

Martina, Hay, Lea, and Filipp conceptualize a scenario where events take place weekly or monthly in various locations, such as cafes, providing solutionspaces for discussion and a means to discover new speakers for events. This format could eventually evolve into a more extensive infrastructure. The scenario emphasizes hybridity, aiming to desirecreate holistic connections between physical and digital spaces, which would help sustain the format. solutionEvents would be archived and tagged to facilitate finding people with similar mindsets and goals.To ensure accessibility and inclusivity, each month could feature a inclusiondifferent theme, targeting diverse audiences and prioritizing connections over backgrounds. The concept would be standardized to maintain a consistent atmosphere across different times and locations, requiring hosts, moderators, and facilitators to manage the events. Rather than being owned by a single organization, this format focuses on groups of people coming together. The hierarchy within this scenario would be centered around the role of the moderator, with organizations responsible for the moderators representing them in these events. This model could be compared to the Tegenlicht meetups, which also emphasize connections and successful elements from existing formats. The scenario supports a solutionmultimodal approach, catering to various visions, publics, and audiences, and desireblurring the lines between audience and contributor. To elaborate on the shared reality of digital and physical spaces, a starter pack could be provided to help set up the initial events, allowing for growth through a connected web or network. quoteThis would address the challenge makers face when organizing events, particularly the difficulty in finding infrastructure.

Scenario #4 Multi modal

Form: digital platform

This multi-modal platform has multiple entry points. It’s core info doesn’t rely on one medium. Maybe you enter in audio mode and paintings are described to you. Maybe you enter in chill mode and you flow through a low-stimulus art environment. Or maybe you enter in low data mode and the platform shows you a minimal design with a minimal carbon footprint. On this digital platform inclusivity isn’t an afterthought but a source of inspiration, for unconventional and imaginative interaction.

The goal of this scenario is not to make one all-encompassing website for culture, but to find what is missing in the digital space. And provide something inspirational and new to fill that gap.

This scenario takes inspiration from the Slow Tech movement, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and digital minimalism, The Hmm’s livestream :), the Mumories experiment we did with Going Hybrid and MU

Participants’ proposition:

The scenario explores how artists can desiremeet and crossover in new online forms. Hermen, Genevra, Anania, and Kaan suggest that different ways to navigate the platform would cater to various modalities of institutions, makers, and visitors, utilizing combinations of text and images. solutionVisitors could publicly suggest matches between institutions and artists in a non-formal, barrier-free environment where everyone can playfully initiate interactions without fixed positions. Events would be organized by inclusionthemes and strengths, encouraging crossovers of different mediums. opinionThere is a noted lack of surprise in navigating digital platforms, prompting consideration of the opportunities presented by “mistakes.” This element of purposeful randomness could be interesting-practiceinspired by the dating app format, introducing serendipitous encounters similar to the “I’m feeling lucky” button. To maintain a dynamic and engaging experience, moderators in this scenario would function like cupids, facilitating matches and interactions. Lea highlighted that this system would push people to solutiontake action and assume responsibility seamlessly, akin to a poke system that requires no commitment. The challenge remains to challengeensure a diverse audience participates. quoteThis approach could reinvigorate organizations that might be experiencing boredom with traditional methods, offering a hierarchy-flattening experience and encouraging spontaneous, playful connections.

Scenario #5 Personal

Form: digital platform

A place you can personalise, that is constantly renewed and customisable.

This scenario takes inspiration from ohyay, Geocities, https://common.garden/, are.na.

Participants’ opinion:

This scenario appears to be the opinionleast popular among the group. Martijn draws parallels with a project by Richard Vijgen where Geocities was downloaded and made accessible once again.

Scenario #6 Hybrid

Form: hybrid space

A hybrid physical space with digital connectivity, digital intimacy, spatiality.

This scenario takes inspiration from Post Office https://www.p-o.space/, distant.gallery, https://www.timeis.capital/.

Participants’ opinion:

Martijn suggests that opinionhybridity would offer valuable methodologies for younger generations, making the scenario potentially more appealing and insightful to them.

Participants’ proposition:

Nadia, Sondi, and Martijn explore the boundaries of online meeting spaces, considering how to connect people across different geographies and link cultural and non-cultural spaces to initiatives and ideas. They aim to facilitate digital connections that go beyond local bubbles, addressing the need to desirereach wider audiencesrather than just friends of friends. This scenario envisions solutionindexing spaces available for makers, allowing them to step outside their familiar circles and discover new cultural hubs. To achieve this, they propose an indexing platform where people can easily find cultural resources and spaces, thus desiresharing dormant resources with minimal effort. This approach can accessibilityhelp institutions reach new audiences by connecting with small initiatives through digital means. Florian suggested that such a platform could serve as an interesting case study, given the disappearance of small grassroots initiatives in Dutch culture over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Lilian emphasized the importance of questioning reflectionwhether these connections should remain purely digital or adopt a hybrid model. Additionally, Martijn noted that this scenario challenges organizations to challengereconsider their role within the cultural scene. Hay further highlighted the value of DIY efforts and the necessity ofdesireallowing space for trial and error, as the current emphasis on professionalism leaves little room for experimentation and failure. Building on this, Florian pointed out the challengedifficulty unknown makers face in finding venues to showcase their work due to the many layers within the cultural sector. In response, Angelique added that challengeinstitutions also struggle to present unknown makers. Finally, Sondi stressed the desireneed for connections that benefit not just the well-known makers but also those who are emerging or lesser-known. quoteThis scenario offers a simple methodology for opening up cultural spaces and connecting diverse initiatives through digital means, helping both institutions and makers broaden their reach and impact within the cultural landscape.

Part 3 - Wrap-up and Looking Forward

DEN #3.key

Lilian emphasizes that as digital makers, they are inclined to experiment with various tools and technologies, having grown up as digital natives. quoteThey represent the "innovators" percentage, contrasting with DEN's majority perspective. TNO, in collaboration with DEN, has conducted previous research on digital transformation, interviewing institutions (such as MU) to highlight motivations such as inclusivity, diversity, and the facilitation of new cultural experiences. One participant raises a valid concern regarding the research potentially reflecting a concerndated mentality, akin to a mindset prevalent in the 90s. They draw attention to the reflectionassociation of technology in the cultural sector with the stereotype of the "IT guys", highlighting the need to address this issue with DEN. This association not only perpetuates gatekeeper culture but also underscores the inclusionimportance of challenging outdated perceptions and promoting inclusivity in digital spaces.

Another participant underscores the crucial role of intentionality in digital transformations, warning against concernblindly following the trajectory of "big tech" without desiredeliberating on factors such as access, reach, and services. They proposed exploring alternatives like Nextcloud over platforms like Google Drive, citing ethical considerations, although they acknowledged the challenges associated with such transitions. Furthermore, participants questioned DEN’s concentration on a singular, expansive digital space, advocating instead for a more desireholistic and diversified cultural landscape that extends beyond the constraints of platforms like TikTok.

Florian highlights the importance of desireamplifying the voices and desires of young people within institutions, echoing a sentiment shared by the group. Additionally, there was a suggestion to interesting-practiceutilize existing databases within the cultural sector to extract valuable insights. Hay stresses that the interesting-practicequest for new digital audiences often originates in physical spaces and suggests exploring innovative digital transformations, such as cafes with restricted phone and internet access, as a means of fostering genuine human connections. The group also discussed the multi-faceted nature of digital transformation, acknowledging its complexity and potential for varied approaches and outcomes.

For the final meeting

The group proposes mixed working groups comprising both makers and DEN members to redefine the problem statement and approach digital spaces collaboratively. They assign homework for DEN to read the written scenarios in preparation for the next session, along with collecting questions from the group.

The makers have expressed their desire to begin the next session with an introduction on how they perceive digital transformation. They intend to showcase the scenarios and framework for each, while ensuring that the discussion remains somewhat abstract. Their aim is to influence through language, emphasizing that digital transformation is not solely about adopting new technologies, but rather about embracing a new value system. This approach underscores their commitment to shaping the discourse around digital transformation in a way that prioritizes values and principles over concrete technological solutions.