The Volunteers of Forgetting

The museum hired a social media coordinator in March, and by April the Flemish still life had forty thousand followers.

This is not a complaint. Or rather, it is a complaint, but a careful one — the kind you make only after checking that no trustees are within earshot.

The painting in question is modest by any reasonable measure: a seventeenth-century banquet table, half-cleared, a pewter jug tilted at an angle that implies recent departure, a lemon peel spiralling toward the edge of the canvas like an afterthought. The museum acquired it in the 1960s from a textile merchant's estate, and for decades it hung in room seven attracting the orderly indifference that most things in room seven attract. Then Lena, the new coordinator, photographed it from below at a specific angle under the gallery's afternoon light, wrote four lines about impermanence and Sunday brunch, and something in the algorithm flexed its invisible muscle. Now the comments section is full of people saying it makes them feel seen.

I have been thinking about what it means to feel seen by a painting of abandoned food.

There is a conservator I know — we'll call her Birgitta, because that is her name — who has spent the last eleven years working on a collection of Arctic expedition photographs. Glass-plate negatives, most of them, documenting journeys that killed several of the men in them. She works in climate-controlled solitude, cataloguing, stabilising, cross-referencing names in ships' logs against faces in the images. When she finishes, the archive will be accessible to researchers across three countries. Approximately forty researchers. Perhaps sixty in an optimistic decade.

Birgitta has no social media presence. The archive has no social media presence. No one has photographed her from below at a flattering angle.

What we are living through — and I say this as someone professionally obligated to care about how culture reaches people — is not a democratisation of art. It is something more slippery: a vast collective agreement to reward legibility over depth. The Flemish still life is legible. It offers a feeling in under three seconds, it asks for nothing in return, and it can be re-experienced tomorrow with no accumulated effort. Birgitta's archive requires you to learn to read nineteenth-century handwriting before it will give you anything at all. The algorithm finds this rude.

I am not arguing against accessibility. I am arguing against the quiet assumption, spreading through cultural institutions like damp through old plaster, that accessibility and virality are the same project.

They are not.

One is about lowering thresholds. The other is about manufacturing frictionlessness — and frictionlessness, sustained long enough, smooths away exactly the qualities that made a thing worth preserving in the first place. You can feel seen by a lemon peel for free. To feel implicated in the deaths of men on Arctic ice requires a different transaction, one the current cultural economy has no mechanism to reward and very little patience to subsidise.

Museums are beginning to know this and behave accordingly. I watch colleagues frame acquisition decisions around content potential. I watch grant applications contort themselves to demonstrate reach metrics. I watch the restorers and the archivists and the cataloguers — the entire unglamorous infrastructure of cultural memory — compete for shrinking budgets against initiatives with better engagement rates. Nobody announces that legacy knowledge work is being deprioritised. It simply becomes, gradually, harder to fund a Birgitta.

Here is the thing about the lemon peel in the painting: the reason it rewards extended looking — the reason it has rewarded extended looking for three and a half centuries — is that someone once laboured with extraordinary precision to make impermanence visible. That labour does not appear in the four lines Lena wrote, and it cannot. The medium does not accommodate it. What the medium accommodates is the emotional residue of the labour, detached from the labour itself, available for frictionless consumption by people who are, genuinely, hungry for something they cannot quite name.

I do not blame them. I do not even blame Lena, who is talented and doing exactly what she was hired to do.

I blame the comfortable consensus that conflates a full comments section with a healthy culture. That mistakes the feeling of connection for the infrastructure that makes connection possible. That is so relieved when people engage that it forgets to ask what, precisely, they are engaging with — and what, in the meantime, is being allowed to quietly disappear.

Birgitta will finish her archive in two years, if funding holds. Last time I visited, she was holding a glass plate up to the light, turning it slowly, looking for a face she had found a name for the week before.

The room had forty thousand fewer followers than room seven.

It was the most important room in the building.

Read in the app, leave a resonance, discover more stories.