A/HRC/58/60 D. Ensuring contextualization 39. Digital processes can contribute to revealing the context of a piece of cultural heritage, an object’s biography, by highlighting its origins, uses and historical transformations. These applications highlight the dynamic nature of heritage, challenging static notions of “originality” and reflecting evolving societal values and perceptions. 40. At a different level, though, digitalization for the preservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage increases the risk of diminishing the context of heritage, leading to oversimplified or false narratives and misconceptions about a group’s past and identity. As digitalized forms of cultural heritage become separated from the original source, their original context, meaning and cultural significance can potentially be lost, thereby distorting the way that they are understood or experienced. 41. Immersive art experiences use digitalization of cultural heritage to increase accessibility, revive interest and recapture the imagination of the audience. However, they often repackage heritage by recontextualizing it, opt for more palatable formats or focus on quirky details, potentially erasing nuances and essentializing it. For example, the exhibition entitled “The Art of Banksy” was developed without the consent of the artist and completely decontextualized Banksy’s art by neglecting to feature the political meaning it conveys. When cultural objects become separated from the rest of the cultural heritage, they lose their specific positionality in a coherent narrative. 42. The sale of digital art by museums is often less risky than the direct involvement of private technology companies in digitization projects. These entities often lack expertise in cultural heritage preservation, and their primary goal may not be the protection of heritage and the rights of rights holders. For instance, while a collaboration between private technology companies and the Relief Map Museum, in Paris, to bring Mont-Saint-Michel to life through immersive technology had many benefits, it also raised concerns about inclusivity and about the depth and accuracy of the information presented. 43. It is therefore crucial to highlight that digitalization processes are not neutral activities and may perpetuate historical biases or manipulative cultural narratives. 69 Artificial intelligence’s potential for cultural homogenization is of significant concern, as artificial intelligence systems are primarily developed in technological hubs, with their own values and ways of looking at life that may be quite isolated or distinct from local realities. This marginalizes local traditions and minority cultures, imposing, for example, urban or modern standards on rural, traditional or Indigenous communities. The integration of certain cultural norms into artificial intelligence models can erode unique identities, raising fears of artificial intelligence-driven cultural colonization. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to ensure that digital technologies respect cultural diversity, promote linguistic inclusivity and prioritize underrepresented communities’ perspectives. 44. Applying a cultural rights approach will allow the relevant questions to be posed and reflected upon. In paragraph 16 of its general comment No. 21 (2009), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights established that availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability and appropriateness were necessary conditions for the full realization of cultural rights. These conditions are crucial when discussing digitalization. It is important to acknowledge colonial practices and power asymmetries in all discussions regarding heritage; digitization processes must intersect with decolonization efforts, adopting what has been called by some a “slow digitization” approach, a thoughtful way through which as much attention is given to the process as to the objects themselves.70 69 70 12 Rebecca Bailey and others, Unlocking the Potential of Digital Collections: A Call to Action (Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2024), p. 22. Mathilde Pavis and Andrea Wallace, “Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy report: statement on intellectual property rights and open access relevant to the digitization and restitution of African cultural heritage and associated materials”, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, vol. 10, No. 2 (October 2019), pp. 115–129, para. 38. Available at https://www.jipitec.eu/jipitec/issue/view/jipitec-10-2-2019/44. GE.25-01705