Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Algorithmic Bias and the Underrepresentation of Minority Cultures in Digital Art Collections

Yıl 2026, Sayı: 15, 105 - 130, 23.02.2026

Melisa Keskin

https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1752969
https://izlik.org/JA48TY23GH

Öz

This study examines algorithmic biases that render minority cultures invisible within digital art collections. It emphasizes how large-scale platforms such as Google Arts & Culture and Europeana reinforce Western centric assumptions through visual presentation, data gathering, taxonomy design, and tagging practices—resulting in the exclusion of works by groups deemed “marginal” from the digital canon. The analysis is structured under four themes: Algorithmic Bias; Origins of Biased Data, Curatorial Subjectivity in Art Collections; and Digital Cultural Colonialism and Representation Equity. Employing a data archaeology approach to visualize datasets reveals these collections as socio technical systems shaped by human agency, urban planning, logistics, and financial infrastructures, which play a pivotal role in reshaping social reality. Finally, the study proposes multi layered reforms to ensure representational justice and accountability in digital cultural heritage platforms, including full transparency in data collection and tagging processes, the adoption of inclusive algorithmic training models to prevent bias, implementation of international AI ethics frameworks, and establishment of independent auditing mechanisms. These measures aim to enhance the online visibility of artworks belonging to minority cultures.

Anahtar Kelimeler

museology algorithmic bias digital art data archaeology digital curation

Kaynakça

  • Akalın, B. ve Veranyurt, Ü. (2020). Sağlıkta dijitalleşme ve yapay zekâ. Sdü Sağlık Yönetimi Dergisi, 2(2), 128-137.
  • Anderson, S. (2020). Some provocations on the digital future of museums. In K. Winesmith, S. Anderson (Eds.), The digital future of museums: Conversations and provocations (1-15). Routledge.
  • Artut, S. (2019). Yapay zekâ olgusunun güncel sanat çalışmalarındaki açılımları. İnsan & İnsan, 6(22), 767-783.
  • Ashley, S. (2005). First Nations on view: Canadian museums and hybrid representations of culture. In Hybrid entities: Annual Graduate Conference Hosted by the York/Ryerson Programme in Communication and Culture (pp. 31-40). Rogers Communication Centre, York University.
  • Avrupa Birliği Yapay Zekâ Kanunu. (2024). Avrupa Birliği Resmî Gazetesi. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689
  • Boast, R. (2011). Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. Museum Anthropology, 34, 56-70.
  • Brakel, R. (2020). Rethinking predictive policing towards a holistic framework of democratic algorithmic surveillance. In M. Schuilenburg & R. Peters, The algorithmic society: Technology, power, and knowledge (104-118). Routledge.
  • Büttner, S., Rümpel, S., ve Hobohm, H.-C. (2011). Informationswissenschaftler im Forschungsdatenmanagement. In Handbuch Forschungsdatenmanagement (203-218). Springer.
  • Corrall, S. (2008). Research data management: Professional education and training perspectives. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/RDMF/RDMF2/07%20Corrall.pdf
  • Creative Commons. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://creativecommons.org/mission/
  • Crawford, K. ve Paglen, T. (2021). Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI & Society, 36, 1105-1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01162-8
  • Digital Public Library of America. About DPLA. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://dp.la/
  • Donnelly, M. (2008). RDMF2. Core skills diagram. Research Data Management Forum. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, http://data-forum.blogspot.com/2008/12/rdmf2-core-skills-diagram.html
  • Earhart, A. E. (2012). Can information be unfettered?: Race and the new digital humanities canon. In M. K. Gold (Ed.), Debates in the digital humanities (309-318). University of Minnesota.
  • Elitaş, T. (2022). Dijital manipülasyon ‘deepfake’ teknolojisi ve olmayanın inandırıcılığı. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(49), 113-128.
  • Engelhardt, C., Strathmann, S. ve McKadden, K. (2012). Report and analysis of the survey of training needs. DigCurV. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, http://www.digcur-education.org/eng/Resources/Report-and-analysis-on-the-training-needs-survey
  • Europeana. Discover Europe’s digital cultural heritage. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://www.europeana.eu/en
  • Feldman, M. H. (2017). Rethinking the canon of Near Eastern art in the Internet age. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History, 3, 57-79.
  • Foucault, M. (2006). Hapishanenin doğuşu (Çev. M. A. Kılıçbay). İmge.
  • Gitelman, L. (Ed.). (2013). Raw data is an oxymoron. MIT.
  • Google Arts & Culture. Google Arts & Culture. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://artsandculture.google.com/
  • Hall, S. (2017). Memories of style: Digitizing the Yorkshire Fashion Archive. Art Libraries Journal, 42(3), 157-161.
  • Higgins, S. (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48
  • Hill, R. K. (2016). What an algorithm is? Philosophy & Technology, 56(6), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0239-9
  • Hogan, B. (2014). From invisible algorithms to interactive affordances: Data after the ideology of machine learning. In E. Bertino & S. A. Matei (Eds.), Roles, trust, and reputation in social media knowledge markets (103-117). Springer.
  • Kapsalis, E. (2016). The impact of open access on galleries, libraries, museums, and archives. Smithsonian Emerging Leaders Development Program. http://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_03_10_OpenCollections_Public.pdf
  • Karvelyte, V. (2012). D2.1 report on baseline survey into training opportunities and evaluation framework: Section 1: Training opportunities survey. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, DigCurV. http://www.digcur-education.org/eng/Resources/D2.1.1-Survey-of-existing-training-opportunities
  • Kim, J., Warga, E. ve Moen, W. E. (2013). Competencies required for digital curation: An analysis of job advertisements. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(1), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.263
  • Kizhner, I., Terras, M., Rumyantsev, M., Sycheva, K. ve Rudov, I. (2019). Accessing Russian culture online: The scope of digitization in museums across Russia. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy043
  • Kizhner, I., Terras, M., Rumyantsev, M., Khokhlova, V., Demeshkova, E., Rudov, I. ve Afanasieva, J. (2021). Digital cultural colonialism: Measuring bias in aggregated digitized content held in Google Arts & Culture. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(3), 607-640. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab021
  • Knell, S. J., Aronsson, P., ve Amundsen, A. B. (Eds.). (2010). National museums: New studies from around the world. Routledge.
  • Lightbox Gallery & Museum. Lightbox. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://www.thelightbox.org.uk/
  • Markov, A. ve Nagorny, N. (2001). The theory of algorithms. Springer.
  • McCarthy, D. (2019). Open access scope in Open GLAM. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, Medium. https://medium.com/open-glam/open-access-scope-in-open-glam-70461bec2bca
  • Noble, S. U. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://safiyaunoble.com/
  • Osswald, A., ve Strathmann, S. (2012). The role of libraries in curation and preservation of research data in Germany: Findings of a survey. In The Role of Libraries in Data Curation, Access and Preservation: An International Perspective  (1-10). Universität Konstanz.
  • Öztemiz, S., ve Özel, N. (2019). Dijital küratörlük: Kavramsal bir değerlendirme. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 59(2), 1208-1226.
  • Polm, M. (2016). Museum representations of Roman Britain and Roman London: A postcolonial perspective. Britannia, 47, 209-241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X16000014
  • Rankin, J. L. (2018). A people’s history of computing in the United States. Harvard University.
  • Rogers, N. (2016). Museum drawers go digital. Science, 352(6287), 762-765. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8824
  • Saplıoğlu, K. ve Uzundurukan, S. (2019). Bilimsel çalışmalarda kullanılan bazı yapay zekâ uygulamalarının ve trendlerinin incelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 10(1), 249-262.
  • Sezer, Ö. ve Özgen, E. (2025). Dijital gözetim bağlamında algoritmik halkla ilişkiler. Selçuk İletişim, 18(1), 52-83.
  • Sharp, J. P. (2002). Writing travel/travelling writing: Roland Barthes detours the Orient. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space, 20(2), 66-155. https://doi.org/10.1068/d313
  • UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. https://www.unesco.org.tr/Pages/181/177/ Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025.
  • Sood, A. (2016). Every piece of art you’ve ever wanted to see-up, close and searchable https://www.ted.com/talks/amit_sood_every_piece_of_art_you_ve_ever_wanted_to_see_up_close_and_searchable
  • Tallon, L. (2019). Sparking global connections to art through open data and artificial intelligence. Now at the Met (Blog). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2019/met-microsoft-mit-art-open-dataartificial-intelligence

Algoritmik Önyargı: Azınlık Kültürlerin Dijital Sanat Koleksiyonlarındaki Görünmezliği

Yıl 2026, Sayı: 15, 105 - 130, 23.02.2026

Melisa Keskin

https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1752969
https://izlik.org/JA48TY23GH

Öz

Bu çalışmada, dijital sanat koleksiyonlarında azınlık kültürlerinin görünmezliğine sebep olan algoritmik önyargılar irdelenmiştir. Google Arts & Culture ile Europeana gibi büyük ölçekli platformların görsel sunum, veri toplama, taksonomi tasarımı ve etiketleme uygulamalarında Batı merkezli kabullerin pekiştirildiği; bunun sonucunda “marjinal” olarak addedilen gruplara ait eserlerin dijital kanondan uzaklaştırıldığı vurgulanmıştır. Çalışmanın ilgili problematiğinin analizi, “Algoritmik Önyargı”, “Önyargılı Verinin Köken Analizi”, “Sanat Eserleri Derlemelerinde Küratöryel Öznellik”, ve “Dijital Kültürel Sömürgecilik ve Temsil Dengesi” başlıkları altında yapılandırılmıştır. Görsel veri kümelerinin veri arkeolojisi yaklaşımı ile incelenmesi sonucu, bu kümelerin dijital küratöryel öznelliği tanımlayan insan faktörü, kentsel planlama, lojistik ve finansal altyapılarla beslenen kültürel-sosyo-teknik sistemler olduğu ve toplumsal gerçekliğin yeniden şekillendirilmesinde ne denli büyük bir rol üstlendikleri tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak, dijital kültürel miras platformlarında temsil adaleti ve hesap verilebilirliğin sağlanabilmesi için veri toplama ve etiketleme süreçlerinin tam şeffaflığa kavuşturulması, algoritma eğitim modelleme yaklaşımlarında kapsayıcılığın benimsenmesi ve algoritmik önyargının engellenmesi, uluslararası yapay zeka etik çerçevelerinin uygulanması ve bağımsız denetim mekanizmalarının oluşturulması önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

müzecilik algoritmik önyargı dijital sanat veri arkeolojisi dijital küratörlük

Kaynakça

  • Akalın, B. ve Veranyurt, Ü. (2020). Sağlıkta dijitalleşme ve yapay zekâ. Sdü Sağlık Yönetimi Dergisi, 2(2), 128-137.
  • Anderson, S. (2020). Some provocations on the digital future of museums. In K. Winesmith, S. Anderson (Eds.), The digital future of museums: Conversations and provocations (1-15). Routledge.
  • Artut, S. (2019). Yapay zekâ olgusunun güncel sanat çalışmalarındaki açılımları. İnsan & İnsan, 6(22), 767-783.
  • Ashley, S. (2005). First Nations on view: Canadian museums and hybrid representations of culture. In Hybrid entities: Annual Graduate Conference Hosted by the York/Ryerson Programme in Communication and Culture (pp. 31-40). Rogers Communication Centre, York University.
  • Avrupa Birliği Yapay Zekâ Kanunu. (2024). Avrupa Birliği Resmî Gazetesi. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689
  • Boast, R. (2011). Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. Museum Anthropology, 34, 56-70.
  • Brakel, R. (2020). Rethinking predictive policing towards a holistic framework of democratic algorithmic surveillance. In M. Schuilenburg & R. Peters, The algorithmic society: Technology, power, and knowledge (104-118). Routledge.
  • Büttner, S., Rümpel, S., ve Hobohm, H.-C. (2011). Informationswissenschaftler im Forschungsdatenmanagement. In Handbuch Forschungsdatenmanagement (203-218). Springer.
  • Corrall, S. (2008). Research data management: Professional education and training perspectives. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/RDMF/RDMF2/07%20Corrall.pdf
  • Creative Commons. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://creativecommons.org/mission/
  • Crawford, K. ve Paglen, T. (2021). Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI & Society, 36, 1105-1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01162-8
  • Digital Public Library of America. About DPLA. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://dp.la/
  • Donnelly, M. (2008). RDMF2. Core skills diagram. Research Data Management Forum. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, http://data-forum.blogspot.com/2008/12/rdmf2-core-skills-diagram.html
  • Earhart, A. E. (2012). Can information be unfettered?: Race and the new digital humanities canon. In M. K. Gold (Ed.), Debates in the digital humanities (309-318). University of Minnesota.
  • Elitaş, T. (2022). Dijital manipülasyon ‘deepfake’ teknolojisi ve olmayanın inandırıcılığı. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(49), 113-128.
  • Engelhardt, C., Strathmann, S. ve McKadden, K. (2012). Report and analysis of the survey of training needs. DigCurV. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, http://www.digcur-education.org/eng/Resources/Report-and-analysis-on-the-training-needs-survey
  • Europeana. Discover Europe’s digital cultural heritage. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://www.europeana.eu/en
  • Feldman, M. H. (2017). Rethinking the canon of Near Eastern art in the Internet age. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History, 3, 57-79.
  • Foucault, M. (2006). Hapishanenin doğuşu (Çev. M. A. Kılıçbay). İmge.
  • Gitelman, L. (Ed.). (2013). Raw data is an oxymoron. MIT.
  • Google Arts & Culture. Google Arts & Culture. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://artsandculture.google.com/
  • Hall, S. (2017). Memories of style: Digitizing the Yorkshire Fashion Archive. Art Libraries Journal, 42(3), 157-161.
  • Higgins, S. (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48
  • Hill, R. K. (2016). What an algorithm is? Philosophy & Technology, 56(6), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0239-9
  • Hogan, B. (2014). From invisible algorithms to interactive affordances: Data after the ideology of machine learning. In E. Bertino & S. A. Matei (Eds.), Roles, trust, and reputation in social media knowledge markets (103-117). Springer.
  • Kapsalis, E. (2016). The impact of open access on galleries, libraries, museums, and archives. Smithsonian Emerging Leaders Development Program. http://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_03_10_OpenCollections_Public.pdf
  • Karvelyte, V. (2012). D2.1 report on baseline survey into training opportunities and evaluation framework: Section 1: Training opportunities survey. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, DigCurV. http://www.digcur-education.org/eng/Resources/D2.1.1-Survey-of-existing-training-opportunities
  • Kim, J., Warga, E. ve Moen, W. E. (2013). Competencies required for digital curation: An analysis of job advertisements. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(1), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.263
  • Kizhner, I., Terras, M., Rumyantsev, M., Sycheva, K. ve Rudov, I. (2019). Accessing Russian culture online: The scope of digitization in museums across Russia. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy043
  • Kizhner, I., Terras, M., Rumyantsev, M., Khokhlova, V., Demeshkova, E., Rudov, I. ve Afanasieva, J. (2021). Digital cultural colonialism: Measuring bias in aggregated digitized content held in Google Arts & Culture. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(3), 607-640. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab021
  • Knell, S. J., Aronsson, P., ve Amundsen, A. B. (Eds.). (2010). National museums: New studies from around the world. Routledge.
  • Lightbox Gallery & Museum. Lightbox. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://www.thelightbox.org.uk/
  • Markov, A. ve Nagorny, N. (2001). The theory of algorithms. Springer.
  • McCarthy, D. (2019). Open access scope in Open GLAM. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, Medium. https://medium.com/open-glam/open-access-scope-in-open-glam-70461bec2bca
  • Noble, S. U. Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025, https://safiyaunoble.com/
  • Osswald, A., ve Strathmann, S. (2012). The role of libraries in curation and preservation of research data in Germany: Findings of a survey. In The Role of Libraries in Data Curation, Access and Preservation: An International Perspective  (1-10). Universität Konstanz.
  • Öztemiz, S., ve Özel, N. (2019). Dijital küratörlük: Kavramsal bir değerlendirme. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 59(2), 1208-1226.
  • Polm, M. (2016). Museum representations of Roman Britain and Roman London: A postcolonial perspective. Britannia, 47, 209-241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X16000014
  • Rankin, J. L. (2018). A people’s history of computing in the United States. Harvard University.
  • Rogers, N. (2016). Museum drawers go digital. Science, 352(6287), 762-765. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8824
  • Saplıoğlu, K. ve Uzundurukan, S. (2019). Bilimsel çalışmalarda kullanılan bazı yapay zekâ uygulamalarının ve trendlerinin incelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 10(1), 249-262.
  • Sezer, Ö. ve Özgen, E. (2025). Dijital gözetim bağlamında algoritmik halkla ilişkiler. Selçuk İletişim, 18(1), 52-83.
  • Sharp, J. P. (2002). Writing travel/travelling writing: Roland Barthes detours the Orient. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space, 20(2), 66-155. https://doi.org/10.1068/d313
  • UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. https://www.unesco.org.tr/Pages/181/177/ Erişim 25 Temmuz 2025.
  • Sood, A. (2016). Every piece of art you’ve ever wanted to see-up, close and searchable https://www.ted.com/talks/amit_sood_every_piece_of_art_you_ve_ever_wanted_to_see_up_close_and_searchable
  • Tallon, L. (2019). Sparking global connections to art through open data and artificial intelligence. Now at the Met (Blog). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2019/met-microsoft-mit-art-open-dataartificial-intelligence
Toplam 46 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Müze Eğitimi, Dijital ve Elektronik Medya Sanatı, Güzel Sanatlar, Görsel Kültür, Kültürel ve Doğal Miras
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Melisa Keskin 0000-0002-4515-6215

Gönderilme Tarihi 28 Temmuz 2025
Kabul Tarihi 9 Şubat 2026
Yayımlanma Tarihi 23 Şubat 2026
DOI https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1752969
IZ https://izlik.org/JA48TY23GH
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2026 Sayı: 15

Kaynak Göster

APA Keskin, M. (2026). Algoritmik Önyargı: Azınlık Kültürlerin Dijital Sanat Koleksiyonlarındaki Görünmezliği. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 15, 105-130. https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1752969

ARTS, CC BY-NC 4.0 ile lisanslanmaktadır cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1by.svg?ref=chooser-v1nc.svg?ref=chooser-v1

YAYINCI | DERGİ KURULLARI | DİZİNLER | ÜCRET POLİTİKASI | İSTATİSTİKLER | MIAR | SHERPA ROMEO