For the last ten years, I’ve been thinking about discoverability in the Canadian arts and culture sector. It’s a topic that surfaces — no matter where I look. Whether in strategic planning, digital infrastructure, or conversations with arts stakeholders, similar fundamental questions often come up:

  • How do we make sure that artistic and cultural work is not just created, but actually seen, understood, and valued?
  • How do we prevent culture from disappearing into the vast, algorithm-driven abyss of the internet?
  • Who controls the conditions of being found?

These aren’t just abstract questions for me — they show up in my work every day. As a board member of Diagramme Gestion Culturelle, we’ve been working to align the organization’s strategy with the priorities of the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec (CALQ), one of which is Discoverability (découvrabilité) — ensuring that artists and their work can be found.

It’s clear that arts councils recognize the importance of discoverability, but are we thinking deeply enough about what it really means? Visibility is only part of the equation. Who controls it? How are cultural narratives shaped? What systems determine access? If we don’t ask these questions, we risk treating discoverability as just another distribution challenge, rather than a fundamental issue of power, representation, and digital agency.

This question of access and corresponding control is something I also wrestle with from a different perspective. As CEO and co-founder of Culture Creates, a semantic technology company for the arts, I think about discoverability not just as a policy challenge, but as a deeply technical issue — one that determines how cultural data is structured, linked, and surfaced online.

And through both of these lenses — strategic and technical — I’ve come to a fundamental realization:

Discoverability can’t just be about being found. It has to be about agency — who gets seen, how, and why.

Most people don’t think about how they find information online — they just assume it’s there when they need it. But discoverability doesn’t just happen — it’s controlled. And right now, it’s controlled by platforms and algorithms that weren’t built for the needs of artists, cultural organizations, communities — or for the larger society, for that matter.

For years, we’ve let corporate platforms dictate what surfaces, what gets buried, and what disappears entirely. Search engines prioritize what keeps users on their platform. Social media amplifies what drives engagement. AI tools scrape, remix, and serve content in ways that change its original context and meaning. And because these systems work invisibly, most people don’t realize how much control they’ve already lost.

If we continue to let discoverability be dictated by these forces, what’s at stake?

  • The erasure of niche, local, and independent voices in favour of mass-market content.
  • The loss of context — where meaning is flattened into keywords and algorithms strip away artistic intent.
  • An increased dependency on paid visibility — where discoverability is locked behind advertising budgets.
  • A growing gap in access — where certain voices, works, and perspectives become harder (or even impossible) to find.

This is not a future problem. It’s already happening.

Discoverability is not neutral. It is not just a question of visibility, but of power.

John Berger, in Ways of Seeing, reminds us that “every image embodies a way of seeing.” The way we perceive something is shaped by who frames it, how it’s presented, and what context is given — or withheld. Discoverability works the same way.

But this isn’t a new problem. Over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle’s Poetics explored how art is structured, interpreted, and made meaningful to an audience. Aristotle argued that stories rely on mimesis (imitation of reality) and catharsis (emotional impact on the audience). But what happens when discoverability is dictated by algorithms rather than intention?

  • If discoverability determines what is seen, does it also determine what is real in the digital landscape?
  • If the path to cultural works is shaped by external forces, does catharsis still exist, or is meaning diluted by the mechanics of search engines and engagement algorithms?

Aristotle saw storytelling as a deliberate act — one that connects people to shared experiences. In a digital world, discoverability must also be deliberate, or we risk losing control over the stories that define us.

Why This Shift Matters

(1) Knowledge-Shaping Should Belong to People, Not Machines

AI and search engines mediate how we find information. If we don’t take control of how our work is structured and contextualized, these systems will fill the gaps with whatever is most profitable — not what is most meaningful.

(2) Cultural Resilience Depends on Visibility

If discoverability remains a passive process controlled externally, entire artistic traditions, languages, and perspectives risk being marginalized or erased. When artists, institutions, and communities actively shape their discoverability, they ensure that cultural memory remains dynamic and accessible.

(3) A More Equitable Digital Economy

Right now, large platforms monetize discoverability, profiting from controlling access between creators and audiences. By making discoverability an act of agency, we decentralize control and create direct pathways between cultural producers and the public.

(4) Aligning Discoverability with Open and Democratic Values

Discoverability should not be dictated by proprietary algorithms. It should be a public good, aligned with the values of openness, transparency, and equitable access.

This is Just the Beginning

This article is the first in a series of reflections on discoverability and agency. At Culture Creates, we believe that digital infrastructure is culture — and that means we have to build it with intention. Over the coming weeks and months, I’ll be writing more about how we can actively shape discoverability — through open data strategies, digital infrastructure, and rethinking how cultural knowledge is shared.

If these ideas resonate with you, let’s keep the conversation going. How do you see discoverability shaping your work? What would it mean for discoverability to become an act of agency in your field?