Link to Presentation 
27–01–2025       (001)


Week 1: Intro to Course + Project Presentation



Today was the first official day of our thesis class, and honestly, it felt like stepping into something huge—but in a good way. The class was online, and we kicked things off with our professors walking us through the course expectations and semester timeline. Basically, this semester is all about pushing our projects forward through iterations, research, and constant feedback. By the end, we need to have a functional prototype or proof of concept—which means a lot of making, testing, and refining over the next few months.

After the intro, we jumped straight into presentations, where I shared my thesis project:

Decolonizing Discovery by Revitalizing the Museum of Looted Antiquities (MOLA)

MOLA is an online repository created by investigative journalist Jason Felch that documents stories of repatriated cultural artifacts. It’s an incredibly important platform, but right now, it struggles with visibility, accessibility, and engagement—which is where my thesis comes in.

I’m redesigning MOLA into a 3D exploration tool that will make it more interactive, immersive, and engaging. Instead of just scrolling through a website, users will navigate a geographical timeline—a dynamic map layered with temporal markers and movement trajectories to illustrate how antiquities have been displaced across the globe. This will combine spatial data with the linear progression of time, helping people understand the stories behind these artifacts in a more visceral, visual way.

My biggest inspirations for this approach? Archive.PDF, Soot, and Dataland—all of which rethink how digital archives and storytelling platforms can work in new, more engaging ways.

After my presentation, the main feedback I got from my professors was to be bold and brave—which is exactly how I plan to approach this project. This isn’t about just making a “better” website; it’s about completely rethinking how a platform like MOLA can exist and function in the digital space.

For next week, we have two big tasks:

1.Create a blog website to document our thesis journey (so this blog post is technically part of that 👀).

2.Start building initial prototypes of what our project will look like—so I’ll be diving into mapping, 3D visualization concepts, and figuring out the first steps in designing the new MOLA experience.

Excited (and a little overwhelmed) to see where this goes, but I know this is just the beginning. 

Link to Site 
03–02–2025       (002)


Week 2: Concept Statement  and Prototyping Resources + Project Journal and Plan

Our second day of class was all about refining our projects and making our research more accessible. I submitted my documentation website, which I built on Cargo by updating my previous pre-thesis documentation site. As required by the thesis, I also added a blog section—which is where I’m writing this right now—to provide insight into the research I conducted last semester and make it easier for reviewers to follow my work’s evolution.

In class, we dug deeper into our projects, discussing our ideas in more detail and distilling them into concise research statements. Through an in-class exercise, I refined mine to:

“How might we illuminate the global antiquities trade through data visualization and storytelling?”

This framing really helped clarify my focus, especially as I consider how digital tools can make the often-invisible networks of artifact movement more transparent.

Mick also shared some fantastic resources that align with my interests in interactive storytelling, data-driven experiences, and creative technology:


🔗 Breakfast Studio – Specializing in interactive installations and kinetic experiences

🔗 Local Projects – Leaders in immersive museum experiences and digital storytelling

🔗 Hey Hush – Made by Numbers – A great example of data-driven design


These studios’ work is incredibly relevant to my research, particularly in thinking about how to visualize complex data in engaging, impactful ways. Looking forward to integrating some of these approaches as I refine my project further!

MOLA Website Prototypes


The Met Family Guide Prototype 



Ideation for “Decolonising Search”
10–02–2025       (003)


Week 3: Preliminary prototype + The art of the demo


The third day of class marked a pivotal shift in my thesis exploration. Initially, I had been focused on prototyping a website redesign for the Museum of Learning Artifacts (MOLA). However, after meeting with the museum director, I realized that MOLA operates on Omeka, a platform that restricts customization. This meant that a website redesign wouldn’t be beneficial since they lack the flexibility to implement significant changes.

Shifting Focus: A Social Media Strategy for MOLA

With this realization, I pivoted the discussion toward an alternative strategy—enhancing MOLA’s digital presence through social media storytelling. Rather than redesigning their site, I proposed a strategy that would bring greater visibility to their collection, highlighting artifacts from different parts of the world. This approach would allow MOLA to engage with wider audiences and emphasize the global narratives embedded within their objects.

Rethinking My Thesis Direction

This shift made me question whether working with MOLA aligned with my broader thesis goals. I had initially envisioned tackling the visibility and transparency of the antiquities trade, and while MOLA's mission is important, I felt the need to explore more subversive and interventionist approaches.

A Guerilla Marketing Approach at The Met

Instead of working within institutional constraints, I began brainstorming ways to critique institutional opacity surrounding repatriation. This led to my idea of creating a MET Family Guide, but with a twist—it would document all the objects that have been repatriated from The MET. The guide would serve as an intervention, exposing how little information remains accessible after artifacts are removed from museum collections.

Building on this, I conceptualized an AR exhibition titled ‘Ghost Archive’, which would reveal the digital remnants of repatriated objects at The MET. The installation would visualize the digital ruins of the repatraited objects left behind, making visible what is no longer searchable on the museum’s website. This could function as both an activist intervention and a speculative design project that critiques digital erasure in institutional collections.

Iterating on the Theme of ‘Decolonizing Search’

As I explored these ideas, I started diving deeper into the ways discovery and search algorithms shape historical narratives. This led me to research pluralistic design and the biases embedded in the way knowledge is organized online. I also explored the work of Colombian-American anthropologist Arturo Escobar in relation to epistemic plurality. I drew nine conceptual sketches of what this project could look like, exploring different formats and interventions without prototyping anything yet. Some key resources that informed my thinking include:

🔗 Whose Knowledge? and their work on decolonizing digital information

🔗 The Internet Archive’s search limitations

🔗 Arturo Escobar’s “Design for the Pluriverse” and its challenges

🔗 Epistemic Plurality: Re-Connecting Objects and Transformative Practices

Developing Conceptual Frameworks on Repatriation and Bias

To make these ideas more tangible, I sketched out nine speculative concepts that visualize:
  1. The visibility gap of repatriated artifacts—showing objects that are returned but disappear from public records.
  2. Search bias on the Internet—how certain information is more searchable due to colonial categorization.

Feedback & Next Steps

During class, I received feedback on maintaining my focus on visibility and transparency in the antiquities trade. This aligns with both my previous research and the skills I’ve developed in digital media. The discussion helped me refine my project scope and reinforced the importance of balancing activism, design, and technological intervention in my approach. These are the resources my faculty showed me:

🔗 Jenny Holzer’s interventionist art

🔗 Ekene Ijeoma’s data-driven storytelling

Moving forward, I’ll continue iterating on decolonizing search and digital repatriation strategies, while also experimenting with how AR, data visualization, and speculative design can explore the hidden gaps in institutional memory.






Family Guide Print Experiments

Pre Thesis Archive Prints

3D Print Experiments
18–02–2025       (004)


Week 4: Physical Prototyping + One on One feedback 


This past week has been all about hands-on prototyping and refining materials for my pre-thesis archive and exhibition. I’ve been juggling a few different components—from physical booklets to 3D-printed objects—while also diving into UX research for The Met’s repatriation page.

Physically Prototyping

A big focus this week was physically prototyping my Family Guide and finalizing the structure of my pre-thesis archive. I want to consolidate all the materials into a cohesive folder for my exhibition, ensuring that everything is organized, accessible, and visually engaging. The process of printing, assembling, and adjusting layouts has been time-consuming but essential to getting the right feel for the final product.

Experimenting with 3D Printing for Object Display

Another key task has been working on the 3D models of objects I plan to display. Initially, I printed them using clear TPU, thinking it would create an interesting transparent effect. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t what I hoped for—it looked messy and didn’t capture the details well. So, I switched to white PLA, which was a big improvement in terms of structure and visibility. 

Starting UX Research for The Met’s Repatriation Page

Alongside the hands-on prototyping, I also began UX research for The Met’s repatriation page. Since digital accessibility and transparency are critical for institutional repatriation efforts, I’m analyzing how the current page functions, what works well, and what could be improved in terms of usability, clarity, and engagement. This will help inform potential design recommendations to make repatriation information more accessible to broader audiences.

Incorporating AR Into the Booklet

This week, I also shared my progress with Pip and discussed my idea of incorporating augmented reality (AR) into the booklet. The conversation went really well, and I got some great feedback! Based on our discussion, I’ve decided to move forward with integrating AR elements into the booklet experience. My plan for next week is to start prototyping and testing how AR interactions can enhance the storytelling and engagement within the booklet.

Looking Ahead

Next week, I’ll be refining my 3D print experiments, diving deeper into my UX research and finalizing the Family Guide. With the addition of AR elements in the booklet, I’ll also be exploring the best ways to bridge physical and digital interactions in my work.

As always, this process is iterative, but each test and adjustment gets me closer to a final product that feels both thoughtful and functional. Excited to keep pushing forward!
Sketches of ideating my Thesis 


Link to my Updated Thesis Proposal Presentation


3D Models Printed with the Base and AR Location Tags



Artifact Tage Stickers for the 3d Printed Models 


Storyboard of the AR Experinces



Snaplens showing Errors
24–02–2025       (005)


Week 5: Progress Presentation + Prototyping AR


This week marked a major milestone: I finally solidified my thesis direction! After weeks of prototyping and refining ideas, I mapped out all its different elements and created a new final thesis presentation to reflect this. My focus is now centered on repatriation through digital curation, specifically examining what happens post-repatriation—a topic that is often overlooked.


Defining My Case Study: The Met & Cambodia

To ground my research, I’ve chosen The Met as my case study and Cambodia as the focal country for my family guide. This decision was driven by two key repatriation events:

• 2013: One of The Met’s first high-profile restitutions linked to antiquities trafficking involved Cambodia.

• 2023-2025: More recent returns of Cambodian artifacts continue to expose the systemic issues in museum acquisitions.

I found 3D models of two objects, each from one of these events, and developed a new family guide tracing their repatriation journeys. The guide is designed to make repatriation tangible by showing the lifecycle of these objects—from looting to restitution.

To make the objects stand out in my exhibition, I also 3D-printed their bases in red, symbolizing both their contested histories and the urgency of returning looted cultural heritage.


Building AR Experiences for the Family Guide

A core part of my project is integrating augmented reality (AR) into the family guide to create an interactive learning experience. I developed three AR experiences using Snap Lens Studio:

1. Global Scale of the Antiquities Trade: Users navigate a 3D globe filled with looted monuments worldwide. They must find Koh Ker, the original site of these Cambodian artifacts. This is meant to:

• Orient users to where these objects come from.

• Highlight the global scale of antiquities looting.

2. Unearthing Hidden Objects: Users tap on the ground to reveal buried artifacts, mimicking real-world excavations. This experience is designed to reference:

• The “black box” of museums, where repatriated artifacts often remain hidden in archives.

• The secrecy around museum storage and its impact on accessibility.

3. Artifact Tags & Provenance Tracking: Users interact with museum labels that often include the names of antiquities traffickers. In my case, the two artifacts in the exhibition were linked to Douglas Latchford and Doris Weiner, two major figures in the illicit art trade. This experience aims to:

• Show how museums trace objects with sketchy provenance.

• Educate visitors so they become more critical museum-goers, curious about an object’s origins.


Unfortunately, Lens Studio crashed, and I lost all my files before I could document them. This was frustrating, but I plan to rebuild the experiences next week, this time incorporating:

• Better UI navigation (e.g., buttons to tie the experiences together).

• Accessibility considerations to ensure inclusivity.



Expanding the Family Guide: Anti-Trafficking Tools

Beyond AR, I want to add more resources for public engagement in my family guide. Next week, I’ll include information on FBI’s Art Crime Program and Interpol’s ID-Art app, which allow the public to track stolen artifacts.


Looking Ahead

Next week will be about rebuilding and refining my AR experiences, strengthening accessibility, and expanding my family guide with more practical tools for public involvement in repatriation efforts. Despite setbacks with Lens Studio, I’m excited to push forward and make this exhibition as engaging and educational as possible!










Target Audience (Primary - Academic Researchers and Secondary - General Public) 

User Flows for Finding Repatriated Objects on the websites of The MET, Brooklyn Museum, The Rubin and the Asian Art Museum





03–03–2025       (006)


Week 6: Demo Day Prep + UX Case Studies

This week was a big one—I finally solidified how I’m structuring my thesis research! After diving deep into UX research, I realized that museum websites lack a standardized way of presenting data on repatriated objects, making it frustratingly difficult to find information about restituted artifacts. To tackle this, I’m structuring my research into three key components that will shape my final thesis on digital curation and digital repatriation.

Defining My Three Focus Areas

  1. AR Storytelling of Looted Artifacts

    A major part of my thesis will explore how augmented reality can bring restitution stories to life. I’m focusing on The Met’s repatriation of Cambodian artifacts and will be using AR to create interactive narratives that visualize the looting, trafficking, and return of these objects. This will serve as an educational tool to help visitors engage with restitution history in a more immersive way.
  2. UX Study of Repatriation in Museum Collections Pages
    This is what I focused on this week. I analyzed how museum websites structure their collections and how (or if) they present information on repatriated objects. I specifically chose The Met, The Rubin Museum, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco for this study because they vary in size and funding but are all anthropological museums that have repatriated objects. Additionally, they differ in how discoverable their repatriation information is, making them strong comparative case studies.

    The findings were revealing:
    • No dedicated object pages for restituted artifacts. Museums like The Rubin, Brooklyn Museum, and Asian Art Museum don’t have individual pages for restituted objects, which means academic researchers and the public have no way to track an artifact’s history.
    • Fragmented provenance data. The Met, Brooklyn Museum, Rubin, and Asian Art Museum scatter their provenance and deaccessioning records across multiple sections, making it nearly impossible to get a full picture of an object’s history in one place.
    • No hyperlinks between key documents. Press releases, legal documents, and provenance research aren’t interlinked, forcing users to manually search for restitution details instead of accessing everything in a centralized hub.
    • Lack of standardized metadata. Different museums present restituted artifacts in inconsistent ways, making it hard for researchers to compare restitution cases across institutions.
    • Repatriation lists only available as PDFs. The Rubin Museum, in particular, presents deaccessioning records as static PDFs that aren’t searchable or filterable—forcing researchers to sift through large documents manually.
    • Poor search functionality. Even when you search for “repatriation” or “restitution” on museum websites, relevant results don’t appear, making it easier to find information on external news sources than on the museum’s own site.

    If anyone wants to see the research more in-depth, you can check out my Figma board here: Thesis Research UX Study.

    These findings will shape my written thesis post-Demo Day, where I’ll propose a standardized approach to how museums should digitally organize and display restitution records.
  3. Marketing Strategy for Repatriation
    The final component of my thesis will focus on how museums communicate restitution efforts. Right now, museums rarely engage the public in their repatriation work beyond press releases. I’ll be designing videos, print collateral, and other marketing materials to show how storytelling can be used to create greater public awareness around the return of looted artifacts.

Looking Ahead

With my UX research wrapped up, I’m shifting focus to prototyping my AR storytelling experiences and building out a marketing strategy that supports repatriation narratives. Next up: refining my AR models, creating an interactive guide to repatriated Cambodian artifacts at The Met, and starting to draft my thesis framework.

Despite the gaps in museum UX, I see so much opportunity to improve digital access to restituted artifacts—and I’m excited to build out solutions that make this history more transparent and engaging for everyone!














My Demo tablescape


Feedback


13–03–2025       (007)


Week 7: Demo Day 

Demo Day arrived quicker than expected—and in true design spirit, I approached it as both a showcase and an experiment in storytelling.

To make my work accessible and engaging, I decided early on to format my presentation as a PechaKucha-style slideshow. This meant I had just 20 slides, each shown for 20 seconds, to walk people through the arc of my research so far. I leaned into a narrative approach—not just a summary of findings, but a story about why repatriation, museum UX, and digital archives matter, especially in the contexts of equity, provenance, and community access.

But even as I prepped my slides, I hit a wall: how do I present my UX case studies in a way that’s more than just screens on a screen? I was craving something more tactile, more playful.

Enter: LEGOs.

I ended up building five LEGO models, each representing the UX architecture of a different museum website I audited. Every LEGO structure broke down the sitemap, flows, and pain points of these digital spaces—from search accessibility to how provenance info is buried (or missing entirely). It was weirdly satisfying to turn abstract information into something you could literally pick up and move around.

To round out the experience, I also created an “archive folder” for visitors to flip through. It included all my pre-thesis research—surveys, interviews, annotated bibliographies, and messy notes—so people could see the layers behind the polish.


My table setup was full of texture:

• A printed pre-thesis documentation booklet charting my journey so far

• The many iterations of my Met AR guide to repatriation, complete with

• 3D printed prototypes

• AR guide blocks visitors could interact with

• An iPad looping my UX research

• A laptop playing my slideshow on a loop


Looking back, I wish I’d projected the slideshow on a big screen or TV to make it more immersive (and less like a passive background element). Still, I’m proud of how it turned out: it felt less like a portfolio review and more like a mini-exhibit.

The highlight of the day, though, was the feedback from Ahmed Ansari and Brad MacDonald, who reviewed my thesis. Their comments really stayed with me.

Ahmed noted that the AR Guide clearly demonstrates the time and care that went into its development. He also pointed out that my second proposed intervention—the UX toolkit for museum professionals—hadn’t been fleshed out to the same degree. Brad expanded on that, acknowledging the good intention but reminding me (from his own experience working with museums) how difficult it is to offer criticism that institutions are actually willing to take on.

He emphasised that each museum has its own way of structuring and publishing collection information, which makes standardisation nearly impossible. Rather than trying to change institutions from within, both Ahmed and Brad agreed that a public education campaign might be the more impactful route: giving everyday museum visitors the tools and knowledge to critically engage with colonial collections and the antiquities looting trade.

That idea struck a chord—and also left me feeling a little uncertain. It’s hard to let go of the notion that change can come from within systems. But I’m taking this feedback seriously. Over the break, I plan to ruminate, re-evaluate, and possibly shift my approach toward creating tools that empower audiences directly, rather than trying to force institutional transformation.

All in all, Demo Day was more than a presentation—it was a checkpoint. A space for feedback, uncertainty, clarity, and maybe a little hope. And I’m excited to see where this work evolves next.





31–03–2025       (008)


Week 8 &9 : Thesis Paper Reviews & Submission 

This week has been all about writing. I’ve been deep in the drafting phase of my thesis paper, trying to bring together months of research, fieldwork, and experiments into a coherent first draft. It’s been intense but rewarding.

Right now, one of the biggest challenges I’m facing is trimming down my secondary research section. I’ve gathered a ton of material and it’s hard to strike the balance between being thorough and being concise. I want to make sure I’m honoring all the sources and ideas that shaped my thinking—without overwhelming the reader.

In the primary research section, I’ve been focusing on weaving in images and references to the actual work I did—interviews, workshops, UX audits, and field observations. It’s been fun going back through everything and seeing how it all connects, but organizing it clearly is taking time.

And then there’s the outcome section, which is still in rough draft mode. That’s something I discussed with Pip in class this week—how to bring together the two main threads of my project: the AR component and the digital toolkit I’m building as a continuation of the thesis. Figuring out how they talk to each other (and what story I’m telling through both) is going to be my main focus for next week.

Feeling a bit scattered but also excited. It’s starting to take shape.

UPDATE: I finished writing the full draft of my thesis, and in the end, the outcome section became the most focused and grounded part of the entire paper. It feels good to have arrived here, even if there’s still editing to do. Feeling a bit scattered but mostly excited. It’s finally taking shape—and it’s real.

And now—it’s done.






7–04–2025       (009)


Week 10: Designing exhibition experiences

This week was all about prototyping, printing, and playing with electricity. I’ve been developing a new interactive 3D model of the Nataraja, reimagined not just as an object of viewing, but of activation.


The design centers around a basic light circuit built using Arduino. Here’s how it works:

The back of the statue is threaded with conductive copper wire. This wire is part of a circuit that remains open until a garland is placed on a small hook at the top of the figure. Once the garland is in place, the circuit completes—and a small bulb lights up in response.

A quiet but powerful symbol of offering, return, and ritual.

To bring this concept to life, I started 3D printing the model. My first test print was small and… not great. The print failed due to insufficient infill and lack of structural support. The second time around, I increased the infill and added proper supports. I printed it on the F370 advanced printer, and since the support would later be dissolved in acid, it didn’t compromise the final result.

It was a valuable reminder: in both design and repatriation, infrastructure matters.

Alongside the Nataraja, I also prototyped two additional figures:


  • A Ganesha from the Cleveland Museum, notable for the visible holes in its base, which reveal its use in ritual processions—a living artifact once moved through crowds, not confined to plinths.
  • A small Nagaraja (serpent king) from the Guimet Museum in Paris, chosen because of the cut at its base, suggesting removal or detachment from a larger ensemble—an object marked by displacement.

These selections weren’t arbitrary—they reflect a deeper inquiry into how objects show their own histories of movement, use, and separation. Their physical traces became part of the story I’m telling through this project.

I also started building a data visualization that maps out connections between:

  • The recently repatriated Nataraja from The Met,
  • Other Nataraja statues still held in U.S. museums,
  • News articles, court cases, and provenance records that link them.


This network of sources reveals not only where the sculptures are, but how they got there—and how restitution narratives are either amplified or buried.






7–04–2025       (010)


Week 10: Designing exhibition experiences

This week, I dove deeper into visual identity and storytelling. I updated the branding of my AR family guide, flipping the aesthetic of The Met’s usual materials.


  • Instead of deep navy and serif fonts, I’m now using:


    • Green, inspired by Looty and ideas of reclamation and rebirth.
    • Red, to echo and critique The Met’s original branding.
    • Pink, to bring in a softer, more feminine energy and resist overly institutional tones.

      It’s subtle, but I want every design choice to be intentional—counter-narratives can exist in color too.


Finally, I made solid progress on the SnapLens AR component of the project. It’s still in progress, but slowly becoming more interactive and expressive. I’m hoping to integrate the physical interaction (with the garland and bulb) into a digital experience that mirrors that sense of return, touch, and illumination.



Home