Yet despite the entrenched figurations of institutional thought landscapes, categories are unstable and increasingly so. What happens to categories of information when, for instance, catalogues are translated from analogue to digital forms? Such transformations are never neutral – they resonate with institutional practice and habitus. Ways of thinking about information, even in a digital age, emerge from epistemological processes that reach back centuries. Yet at the same time even allowing continuity of disciplinary thinking, the dialect subtly changes. Scholars such as Nina Lager Vestberg and Kelley Wilder have been usefully engaging with the implications of the digital for photographic history and its institutional apparatus. They have shown repeatedly that changes of medium, changes in language (shifts in metadata) are processes of translation, recontextualisation and refiguration that inflict or impose new meanings regardless of the discourse of neutrality or objectivity in which they are developed. 2See for instance Nina Lager Vestberg, “Ordering, Searching, Finding”, Journal of Visual Culture 12, 3 (2013), 472–89. Arguably digital environments demand sharper critical understanding of, and engagement with, the nature of the thought landscapes, and layers of historical disciplinary investments out of which these emerge, but which are all too often invisible to both creators and users.