Here, finally, are some highlights of my notes from the \u201cArtifact in the Age of New Media\u201d symposium at the Bard Graduate Center. <\/p>\n
The discussion throughout the day was very stimulating, and I was very grateful to have been able to attend. Overall, though, I was struck by the way that the discussion really never got around to what distinguishes 3D artifacts from text or 2D images in digital collections \u2013 I had hoped that was what the day would be about! If you\u2019ve read my other posts, here and elsewhere, you know that this is my issue right now. The day was definitely more focused on new media than it was on artifacts. <\/p>\n
Anyway, I wish I had been able to speak more with other attendees at this event! I know many of us are facing the same issues with our individual projects and have much to learn from each other. Perhaps we\u2019ll all connect again at future seminars, or perhaps we\u2019ll find each other online. If you\u2019re reading this, you\u2019ve found me \u2013 please let me know you\u2019re out there, and keep in touch!<\/p>\n
You can also read other people\u2019s tweets from the event under the hashtag #digifact, and keep an eye on the forum they\u2019ve set up<\/a> for continued discussion (general info about the symposium, and some of the presentations, are there as well). There was talk of a continuing seminar series \u2013 I hope that pans out!<\/p>\n On to the notes (my asides, including things out of order, are in parentheses):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Dan Cohen (CHNM)<\/strong><\/p>\n loved the title of his presentation \u2013 \u201cThe Social Life of Artifacts\u201d <\/p>\n Josh Greenberg (NYPL)<\/strong><\/p>\n Digital Artifacts: (someone (Steve Brier or Josh Brown?) made the point later \u2013 this is in fact a de-de-de-coupling, as many artifacts were removed from their original context years ago and have been in multiple contexts since)<\/p>\n (at some point I raised a question related to this \u2013 we have collection databases and we have virtual exhibitions, but often they don\u2019t link to each other \u2013 why not? is anyone working on this? shouldn\u2019t there be hybrids that connect these functions? answer from Carrie Rebora Barratt (Met) \u2013 it\u2019s a goal, but slow to come)<\/p>\n (another later follow up to this (from Koven Smith, I think?) was about the structure of many databases not allowing for alternative information, therefore not allowing for entries about the history of the object pre-acquisition and the history of the object post-acquisition, or the \u201cpresent history\u201d of the object \u2013 ideally databases should include multiple entries for this, for every time the object has been moved, in a different exhibition, any time our understanding of it has changed \u2013 for example, \u201cuntil 1996 we thought this was from XXX, but now we believe it\u2019s from XXX\u201d \u2013 as opposed to just deleting and re-entering information when knowledge develops)<\/p>\n idea of \u201cdeputizing\u201d people outside the curatorial staff role of curator = community organizer importance of multiple access points \u2013 loved the discussion of the Handmade Librarian\u2019s blog, as picked up by the Design Sponge blog, which turned into the Design by the Book<\/a> project, which had a giant party in person at the library. They promoted the project on several platforms (I wrote down youtube and itunes, but I know there were several others) with great results. This ties in nicely with my goal of multiplicity for digital material culture projects (see my previous posts on this) \u2013 multiple access points can bring in a much more diverse audience. Bringing the community together physically like that, and bringing them into the institutional space, is a wonderful accomplishment.<\/p>\n much of his talk was about the tension between professional and amateur, and ways of connecting an interested public with the experts they could value; connecting these two sides without one negating the other<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Carrie Rebora Barratt (Metropolitan Museum of Art)<\/strong><\/p>\n my most important notes from her talk are all focused on the importance of standards \u2013 data standards, workflow, etc.<\/p>\n of course she talked about much more than that, but since data standards are one of my areas of interest right now, that\u2019s what I focused on. One of her current concerns is how to create a central catalog for the museum (there currently is not one) but maintain the \u201cpurity of data\u201d from each of the museum\u2019s 19 diverse departments<\/p>\n (later in the day I talked briefly with Koven J. Smith, also of the Met, about how they\u2019re reconciling the varied data collected by each department \u2013 turns out it\u2019s not so much of a mapping, as a semantic process \u2013 I\u2019m intrigued, and I look forward to following up with others at the Met to learn more about this)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Amelia Peck (Metropolitan Museum of Art)<\/strong><\/p>\n she spoke about the updated technology in the Period Rooms \u2013 touch screens in 10 of the 18 rooms so far, for increased depth of supporting data about the objects<\/p>\n early on, she described the rooms as being an odd way to display art \u2013 which in the context of the Met is mostly true, and which I found to be very telling perspective. How is it that we have come to see the white box as the right way to look at art? Certainly for decorative arts \/ material culture we often prefer the context of a period room or some such attempt at re-creating the original setting. But even for other art forms this is an interesting issue. (see the section about Beth Harris below, which really relates to this)<\/p>\n silhouettes are used on the touch screens for seeking more information (vs. photos), to keep viewers in the room focused on looking at details on the objects themselves she prefers guided comments to random comments \u2013 this is a wonderful point – the phrase \u201cmultiplicity of authority\u201d came up in the Q and A, when the expert curator vs. amateur enthusiast conversation continued \u2013 again, fits in very well with my ideas of multiplicity (see my previous posts) – authority with flexibility<\/p>\n it might also have been in this Q and A that someone (another prof from the BGC, I think?) brought up the concern of material culture being turned into, or viewed as, visual culture – unfortunately this thread wasn’t really picked up<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Beth Harris (MOMA, smarthistory.org<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n loved the MOMA video \u201cI See\u201d<\/a> that she shared \u2013 yes, it does bring tears to my eyes, and not just because my husband\u2019s a sculptor<\/p>\n I also loved her discussion of her experience of seeing Caravaggio\u2019s Crucifixion of St. Peter<\/a> in context at Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome \u2013 how a slide on a projection screen, or an image in a book, had not prepared her for the experience of seeing it in person, surrounded by the sights and sounds and smells and feeling that went with it. Of course this continues the discussion that inevitably follows the digital vs. physical binary (which has been pointed out doesn\u2019t need to be a binary, either\/or – instead of digital vs. physical, think also of virtual, augmented)<\/p>\n she also discussed the \u201ctrust issues\u201d that exist between museum and audience \u2013 \u201cwhy is this here?\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Joshua Brown (CUNY)<\/strong><\/p>\n using archival images not just as illustrations – this is an important distinction! they are works to be studied in their own right<\/p>\n discussion of the Picturing US History<\/a> site<\/p>\n I loved his point about \u201cseeing the seams\u201d \u2013 showing the historian\u2019s process, seeing how someone arrived at their conclusions, rather than just being presented with that conclusion fully formed<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Steve Brier (CUNY)<\/strong><\/p>\n as with Dan, I was already familiar with Steve\u2019s work, so I didn\u2019t take many notes (again, sorry!)<\/p>\n but it\u2019s always great to hear about the work being done at CUNY\u2019s Interactive Technology & Pedagogy Certificate Program<\/a>, and to discuss the challenges and excitement of incorporating this kind of work into our teaching<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That’s it – if you were there and there’s something important I missed, please add a comment! Or if you weren’t there but you want to continue the conversation, leave a comment!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Here, finally, are some highlights of my notes from the \u201cArtifact in the Age of New Media\u201d symposium at the Bard Graduate Center. The discussion throughout the day was very stimulating, and I was very grateful to have been able \u2026 Continue reading
\nmuch of what he discussed was already familiar to me, from following his blog, etc., so I didn\u2019t take many notes (sorry!)
\nmy keywords: open, sharing, abundance, flexibility<\/p>\n
\n1. decoupling of text from artifact
\n2. decoupling of artifact from single physical context<\/p>\n
\n-the NYPL did this with students working on mapping projects
\n(-this is what I\u2019m doing right now with my Historic Costume Preservation Workshop<\/a> (HCPW)!)<\/p>\n
\n(this really resonates with me, and the HCPW! Of course, this relates to the changing role of teacher to community organizer, as well.
\nthis is a significant shift \u2013 training for curators and educators often hasn\u2019t included this kind of community organization work \u2013 how do we develop these skills? It\u2019s not just about good intentions. I\u2019m looking forward to reading Jono Bacon\u2019s book related to this, The Art of Community<\/a> )<\/p>\n
\nbut some details which are hard to see in the room are shown in better photographs on the monitor<\/p>\n
\nthat lack of guidance can result in comments which are not at all helpful (and in the case of the Luce Center, turned obscene)
\nalso, without guidance, people may not feel motivated to leave a comment at all<\/p>\n