Month: May 2016

Imagine holding an exhibition of digital artworks that we have carefully collected, say, in five years? What would you put down on the artworks’ label?

I ask because these questions help me reflect on some of the points we collectively mused on during our class meetings this semester, as we digressed from our readings. My reflection covers these points precisely because they remain formative, and I would like to hear your thoughts on them.

Cultural Institutions 2.0

First point has to do with three types of cultural institutions and their conventional and altering practices. Museums, libraries, and archives—institutions most likely to be in charge of curating digital artworks—have traditionally valued their collections differently. As Rinehart and Ippolito explain in their Re-Collection, the difference can be generalized as follows. Museums were mostly in charge of unique objects and took care of conservations, as needed. Libraries and archives were traditionally in charge of documents. Generally, libraries held the mass produced resources and circulated them accordingly. Archives, in addition to the published works, held unpublished resources and rare items, often in association with the published authors. Archives rarely circulated their items.

To a certain extent, the distinction among three types of cultural institutions seems to be reflected to some of the theoretical frameworks we have encountered. For instance, museum and archival tradition of valuing the uniqueness of an object can be seen among the approaches of Kirschenbaum (media archeology), Arcangel (Warhol files), and Reside (Jonathan Larson’s Word files). How libraries circulate copies of the published work can be seen in Rinehart and Ippolito’s approach (dissemination/reinterpretation).

But here is the rub: the Library of Congress now has a Flickr collection. Because, let’s face it, technically speaking, uploading pictures on the Internet is a form of publishing and mass production? No doubt such image corpus would be helpful. In the short run, people can learn about the usage of an online publishing platform. In the long run, the corpus can be a window to the 21st-century way of lives.

Other readings further suggest how the conventional cultural institutions’ delegation model would be blurred. Historical research of hardware, software, and file formats—such as that of Montfort & Bogost (platform studies), Ball (CAD), Manoich (Photoshop), and Eppink (GIF)—demonstrate how artworks that utilize a digital device at any stage of their production is essentially codependent on the nature of such devices.

To be fair, material conditions of artwork have always had an influence long before the digital age. What is new, perhaps, is that we are now aware of 1) how the digital production devices are historically located and that 2) the pace of their obsolescence is fast and furious. That means, without a preservative effort, we would lose the access to the digital artwork. By access, I mean, the access to the digital artwork itself and the access to its historical significance.

An interesting mash-up approach, perhaps, is MITH’s classic computer collection which showcases six classic computers: KAYPRO 4, Apple IIe, Macintosh SE, Vectrex, Amiga, and Macintosh IIci. What is unique is how on the Vectrex (a standalone video game console with a vector-based image interface) sit instructions and books that can help us understand how the machine works and how sensational Vectrex was when it first appeared. When we play Vectrex’ cartridge games on the machine, moreover, we are reminded of the invincible score of its former owner (as we inadvertently add our marks to the machine’s storage device, altering the object). It is such an assemblage of library items and archival/museum objects that enables me to interact with and appreciate a classic computer.

Yes, the alteration of the object may make archivists and museum folks wince and squirm, but, hey, there is an emulation method to save the rare object from the deterioration. Yes, the question of scope is always there, but can we think big for a moment to envision what the best practice may look like?

The biggest takeaway for me out of this musing is this: don’t get our thinking limited by the conventional institutional practices, and seek cross-institutional collaboration as necessary, for the best curatorial approach of digital artworks. Collaboration may come in forms of human resources and/or modes of operation.

Cultivating Digerati via Digital Artworks

The second point is the educational roles cultural institutions can play as they curate digital artworks. I am particularly interested in the idea of curatorial show and tell exhibition of digital artworks. Going back to my prompt of artwork label, I think the kinds of information we assembled for archival information package should go into the label.

Why? My answer is two-folds: 1) to showcase what kind of documentation is needed for preserving digital artworks, and 2) to make the artworks’ invisible technological aspects visible.

The former would be an investment for the future collaboration with the artists, making them take into consideration how to compile documentations for the longevity of their work (should sustainability of the work be agreeable to the artists). The latter has to do with the promotion of information literacy among the audiences via digital artworks. Times and time again, we’ve been reminded that the most successful technology is invisible. But as the media studies scholars such as Elizabeth Losh strive to show, such invisibility can lend a hand to an abuse. Sharing archival information package with the audience can be an antidote. Moreover, public education, as Rinehart and Ippolito show, is in harmony with the traditional role of cultural institutions. Besides, I trust a hard work of archivists can be beneficial when exposed to the public eyes.

What do you all think?

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I started out in this class.  Most of what I’d dealt with before in the digital preservation world revolved around the digitization and preservation of historical assets, and much of that work dealt primarily with the mechanics of preservation rather than the theory and philosophy behind the field.  I’m not sure I even realized there was so much depth to digital preservation, though that seems silly to say now. I’ve been truly engaged and excited about the conversations that took place both in class and on our blog. The course has pushed me to rethink how I perceive not just our field, but also evolving digital culture.

 

Perhaps the most surprising element of this course was discovering the flexible, evolutionary quality of digital art and mediums.  It is exceptionally common for archival students to approach digital curation with a traditional mindset.  That attitude can be useful at times.  However, it impairs the way that we conceptualize born digital files, and I learned that is especially true about digital art. Unwittingly, I’d become accustomed to the idea that file integrity was everything and, while not always perfectly ‘static,’ the goal was to maintain the file as closely to the original as possible. While we’ve certainly looked at that issue inside and out, I’ve also taken away the idea that preservation of these born digital materials is much less rigid than I’d believed.  Instead, files can be manipulated to create beautiful new masterpieces.  These same files can transcend their own platforms to live on in other formats using new mediums for their evolution.  Perhaps the greatest question we pondered was- what is the preservation copy, and do we really care about it anyways?  Is the original file so important to begin with?  Sure; if we can save everything.  But if we can’t (and won’t), what is more important: the origin of a piece or the final product?  I don’t know about you, but it’s a very liberating way to view digital curation.  Instead of obsessing about the purity or authenticity of an item, its meaning and context becomes paramount.  

As others have already mentioned here, context is everything.  Early on, when I read articles on preserving gaming worlds and communities, I had a really difficult time understanding the importance.  It didn’t seem like art to me, and it felt silly…juvenile even.  So, naturally I went on to preserving Polandball (insert a giant, hardy LOL here).  What I found was that digital art is assigned meaning by its community.  It’s in the conversations that blossom from the catalyst of the art.  If one seeks to preserve digital art, they would be amiss to pass over the community behind that art.  

 

Preservation without context is meaningless.

 

Another reassuring and helpful tidbit I took from the class was the art of capturing representative samples.  The AIP assignment pushed us to recognize the practical limits of digital curation. We can’t save everything.  If you’re like me, you’ve heard that a thousand times while in our program.  We know it intellectually, but it’s an entirely different thing in practice.  When dealing with physical objects, it’s fairly apparent when you don’t have enough storage to accommodate a collection or when an item is severely damaged past the point of reasonable preservation.  Yet, I think we often don’t “see” the same kinds of limitations in digital curation despite the fact that we talk about it on a regular basis.  I know I frequently fell into the kind of assumption that because we can grab so much more with digital preservation that selection and acquisition is not as difficult a task. Not so true after all.  While we can certainly push the limits of preservation to new places, we are still not capable of saving everything (I’ll keep repeating it to myself for retention).  Instead, the AIP forced me to make educated decisions about what was realistic to keep and how I should go about doing so – both tasks equally challenging. I had to balance grabbing enough of the art to demonstrate the reason behind a community’s existence and enough of the community to demonstrate the importance of the art.  Furthermore, I had to choose tools which were capable of sufficiently grabbing the material, preserving context, and guessing as to how well those tools could survive long term preservation and future conversion.  What a great challenge!

 

As far as things that I now question after having taken the course, I’d like to better understand the technical aspects of digital preservation.  There were moments where I felt my “techie” skills were not deep enough to make educated decisions independently.  While we’ve talked about the importance of collaboration with information technology professionals, I think it’s important for digital curators to have a strong grasp on what’s technologically possible.  Furthermore, I would really enjoy delving into public surveying in order to better evaluate and serve a user community.  This could be an extremely useful tool in our field which I haven’t seen discussed much before this class.
All in all, I’m delighted I took this course!  I am confident I’m a better information professional for it, and I know way more about inappropriate national stereotypes than I did before!