nirak.net - Musings of an LIS Student

Thanks to everyone who commented on my previous two posts. I’m still working these things out in my head, and am speaking from a very limited (and naive) perspective of only a handful of institutions and projects that I have seen.

One of the things I left out is that digital humanities centers are by no means the only entity that could help with digital projects or publications of art materials. This could also be accomplished through collaborations with other departments on campus (such as Computer Science)  or through a university press. I imagine that we’ll probably start to see a number of these collaborations at the same time.

The part of this that is stuck in my brain, and which I don’t have an answer for, is what one of these projects would look like? I now have an idea of what a history or literature project looks like, but not much of what an art history or especially a fine art project would look like. I have seen a few examples of art history sites, and just presenting the images as one would in a book is somehow a bit of a letdown. But I don’t know what it is that I expect to be different. As for fine art- I have seen several fine art projects on the internet, and again, I always think something is somehow missing. I’m going to ponder this and research more and come up with some links and ideas.

karin :: May.22.2008 :: Art, Work :: No Comments »

After more thought about the previous post, I think my question is:

Should digital humanities centers take it upon themselves to encourage fine art and art history faculty to create digital projects?

That would probably involve searching for funding from different venues and changing some assumptions, but I certainly think it is possible. It might mean specifically reaching out to fine art and art history faculty and demonstrating what a digital humanities center can do for them. More than just getting images on the web, it would mean a new kind of exploration for art history and fine art. Imagine an art history digital project illustrated with beautiful, high resolution zoomable (and downloadable) images that explain a concept better than static text ever could. Or a faculty artist’s web page which explores the meaning of the work in depth with (again) high resolution images interwoven with text and multimedia that brings the work alive. Better yet, imagine at least some of that content released under a license so others can reuse it, at least for educational purposes.

Ben noted in the comments of the last post that very few images that come up in a Google image search for an artist come from .edu domains. That does not surprise me—many artists and curators, especially in the academic realm, are nervous about posting images online and are stingy with high resolution images. However, what is considered high resolution has changed. I think of high resolution as above 1200×900—but many images on museum websites are around 300 pixels. Some museums sell high quality copies, but they could provide a nice big resolution and still sell the REALLY high resolution photo. Museum websites often are also stingy about letting you download images for your own use.

Ben also commented that some projects might be squashed by university lawyers. I think that is absolutely true, but that has been true for digital humanities in general. One of the great things about these centers is that they are constantly looking for materials to publish online, and will push for access for all. This is important because if we (as a society) don’t push for fair use from copyright holders, the copyright holders will take advantage and achieve ever more restrictions on use. This is true for books as well as paintings—but books, of course, are easier to deal with, because there are multiple copies. So we can go ahead and digitize that book that is clear of copyright, because it can be bought for a decent price, or our library already has a copy. With paintings, however, it’s more tricky. Many museums disallow photography in all galleries, even if the some galleries contain out of copyright works. This is all the more reason, I think, for digital humanities centers to step in, especially on campuses that hold works of art.

Ira Greenburg also left a great comment, saying:

Where I teach, “digital” seems to get inserted into every conversation these days - ranging in tone from vitriolic to sacrosanct. As a painter turned programmer (I still consider myself an artist), I find the debate tiresome and primarily fueled by ignorance on both sides.

I totally agree with this. I sometimes question whether digital humanities centers will continue past the next 10 or 20 years because I hope, eventually, that the facilities to create digital works, projects, and research, will be prevalent in every department on campus. Right now, though, a faculty member who wants to attempt a digital project has little support on many campuses. If they want to write a book, there’s a fairly straightforward process to follow, but a digital project requires expertise many don’t have.

Digital humanities centers are uniquely placed to reach out to fine art and art history faculty and create some unique and very exciting projects. Funding might be tough at first- but then, it was for digital humanities projects too in the beginning. I have a feeling that quite a few individual art faculty would really appreciate the help- some want to move online, but don’t know how or what the web can do for them. And if my suspicions are correct, they probably won’t get a lot of help from within their own department. (Again, depending on the institution.)

At this point I still have more questions than answers. I’ll end with a fantastic quote from Ira’s comment:

Working at the level of code, established disciplinary boundaries dissolve (and eventually the temples that house them will as well.)

karin :: May.21.2008 :: Art, Work :: 4 Comments »

In the comments of Michael Sauers recent post about adding creative commons works to their library catalog, Dewi Morgan said:

I think this is great… but.

But like all copyright mechanisms, CC licences are only a means to an end, and that end is to restrict the rights of the consumer and purchaser. Some CC licenses are unarguably vastly better than most commercial licenses. But CC is not public domain.

Every time I see a government or a library getting “into” CC, I have to ask: as opposed to what?

If the alternative is Public Domain, then moving to CC is a giant leap backwards. If you are going to spend money promoting a rights mechanism, and preserving works released under that mechanism, and putting your weight and support behind that mechanism, then let that mechanism be the Public Domain, not some “watered-down Copyright that is still undeniably Copyright”.

I can’t speak as a government or library, but I can say why I myself post my work under creative commons and not public domain.

I have been trained as an artist. In school, I heard a LOT about not giving yourself away, about protecting your copyright, your “brand,” even about legal ramifications both of using others work and others using your work. I remember that the whole thing seemed weird. There was no way then, at least not that I knew, to release my work under a license that said “please use this, please share it” and allowed me to find other artists whose work was remixable. Artists have a tenuous relationship with copyright. Those that make art by remixing know, or at least should know, the copyright law as it applies to derivative works and fair use. Most artists, rather then spend a lot of time wrestling with legal definitions, will either use public domain source material, or try to use nothing at all (which can be stifling for many people.)

In general, if you release something into the public domain, that means anyone can do anything they want with it. There are limitations of course, but you wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on if you released something in the public domain and then someone else put it in a gallery show without attribution. Of course, there is nothing to stop someone from putting a CC:By work in an art show either, but if they are following the terms of the license, at least you’ll have your name attached. It may not seem like a big deal - after all, you aren’t making money off your work either way, right? But in the art world, as most other circles, name recognition is *really* important. So if you give enough away under CC:By that people know your name, that’s social capital.

In an ideal world, Creative Commons wouldn’t be necessary- people would be polite and cite their sources. CC is a way of reminding people that yes, you can use this, but don’t pretend you made it, ok? Attribute back.

What creative commons license you use will depend on your purpose: I attribute almost everything CC:By because the important thing to me right now is name recognition. I’m building my brand, so to speak. Even if I was selling artwork, though, I’d probably stick with the CC:By SA license, because I don’t mind people making money off the work, as long as they help the cause by releasing their work into the commons as well. The brilliance of CC:By SA is that it is self perpetuating- you are free to use my content, but you have to let other people use your content. I personally don’t believe in, and will never use the Noncommercial version of the license, because it stifles other’s ability to make money as an artist (if they so choose) and is too incompatible with the other licenses. I don’t begrudge others decision to put that restriction on their content, however, I try not to use noncommercial licenses in case I want to sell something based on another work* later on. (* I added “based on another work” to try to clarify what I was saying re: Mark’s comment below. My full reply to his comment is in the comments)

As a creator, I don’t believe it is wrong to assert some rights over my work. I believe in intellectual property- I just think that as a society, we need to be able to build upon things or we will stagnate. The only problem I see with creative commons as it is is the time span- my work goes into the public domain following the same schedule as copyright law which would be 70 years after I die - that is, unless I go back and manually change the licenses of older content. Ideally, I could set a limit of my CC license, after which point it passes into the public domain. I think 10 years is reasonable. As it is now, I’ll just have to do a reevaluation of old work and release it into public domain where appropriate.

The reason I think 10 years is a reasonable term is that artists don’t live by resting on our laurels. We don’t make one really great painting or book and go “well, guess I can retire now!” - We create, we keep creating, and we keep changing. What I made 10 years ago doesn’t matter near as much as what I will create tomorrow. I think 10 years is a reasonable term for me to monetize what I can. That may be just me. I think terms up to 30ish years or until death (whichever comes first) are reasonable- but not this 70 years after death stuff.

karin :: Feb.22.2008 :: Art, Free as in Freedom, My Stuff, Open access/Open source, Sites and Stories :: 3 Comments »

I didn’t actually get tagged for this, but I saw it on the blog humachine, and it looks like fun.

I added a step 4 to go with step three, so that I could use use a Creative Commons licensed photo. The previous directions just pulled from Flickr’s “interesting” page, of which very few are CC licensed.

1. The first article title on the Wikipedia Random Articles page is the name of your band.
2. The last four words of the very last quotation on the Random Quotations page is the title of your album.
3. Use the random word generator to generate a word.
4. Use the word to search FlickrStorm (creative commons licensed photos) and the third picture will be your album cover. Or just choose any image.
5. Use your graphics program of choice to throw them together, and post the result.

Article Title: The World Famous Pontani Sisters
Random Quotation: The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. - Bertrand Russell
Random word: Tread
Image: Tired Cone by Travis Gray

Software & Hardware: Wacom Bamboo Tablet, ArtRage 2 (Through Wine), Gimp, Inkscape, Ubuntu 7.10

If you wanna do it, consider yourself tagged. Be sure to let me know in comments!

karin :: Jan.14.2008 :: Art, Free as in Freedom, Linux, My Stuff, Open access/Open source, Sites and Stories :: 1 Comment »

They’re here, and they’re beautiful. If you asked for one, it’s on the way. A few were a little dark, I’ll brighten for the next batch (and there will be a next batch.)

If anyone ever wants to get me a gift, these clip on handmade moo card holders are gorgeous.

If you see a typo, please don’t tell me.

karin :: Aug.09.2007 :: Art, Sites and Stories :: 2 Comments »