nirak.net - Musings of an LIS Student

The field of information storage and retrieval concentrates heavily on mathematic formulas for ideal retrieval, and while this is really fascinating (and way over my head) I am also interested in new methods that have been developed for information retrieval in the last five or so years. That’s not to say math is not involved in the new methods- it’s still there, but there are new methods of collecting and using metadata and analyzing materials that are surprisingly useful.

Types of Alternative Search

Alternative search technologies can be divided into a few distinct categories. There’s more than I have listed, I’m sure, but these are the ones I am primarily interested in.

• Many sites use existing human or computer supplied metadata to find and display information, but some sites are taking this approach above and beyond the traditional ways to create new and novel ways of finding information.
• Some searches analyze a documents’ contents (documents is used in the loosest form here, and meant to include everything from text to sound, images, and video) to return a result. Text is traditionally used for this, but some aspects of images are very easily returned in this way. For instance, it is fairly easy to analyze a picture for an average color and search by colors nearby in the color spectrum.
• A final method of search and retrieval is to rely on user added metadata. This form of search is becoming increasingly popular, and sites are inventing new ways to encourage users to supply their own metadata.

Two further distinctions in retrieval systems can be made: finding systems and browsing systems. Finding systems assist the user in finding a specific item, for instance, a picture of a cat. A finding system may also help answer a specific question. A browsing system helps the user find something, even if they are not exactly sure what they want. Browsing may also help the user make connections in a collection of documents, an especially useful attribute in online exhibits; in this way, browsing helps the user formulate a question rather than find an answer. A system that doesn’t work as a finding system may work wonderfully as a browsing system. One final note is that more and more systems use a combination of search techniques to find a relevant match.

Over the next few days I’ll examine a few sites that use existing metadata, the document’s content, or user supplied metadata to facilitate finding and browsing.

karin :: May.25.2008 :: Information Literacy, Library :: No Comments »

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 »

With THAT Camp quickly approaching, I have been thinking about digital humanities quite a bit. For those that don’t know, digital humanities is a cross disciplinary field that helps explore the humanities through digital exploration. That might mean anything from an online history exhibit to in depth text analysis of literary works. Across the country, Digital humanities centers are springing up to support new kinds of digital research. The reach of these centers varies widely- some are mostly history based, and in fact it seems like a great deal of digital humanities research focuses on history. Others are more broad, and include projects in many humanities disciplines: Art History, Literature, Language, Classics, etc. A big part of the discussion in the Digital Humanities is talking about new models for publishing: what does it mean to publish online? What does peer review look like for online projects? How should promotion and tenure change to account for digital work? (Some places won’t even accept digital scholarship as part of a tenure portfolio).

One humanities discipline that I rarely see addressed in digital humanities, though, is Fine Art, and the question of why has been on my mind a lot. One obvious reason I come up with is that funding agencies for arts and other humanities are different- there’s the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The NEH has many initiatives to support digital work (see the new Office for Digital Humanities), while the NEA- well, I don’t think it has much in the way of digital initiatives (please correct me if I am wrong.) Which is a shame, really- the NEA could go very far towards “bringing the arts to all Americans” (one of the goals stated on their “about us” page) by supporting digital work, especially if they also supported work that released into Creative Commons or some such license. The separation of funding agencies is one explanation for the divide, but are there others?

To be sure, Fine Art is different from other humanities disciplines. The measure for success is different, for one thing- it’s nice to publish a book, or have a book written about you, of course, but more weight is placed on exhibitions- where do you exhibit? Is it a solo or a group show? The important thing, of course, is the professor’s work, but it is not enough to make work an never exhibit it. I’m sure similar discussions must take place in the academic fine art world that take place in other disciplines, such as: Are there other models for tenure? What should count? What about an online exhibition?

I wonder if digital humanities in general has room for fine art. Where I work, we offer research faculty fellowships once a year to help faculty with digital projects. I don’t think any fine art faculty have applied, but I wonder what would happen if they did. Our Center is not really set up for a fine art project, and, to be honest, I’m not even sure what one would look like. But I would be interested to find out.

karin :: May.18.2008 :: Uncategorized :: 6 Comments »

I have had “learn to program” on my list of stuff to do for years. It’s always “after I do this…”

But! There is a great new resource created by the fabulous William J. Turkel & Alan MacEachern called the Programming Historian which is also great for librarians and any scholar who wants a way to make programs that are actually useful to your work.

You can find it at the Programming Historian Wiki.

I’ll be working through it over the next week or two, and then I hope to move to some of the other programming resources I never seem to get around to.

karin :: May.09.2008 :: Library :: 2 Comments »