09.15.08
A few thoughts about art history vs. history in new media.
So far I’ve really been very interested by the readings, which are very involving and interesting in a lot of ways. One of the things I’m having some trouble with, though, is the visual quality that is absolutely necessary in the study of art history.
In my first blog post I addressed the concern of seeing artworks online, and I still stand by that. Although many art history scholars (especially in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century) worked from black and white photographs, and even today some scholarship is done that way, it seems counterintuitive to try and attempt a thorough study of art by looking at your computer screen.
This seems to be one material way that art history differs from conventional history in the approach of new media. I imagine that many of the primary sources for history can be digitized (though I’m sure this depends on the source in question) without being negatively affected, but the most primary source for art history, the artwork itself, can only be reproduced in a way not all that different than photography.
I’ve been trying to think of some way to get around this, and the best I’ve come up with are super-high resolution scans and high-res monitors or even video goggles. Other primary sources relating to art history as well as secondary sources can be digitized as well, but I feel like this isn’t addressing the biggest issue in taking art history to the web.
Any thoughts? Should I be less focused on this problem and more on the other ways that art historical scholarship can be advanced through digital technology?
-Marcella
Comparing Websites
Since I still don’t know what my topic for this class is going to be, I decided to compare and contrast the websites for two museums. Rather than picking two museums randomly (which, arguably, may have led to a more objective comparison), I decided to look at two that I am familiar with.
The Honolulu Academy of Arts is probably the premier art museum in Hawaii. Which is to say it is the only general art museum, with a varied collection that ranges from prehistorical through modern art. There website, in the most complimentary of ways, reflects this wide range of subject matter through a very busy front page. The central panel is dedicated to information on a current exhibit, but both the left and right side panels hold a variety of ad-like boxes describing different things. In addition, the the navigation bar at the top holds drop-down menus that lead to an amazing array of different areas. Navigation is not simplistic, and while a variety of audiences may be targeted with this approach, it is discomforting to a casual visitor looking for basic information about the museum.
I might further posit that the website does not give a good sense of what the museum is about, or convey the actual experience of visiting in any way. In fact, the actual museum is beautiful and peaceful, with a non-linear path through the exhibits in large high-ceilinged galleries and courtyards filled with fountains. The color scheme may be an attempt at simplicity, but it ends up being a little boring with few other visual elements to add context or visual stimulation.
The second website is for another museum in Hawaii, but one that is smaller and much more of a niche art museum: The Contemporary Museum of Hawaii. I find this website to be much more visually approachable, with a panoramic picture of the museum at the top of the page, a small navigation bar and a good contrast of white space and a darker gray background. The boxes in the picture at the top provide both a neat visual effect as well as additional navigation when rolled over, though the latter is less obvious than it could be. One of my main critiques is that on my laptop, I have to scroll down to get access to most of the links on the right-hand side, including directions, information about the cafe, etc. On a positive note, however, the museum has a good introductory blurb which provides just the right level of information to a casual visitor.
Both of these websites fall under the organizational genre, and neither of them seem to cross that boundary much, which is a little disappointing. Although the Academy has digitized some of the work in their collection, it is in very small, un-helpful digital forms that are really unappealing. I can’t imagine that it would be of any interest to any audience I can conceive of in it’s present state. The Contemporary Museum also has a small online collection that is not at all representative of the number of incredible artworks in its permanent collection, but is slightly more visually pleasing.
09.05.08
The Language of New Media: Introduction/Chapter 1
The first thing that I’ve really noticed about this text is that Manovich loves film, especially old film. His enthusiasm makes me want to go watch some old, silent films. He makes me feel like my knowledge of this essential part of our cultural evolution is several lacking. And yet, while many of his points about the relation of new media to that of it’s cinematic predecessor (and co-evolutionary form) are no doubt valid, I do wonder if he may on occasion stretch his ideas to fit in with cinematic themes.
Manovich certainly has his own sense of drama. For example, on p. 22 he suggests that computers and photography have both been necessary to the evolution of modern mass culture as a means of “assuring the same ideological beliefs.” This idea seems like a possibility to me in some ways. After all, I think a convincing argument can be made for visual media as a catalyst for public opinion in a multitude of situations. Manovich goes on, though, to say that movie theaters during the early twentieth century were necessary as “routine survival technique[s]” as people of the day were overwhelmed by the “dense information environment outside the theatre.” (p. 23) I have to ask, was life really just too much to handle without movies?
I think my favorite example thus far of Manovich’s tendency toward drama was his description and the conclusions he drew from the use of discarded 35mm film as an early computer punchcard on p. 25. His description of this event as an “Oedipal complex” seemed thorough hyperbole.
This being said, I found that even in the seven years since this text was published several of Manovich’s ideas have played out in a way similar to that which he envisioned. The non-hierarchical architecture of the web has been reinforced by the current best practice techniques of separating content and markup (html) from style (CSS) and function (ajax, javascript, etc.). The current proliferation of Google-styled advertisements that target the user based on search queries again reinforces the ideas Manovich suggests on p. 42. There are other technologies that I’m less certain about the current state of, though. Do lossy forms of file compression still dominate?
On p. 42 Manovich suggests that new media which allows for multiple approaches and an experience designed by the user is “trying to convince us that we are all unique.” I wonder, though, if the new media is pushing this drive toward unique experiences, or if our own desire to be unique is the driving force behind the development of this type of media experience.
There were two other parts to this first chapter that I found compelling and interesting to consider. On p. 49 and then pp. 52-54 Manovich discusses the common discomfort with the transition from analog to digital technologies and the loss of data this entails. Manovich concludes that “in reality this difference does not matter” due to the inability of humans to perceive the difference. Although probably true, I am still left with a feeling of unease that we will, in this process, lose something important. Perhaps the problem is more of a philosophical one–no matter how small the units are, the overall technique still involves sampling and reinterpreting rather than a holistic assessment.
Finally, I found Manovich’s conclusion to chapter 1 to be a fascinating idea that I had never previously considered. As he says on p. 61, “Interactive media asks us to identify with someone else’s mental structure.” As a previous designer of interactive systems, I can testify that the goal is to try and make the system as intuitive to others as possible, so maybe a more accurate description would be that it asks us to identify with someone else’s mental structure tempered by the attempt to understand the mental process of others. Some food for thought.
Well, I doubt that anyone will actually read this much babbling, and if you do please leave a comment and let me know what you think about some of these ideas! For now, I’m off to chapter 2.
A few excuses.
I’ve had a crazy few weeks, and I haven’t participated in this blog or this class nearly as much as I would have liked. There are several factors that have now come together which will make this easier, though–I have a wireless card installed in my aging Mac, I have FIOS installed in my house, and I have my textbooks. Weee!
I’ve begun reading Manovich, and I have to say that so far the text seems like it’s aimed directly at me. It’s a confluence of material/visual culture (and as an Art History grad student this is a perfect extension of my methods and theory studies) and computer science (my previous career as a high level [perl, PHP, javascript, etc.] programmer and web designer gives me a great background to understand and relate to this). Indeed, just in the introduction Manovich mentions modern artists and within a few paragraphs is talking about the Nintendo Dataglove and Myst. Perfect!
This reminds me of an interesting article I read, maybe last year. I’m not sure where, but I may try and find it and post it if I’m successful. The article was specifically addressing computer games, but is probably true of a variety of new media forms. Essentially, it said that those of us born between 1978-1982 have always been the target audience for computer games. We’ve grown up with the industry targeting us specifically, and it continues to do so now that we’re adults. It was an interesting thing to consider, but oh-so-true. I remember playing silly racing games on the Atari when I was a toddler, Super Mario Bros. on the Nintendo as a pre-teen, RPGs like Final Fantasy III (USA release) as a teenager, and so on. It seems clear that this must have affected the consciousness of my generation, though I am right now at a loss as to draw a conclusion. Any thoughts?
I think I’m going to have a lot to say about Manovich, so I’ve decided to break my posts down by chapter in an attempt at succinctness. Once I’ve caught up somewhat on the reading, I will go back and comment on some of my classmate’s blogs and try and get involved in any discussions there.
