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
Lisa C said,
September 15, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I think you’re right to be thinking about this aspect of the medium for use in studying art – it poses pretty specific challenges. You need special software to allow a sculpture to be viewed 3-dimensionally, from all angles; it’s next to impossible to be certain you’re getting the true depth, light, shadow, and color of a painting; you’ll never be able to convey the scope of a wall-sized fresco. But more important than all of these is that you’ll probably be most constrained by the various browsers and connections of your audience.
I know very little about art history – just took one class as an undergrad (I did really like it, tho) – so I’m probably not even getting close to the real issues that you’re struggling with. I look forward to hearing more about your project and how you’ll address these challenges.
populariscultura said,
September 15, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Marcella-
One of the more interesting things aout seeing art online is that it can pique your interest. I would agree that there is no substitue for the real thing. Case in point, I have seen many prints of “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte” by Georges Seurat, but nothing prepared me for the amazing experience of seeing it at the Art Institue in Chicago. I’ve never reacted to a painting like that before, certainly not in it’s non-original rendered form.
I would think that the major goal of accessing artwork online is to create interest and generate foot traffic to the institution in person. What do you think?
danieljcohen said,
September 15, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Interesting point. And does the web privilege 2D objects over 3D ones (like sculpture)?
Gayle said,
September 21, 2008 at 8:09 pm
One way I can think of would be a virtual art world, like the virtual game worlds where they put on the wraparound goggles and walk into a virtual 3D world. I’ve never done it but you’re supposed to feel like you are actually “there,” wherever there may be. Of course, this would mean that anyone who wanted to view art this way would have the added expense of adding equipment (goggles and accompanying software) to his computer. I would image that it would be rather costly and not even sure if it’s a doable thing right now with the average computers that people own? But there’s always the future!