Tag: galleries

How things change: the Google Art Project (again)

The updated Google Art Project has been launched with loads more museums contributing over 30,000 artworks.  The interface still seems a bit sketchy to me (sometimes you can open links in a new tab, sometimes you can’t; mystery meat navigation; the lovely zoom option isn’t immediately discoverable; the thumbnails that appear at the bottom don’t have a strong visual connection with the action that triggers their appearance; and the only way I could glean any artist/title information about the thumbnails was by looking at the URL), but it’s nice to see options for exploring by collection (collecting institution, I assume), date or artist emphasised in the interface. 

Anyway, it’s all about the content – easy access to high-quality zoomable images of some of the world’s best artworks in an interface with lots of relevant information and links back to the holding institution is a win for everyone.  And if the attention (and traffic) makes museums a little jealous, well, it’ll be fascinating to see how that translates into action.  After all, keeping up with the Joneses seems to be one way museums change…

Reading some online stories about the launch, I was struck by how far conversations about traditional and online galleries have come.  From one:

As users explore the galleries they can also add comments to each painting and share the whole collection with friends and family. Try doing that in the Tate Modern. Actually, don’t.

Although, of course, you can – it’s traditionally known as ‘having a conversation in a museum’. 
But in 2012, is visiting a website and sharing links online seen as a reasonable stand-in for the physical visit to a museum, leaving the in-person gallery visit for ‘purists’ and enthusiasts?  (This might make blockbuster exhibtions bearable.)  Or, as the consensus of the past decade has it, does it just whet the appetite and create demand for an experience with the original object, leading to more visits?

The rise of the non-museum (and death by aggregation)

A bit of an art museum/gallery-focussed post… And when I say ‘post’, I mean ‘vaguely related series of random thoughts’… but these ideas have been building up and I might as well get them out to help get them out of ‘draft’.

Following on from various recent discussions (especially the brilliantly thought-provoking MCG’s Spring meeting ‘Go Collaborate’) and the launches over the past few months of the Google Art Project, Artfinder and today’s ‘Your Paintings‘ from the BBC and the Public Catalogue Foundation, I’ve been wondering what space is left for galleries online.  (I’ve also been thinking about Aaron’s “you are about to be eaten by robots” and the image of Google and Facebook ‘nipping at your heels’ to become ‘the arbiter of truth for ideas’ and the general need for museums to make a case for their special place in society.)  Between funding cuts on the one hand, and projects from giants like Google and the BBC and even Europeana on the other, what can galleries do online that no-one else can?

So I asked on twitter, wondering if the space that was left was in creating/curating specialist interest and/or local experiences… @bridgetmck responded “Maybe the space for museums to work online now is meaning-making, intellectual context, using content to solve problems?”  The idea of that the USP of an museum is based on knowledge and community rather than collections is interesting and something I need to think about more.

The twitter conversation also branched off into a direction I’ve been thinking about over the past few months – while it’s great that we’re getting more and more open content [seriously, this is an amazing problem to have], what’s the effect of all this aggregation on the user experience?  @rachelcoldicutt had also been looking at ‘Your Paintings’ and her response was to my ‘space’ question was: “I think the space left is for curation. I feel totally overwhelmed by ALL THOSE paintings. It’s like a storage space not a museum”.  She’d also just tweeted “are such enormous sites needed when you can search and aggregate? Phaps yes for data structure/API, but surely not for *ppl*” which I’m quoting because I’ve been thinking the same thing.

[Update 2, July 14: Or, as Vannevar Bush said in ‘As We May Think‘ in 1945: “There is a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record.”]

Have we reached a state of ‘death by aggregation’?  Even the guys at Artfinder haven’t found a way to make endless lists of search results or artists feel more like fun than work.

Big aggregated collections are great one-stop shops for particular types of researchers, and they’re brilliant for people building services based on content, but is there a Dunbar number for the number of objects you can view in one sitting?  To borrow the phrase Hugh Wallace used at MuseumNext, ‘snackable‘ or bite-sized content seems to fit better into the lives of museum audiences, but how do we make collections and the knowledge around them ‘snackable’?  Which of the many ways to curate that content into smaller sets – tours, slideshows, personal galleries, recommender systems, storytelling – works in different contexts?  And how much and what type of contextual content is best, and what is that Dunbar number?  @benosteen suggested small ‘community sets’ or “personal ‘threads'” – “interesting people picking 6->12 related items (in their opinion) and discussing them?”.  [And as @LSpurdle pointed out, what about serendipity, or the ‘surprising beauty’ Rachel mentioned?]

I’m still thinking it all through, and will probably come back and update as I work it out.  In the meantime, what do you think?

[Update: I’ve only just remembered that I’d written about an earlier attempt to get to grips with the effects of aggregation and mental models of collections that might help museums serve both casual and specialist audiences in Rockets, Lockets and Sprockets – towards audience models about collections? – it still needs a lot of thought and testing with actual users, I’d love to hear your thoughts or get pointers to similar work.]

‘Share What You See’ at hack4europe London

A quick report from hack4europe London, one of four hackathons organised by Europeana to ‘showcase the potential of the API usage for data providers, partners and end-users’.

I have to confess that when I arrived I wasn’t feeling terribly inspired – it’s been a long month and I wasn’t sure what I could get done at a one-day hack.  I was intrigued by the idea of ‘stealth culture’ – putting cultural content out there for people to find, whether or not they were intentionally looking for ‘a cultural experience’ – but I couldn’t think of a hack about it I could finish in about six hours.  But I happened to walk past Owen Stephen’s (@ostephens) screen and noticed that he was googling something about WordPress, and since I’ve done quite a lot of work in WordPress, I asked what his plans were.  After a chat we decided to work together on a WordPress plugin to help people blog about cool things they found on museum visits.  I’d met Owen at OpenCulture 2011 the day before (though we’d already been following each other on twitter) but without the hackday it’s unlikely we would have ever worked together.

So what did we make?  ‘Share What You See’ is a plugin designed to make a museum and gallery visit more personal, memorable and sociable.  There’s always that one object that made you laugh, reminded you of friends or family, or was just really striking.  The plugin lets you search for the object in the Europeana collection (by title, and hopefully by venue or accession number), and instantly create a blog post about it (screenshot below) to share it with others.

Screenshot: post pre-populated with information about the object. 

Once you’ve found your object, the plugin automatically inserts an image of it, plus the title, description and venue name.

You can then add your own text and whatever other media you like.  The  plugin stores the originally retrieved information in custom fields so it’s always there for reference if it’s updated in the post.  Once an image or other media item is added, you can use all the usual WordPress tools to edit it.

If you’re in a gallery with wifi, you could create a post and share an object then and there, because WordPress is optimised for mobile devices.  This help makes collection objects into ‘social objects’, embedding them in the lives of museum and gallery visitors.  The plugin could also be used by teachers or community groups to elicit personal memories or creative stories before or after museum visits.

The code is at https://github.com/mialondon/Share-what-you-see and there’s a sample blog post at http://www.museumgames.org.uk/jug/.  There’s still lots of tweaks we could have made, particularly around dealing with some of the data inconsistencies, and I’d love a search by city (in case you can’t quite remember the name of the museum), etc, but it’s not bad for a couple of hours work and it was a lot of fun.  Thanks to the British Library for hosting the day (and the drinks afterwards), the Collections Trust/Culture Grid for organising, and Europeana for setting it up, and of course to Owen for working with me.  Oh, and we won the prize for “developer’s choice” so thank you to all the other developers!

The museum/academic divide, museum labels and mobile-accessible interpretation…

This post from the Smarthistory blog, Writing the Museum Label on a Wiki (and some other ideas), very neatly brings together some of the proposals and conversations from MW2009.

The authors suggest two ‘notions’ to bring about greater collaboration between museum educators (in the broadest sense) and academics, starting with the premise that:

For some time now, we have been publicly questioning the division that exists between two professional groups tasked with educating the public about art: those in museums (curators and educators) and those in the academy (art historians). These two communities share expertise that is sought by the museum visitor and the student, yet they rarely meet, too often do not attend the same conferences, and almost never collaborate.

I won’t pre-empt their notions here – go and read the article, but I just wanted to highlight this quote:

Can the tired modernist fiction that the direct experience of the object must remain unencumbered by the frame of context really still be operative?

I really hope not!

(As an aside, my inner web geek is hugely amused by the irony of the ‘403’ contained within the URL of the article – 403 is the HTTP status code for ‘access forbidden’.)