Link to survey:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdMhiH4NZ5gQeIhc8EicBi0ODoo9ejB9tHzie7XIqjfpo5qbg/viewform
Link to survey results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a_6hG-63_SbDm721u3gvo37dpflc5jSOXdm_4WOfSmM/edit?usp=sharing
Beyond the Buzz: What’s Really Going on with Data Usage in Digital Art History?
Recently released datasets from museums like the MOMA, Tate Collection, and other cultural heritage institutions have prompted interest in exploring what art historical data has to offer. A recent survey that I distributed widely seeks to analyze how art historians are using this data and what is being done with datasets related to art history. Please see the survey here: http://goo.gl/forms/Uc3bEsMitR0w81af1. However, I question and attempt to assess with this survey the following: Are art historians taking advantage of these datasets? How are they being used? What roadblocks exist that are hindering widespread usage of these datasets in art historical research? This talk will describe the results of my survey, further implications of those results, and it will examine the current state of open art historical datasets.
My perspective is one of a digital scholarship specialist, metadata cataloger, and active researcher in art history. I hope that my unique situation as both a librarian and student of art history will highlight similar issues that are occurring for both data practitioners and data researchers. I argue that librarians are situated to promote data studies and experimentation in art history by making use of existing knowledge of data standards and normalization techniques, as well as supporting new data-driven scholarship that is a cycle of data use, distribution, and reuse. I also argue for more input from art historians and other researchers for better data distribution that aligns with their needs.
This survey and resulting assessment is one of the first attempts to look critically at the data landscape in digital art history to identify gaps and possibilities for better data-driven scholarship in the future. Moreover, data usage and these continuing data releases need to be evaluated critically. The definition of “open” in “open data” is not being fully supported by institutions. Data literacy and data manipulation skills are not a part of traditional art historical scholarship at present. Other technical and non-technical barriers exist like the perception of data and how it can benefit “traditional” scholars. If data is truly open and digital art history is moving toward data-driven scholarship, now is the time to assess the roadblocks, understand what is successful or not, and look at changes needed from both the institutions and the researchers.