As the Number of Digital Images Available to Art Historians Grows Apace, It Is Perhaps
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AUTHOR: Margaret E. Graham and Christopher Bailey TITLE: Digital images and art historians -- Compare and contrast revisited SOURCE: Art Libraries Journal 31 no3 21-4 2006 COPYRIGHT:The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. As the number of digital images available to art historians grows apace, it is perhaps an opportune moment to consider what impact digital images have had on the discipline and on the work methods of art historians. This paper revisits the findings of a research project -- Compare and contrast -- focusing on the attitudes of art historians towards digital image technologies, the role of the technologies in the different phases and activities of the research process, the tools and their potential, and barriers to the use of digital images. INTRODUCTION In 2000 the authors initiated a research project -- Compare and contrast -- into the impact of digital image technologies on art history, partly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) in the UK, now the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The project aimed to investigate the research concerns and practices of art historians, covering their methods of research such as their use and handling of field notes and other evidence, and their writing processes, in the context of the availability of digital images.[sup1, 2, 3] A number of articles influenced the research goals.[sup4,5,6] THE COMPARE AND CONTRAST STUDY The study was a two-stage process involving a questionnaire survey and a series of in- depth interviews. The survey focused on the work and research interests of respondents; their sources of information (image-related collections and human intermediaries) and resources they used when gathering information; their use of digital images and barriers to their use of digital images. The questionnaire was initially distributed to a sample of 251 academic/research members of the UK's Association of Art Historians (AAH). The return rate was 25% (63 responses). An online version of the questionnaire was also made available and advertised through various email discussion lists and at conferences. Over a fifteen month period 83 completed questionnaires were submitted, thus giving a total of 146 responses. Sixty percent of respondents overall were British (including all the AAH respondents) whilst the rest were from a wide range of countries including the US (16%), Germany (5%), Canada and Finland. The interviews formed the main AHRB-funded part of the study. A total of 26 art historians were interviewed. They represented the broad subject areas of classical and medieval art; Renaissance and 18th-century art; modern art; modern architecture and design; and film, photography, digital media and visual culture. The interviewees were selected from the survey respondents based on certain criteria so as to obtain, as far as possible, an even representation by age and gender across the five subject groups. The interview structure was based on the findings of the survey. Questions sought indepth, qualitative data about working methods, use of images as evidence in the research process, the impact digital images may have had on this activity, and how access to digital images may lead to new ways of working/research. Interviewees were also asked to express a wish list of what they would like digital image technologies to enable them to do in terms of their research or other work. All interviews were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed. Data analysis was performed manually, following standard qualitative research practice: the transcriptions were read and re-read carefully and common issues, concepts and recurring themes identified and interpreted from the data. The selected findings presented in this paper provide a snapshot of the large volume of data that was collected from both the survey and the interviews. They are grouped into the following areas: * attitudes towards digital image technologies * role of digital image technologies in the different phases and activities of the research process * the tools and their potential * barriers to the use of digital images. ATTITUDES TOWARDS DIGITAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES As was to be expected, attitudes towards digital image technologies had both positive and negative aspects. A selection of these views follows. There were many positive and enthusiastic attitudes towards digital image technologies, particularly as regards ease, convenience and speed of access to digital images. Some interviewees felt positively that the technology was facilitating their work, whilst others wanted to know how the technology could be best used by them and were keen to develop their skills in applying the technology. Some mentioned that digital images were a trigger for creativity in their research and thinking. However, on the negative side, interviewees complained about lack of access to the technology. Others had a general lack of understanding of how to use the technology and were concerned about the time needed to develop the skills as well as use the technologies. Some mentioned lack of available digital images relevant to their work and research, or expressed a degree of scepticism and distrust of digital images and the accompanying information which led them to have misgivings about abandoning completely traditional methods and resources. Inevitably, a few had concerns about copyright of digital images available via the web. ROLE OF DIGITAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS Digital images were being used at the initial stages of the research process. For example, some art historians used digital images to help identify what they wanted to study at first hand, prior to planning site visits. These early stages of identifying material to research could be both planned and unplanned. Some of the interviewees mentioned that they often browsed through online galleries, without looking for a specific work, and sometimes found images that could 'spark off the next round of research'. The serendipitous discovery of visual material not previously known about was considered a great advantage of digital image collections. Web-based and CD-ROM collections were also being used deliberately by some researchers as starting points for research, particularly for quick reference, subject and thematic searching. However, the traditional use of book illustrations, postcards or photographs was still evident, and would not be replaced completely. Searching, retrieval and selection of required images were being greatly facilitated by the new digital technologies. Digital image technologies were beginning to play a role in the recording phases of the research process, primarily the compilation of field notes and writing up research. The use of laptops while working on site enabled the researcher easily to cross-reference and access visual material already assembled, in addition to allowing a digital image to be easily compared with the original. Comparative research was being greatly facilitated by the technologies. Multiple images (digital and non-digital) from various sources and locations could be more easily compared, allowing new interpretations and ideas to emerge. Some interviewees specifically mentioned how they used digital images to develop their research ideas and arguments. Another impact has been the ease with which digital images, information and ideas can be exchanged using email and the web as a publishing medium. Lastly, in this section, some art historians commented that digital image technology itself was becoming the focus of their research, whilst others discussed the potential of research into entirely digital art forms. TOOLS AND THEIR POTENTIAL Interviewees were asked to suggest a 'wish list' of what they would like digital image technologies to enable them to do in the future. Not surprisingly, their suggestions, whilst often personal and dependent on their experience of using the technologies to date, were varied, reflecting both general and specific needs. The suggestions can be grouped into image resources, metadata, software tools and personalisation of systems. IMAGE RESOURCES Interviewees wanted improved and increased access to the collections of museums and galleries, including works by lesser known artists. They wanted directories of contents of these collections-in other words, meta-search engines. They wanted the facility to search across different collections and sites at the same time, instead of searching each collection separately. They preferred to use digital images from museum and gallery collections as this guaranteed authentication of the visual representations and imbued the sources with trustworthiness. METADATA Interviewees wanted standardised and enhanced descriptive metadata to accompany all digital images, including thumbnail images, full details about individual artists, techniques and dimensions of works, genre, time periods, and so on. SOFTWARE TOOLS Many of the interviewees mentioned user-friendly, platform-independent software tools that would enable them to manipulate and enhance digital images (in two or three dimensions as applicable) as well as to compare, analyse and interpret them. Some suggested use of content-based image retrieval for searching for digital images in online collections. Some described the future possibility of using software to match the visual characteristics of digital images, thus permitting an 'objective and neutral' visual analysis. PERSONALISATION OF SYSTEMS Some interviewees wanted personalisation of their own image databases that would provide enhanced display features, such as the digital image displayed along with the associated metadata, caption and other information and their own notes and interpretations. BARRIERS TO THE USE OF DIGITAL IMAGES Barriers or impediments to the art historians in using digital images for research or other work included lack of knowledge of sources of digital images (588%), lack of experience of searching for images (34%) and using the technology (28%). Just over a fifth considered digital images irrelevant to their work. Only a small number (3%) mentioned copyright as a barrier. A summary of the responses from the survey (146 respondents) is presented in the following table: SOME CONCLUSIONS Has access to digital images affected the work methods of art historians? For many, the answer is in the positive. There is greater availability of and access to visual material. Use of digital images has allowed many of the art historians to work at home (or, indeed, anywhere) and at any time. More deskbased research is possible, reducing the need to undertake expensive and time-consuming research trips. Where such trips are necessary, the visits can be more focused provided the necessary background research work has been done. Digital image collections on the web are becoming important as quick reference sources as well as the first step in the research process. Manipulation and/or enhancement of digital images has permitted new arguments in stylistic and comparative analysis. Use of digital images has facilitated the incorporation of the images into field notes, databases, documents, research reports, articles, etc., as well as contributing to enhanced communication, discussion and sharing of theories and ideas with other scholars. There was a willingness by many of the Compare and contrast participants to employ digital images in research. In teaching, there was a lot of enthusiasm for the use of images to make the lectures more interesting and more interactive. Digital images were also considered generally to play an important role in the learning process. Many claimed to be comfortable with the technology. Others lacked confidence and felt they needed to acquire the skills to make it all work. The availability of user-friendly tools was critical to making effective use of digital images. On the other hand, some also stated categorically that they needed appropriate and timely technical support. However, it was evident that the age of the hardcopy image of the original artefact is not over-the two formats, digital and analogue, are likely to exist, and be used, in tandem for some time to come. Our interest in how digital images are used by the art history discipline continues. More research is still needed to ensure that the technologies are being fully exploited. To this end, we are planning to repeat the questionnaire-based survey this year in order to find out what changes have occurred in the use of digital images in art historical research and work practice over the last five years. Revised version of a paper presented at DRH200S: Digital resources in the humanities conference, 4-7 September 2005, University of Lancaster. ADDED MATERIAL Margaret E. Graham Principal Lecturer School of Computing, Engineering & Information Sciences Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST UK Email: [email protected] Christopher Bailey Associate Dean School of Arts & Social Sciences Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 8ST UK Email: [email protected] Barriers to the use of digital images Lack of knowledge of sources 58% Lack of knowledge of how to search 34% Lack of experience of using the technology 28% Lack of access to the technologies 24% Irrelevance of digital images to their work 21% Limited availability of images relevant to their work 13% Poor quality of images 6% Limited technical provision 4% Copyright restrictions or uncertainties 3% REFERENCES 1. C. Bailey and M. E. Graham. 'The corpus and the art historian,' in Digital evidence: selected papers from DHR2000, Digital Resources for the Humanities Conference, University of Sheffield; September 2000, ed. M. Fraser and others, 115-130 (London: Office for Humanities Communication, 2001). 2. C. Bailey and M. Graham, 'Compare and contrast: the impact of digital image technology on art history,' in Digital environments: design, heritage and architecture; CHArt conference proceedings, volume 2, 2000, ed. T. Szrajber, http://www.chart.ac.uk/chart1999/index.html. 3. C. Bailey and M. E. Graham, 'Compare and contrast: measuring the impact of digital image on the discipline of art history,' in DRH99: A selection of papers from Digital Resources in the Humanities 1999, ed. M. Deegan and H. Short, 11-24 (London: Office for Humanities Communication, 2000): 11-24. 4. E. Bakewell, W. O. Beeman, and C. M. Reese, Object image inquiry: the art historian at work; report on a collaborative study by the Getty Art History Information Program (AHIP) and the Institute for Research in Information and Scholarship (IRIS), Brown University (Santa Monica, Calif.: AHIP, 1988). 5. R. Brilliant, 'How an art historian connects art and information,' Library trends 37, no. 2 (1988): 120-129. 6. K. Markey, 'Access to iconographical research collections,' Library trends 37, no. 2 (1988): 154-174.