Domain Analysis Applied to Online Graffiti Art Image Galleries to Reveal Knowledge Organization Structures Used Within an Outsider Art Community
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Knowl. Org. 47(2020)No.7 543 A. M. Graf. Domain Analysis Applied to Online Graffiti Art Image Galleries to Reveal Knowledge Organization Structures … Domain Analysis Applied to Online Graffiti Art Image Galleries to Reveal Knowledge Organization Structures Used Within an Outsider Art Community Ann M. Graf Simmons University, 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, <[email protected]> Ann M. Graf is an assistant professor in the School of Library and Information Science at Simmons University in Boston, MA. She teaches courses on information organization and art and cultural heritage documentation. She researches documentation and knowledge organization practices, both within and outside professional settings. Graf, Ann M. 2020. “Domain Analysis Applied to Online Graffiti Art Image Galleries to Reveal Knowledge Or- ganization Structures Used Within an Outsider Art Community.” Knowledge Organization 47(7): 543-557. 34 references. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-7-543. Abstract: Domain analysis is useful for examination of individual spheres of intellectual activity, both academic and otherwise, and has been used in the knowledge organization (KO) literature to explore specific communities and uses, including web pornography (Beaudoin and Ménard 2015), virtual online worlds (Sköld, Olle 2015), gour- met cooking (Hartel 2010), healthy eating (McTavish 2015), art studies (Ørom 2003), the Knowledge Organization journal (Guimarães et al. 2013), and domain analysis itself (Smiraglia 2015). The results of domain analyses are useful for the development of controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, ontologies, metadata schemas, and other systems for the documentation, description, and discovery of resources, as well as for knowledge discovery in general (Smiraglia 2015; Hjørland 2017). This research describes a methodology for the elucidation of knowledge or- ganization systems (KOS) currently in use on image websites that document graffiti, graffiti art, and street art around the world. Received: 28 May 2020; Revised: 31 July 2020; Accepted: 19 August 2020 Keywords: graffiti, art, works, sites, images 1.0 Introduction avoid the careful and controlled documentary practices by such institutions (Graf 2018). Traditional art museums have historically documented This does not mean graffiti works are not documented, physical collections of artworks held within individual insti- organized, and described. Far from it! Hundreds of websites tutions. Museums now often digitize parts of their collec- exist that are dedicated to sharing image galleries of graffiti, tions for various reasons: for internal documentation to graffiti art, and street art from around the world. Hundreds, track condition and maintenance, inclusion records for cu- if not thousands, of image galleries also exist on social media rated exhibits, and insurance purposes, but also more re- platforms such as Instagram, Flickr, and Facebook, where a cently to provide electronic access to images of works online range of people, from the artists themselves, to professional for those who wish to view them without traveling to the photographers, casual observers, and even disgruntled prop- physical museum or gallery. Graffiti art, in opposition to erty owners, share images of the works online. What is lack- traditional museum or gallery works, is created on or placed ing in these extra-institutional collections is consistency in on the streets themselves, in a gallery of sorts largely by and the descriptive depth and the terminology used to describe for the public (Austin 2010; Riggle 2010). The works are, the processes involved to produce the works and images of therefore, situated outside the monetized structure of the the resultant works themselves (Graf 2018). There is even formal museum or gallery and defy, in their situation and disagreement on what to call the works, as seen by the over- means of creation, the power, ownership, and curation ide- lapping and often contested terms graffiti, graffiti art, and als imposed by these institutions. As such, they also largely street art (Austin 2010). 544 Knowl. Org. 47(2020)No.7 A. M. Graf. Domain Analysis Applied to Online Graffiti Art Image Galleries to Reveal Knowledge Organization Structures … The navigational structure and page labels from 241 methodology for the development and enhancement of graffiti art websites were examined to determine the aspects knowledge organization systems (KOS) used to document used to organize graffiti art images. Use of various categories graffiti, graffiti art, and street art by way of photographic of description was tracked across all of these examined as- images of the works. pects of all websites, revealing which were most commonly The academic literature on graffiti is vast and comes used around the world. A motivational dichotomy was also from a variety of viewpoints, including that of art, art his- apparent, revealing a significant difference in terminology tory, sociology, criminology, urban studies, and history, to used in “about text” between websites that were determined name a few. While none, save Gottlieb (2008), discussed be- to be internally or externally motivated. Externally moti- low, go into detail about aspects for documentation, there vated sites are those focused on documentation of graffiti are several authors that have written about graffiti art that artworks by various artists, while internally motivated sites have been extremely useful to support this research and are are those curated by artists themselves with a stated purpose often cited across various disciplines of study. Ross (2016) of sharing works to gain commissions, sales, gallery repre- provides a glossary of graffiti-related terminology that in- sentation, and other forms of direct economic benefit. cludes several definitions for types and styles of graffiti The research provides for terminological enrichment of (475-79). Austin (2001) focuses on New York City and the controlled vocabulary tools for use with graffiti art, such as graffiti wars among graffiti writers, and eventually between the Getty Research Institute’s Art and Architecture The- writers and law enforcement, resulting in the city-wide cam- saurus (AAT). It also provides a base for the creation of a paign to buff the subway trains of all graffiti under the aus- metadata schema or application profile of a schema already pices of mayor Ed Koch in the late 1970s and 1980s. Austin in existence to better document graffiti art images from four provides a rich history of the art form, as well as the socio- broad groups of aspects for description: general, supports, logical and political underpinnings and responses to what styles, and locations. These groups for description are the many viewed simply as vandalism. starting point for building a taxonomy of terms relating to Riggle (2010) addresses graffiti and street art from an graffiti art, with special attention paid to the idiosyncrasies arts perspective and eloquently forefronts the importance of producing artworks illegally and on various (often) pub- of the street itself in the production and reception of the licly seen but privately owned property. This work adds to works. Wacławek (2011) explores the evolution of graffiti vocabularies already in use for the documentation of more from its modern beginnings to the appearance of street art traditional art forms and gives voice to the graffiti art com- as a secondary art form. Her writing explores the differences munity and how this community speaks of graffiti art pro- in these two terms and the overlaps they engender. Both cesses and products. The research is also valuable as a meth- graffiti and street art share a history and many commonali- odological example of domain analysis using evidence from ties, and the labels are very often used interchangeably by the organizational structures of online image galleries. those only casually familiar with the art forms. Austin (2010) further articulates a difference between graffiti and 1.1 Background graffiti art while MacDowall (2019) highlights the often an- tagonistic relationship between graffiti artists and street art- Research in knowledge organization (KO) has shown the ists. Schacter (2017) describes street art as a distinct art pe- value of domain analysis to reveal epistemological evidence riod, marked by stylistic conventions and classificatory per- of community practice, especially concerning language use mutations in what has been referred to as the post-graffiti within and for individual domains. It is useful for examina- era of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those within the re- tion of individual spheres of intellectual activity, both aca- spective communities will be quick to point out the differ- demic and otherwise, and has been used in the KO literature ences between graffiti and street art, but when examining to explore specific communities and uses, including web hundreds of widely distributed and contributed image gal- pornography (Beaudoin and Ménard 2015), virtual online leries online, the distinction goes beyond the scope of this worlds (Sköld 2015), gourmet cooking (Hartel 2010), chil- research. The image websites explored herein have shared a dren’s information seeking (Beak 2014), healthy eating mixture of graffiti and street art. (McTavish 2015), art studies (Ørom 2003), the Knowledge Very little research has explored the use of specific con- Organization journal (Guimarães et al. 2013), and domain trolled vocabularies for use with graffiti art collections, analysis itself (Smiraglia