After more thought about the previous post, I think my question is:
Should digital humanities centers take it upon themselves to encourage fine art and art history faculty to create digital projects?
That would probably involve searching for funding from different venues and changing some assumptions, but I certainly think it is possible. It might mean specifically reaching out to fine art and art history faculty and demonstrating what a digital humanities center can do for them. More than just getting images on the web, it would mean a new kind of exploration for art history and fine art. Imagine an art history digital project illustrated with beautiful, high resolution zoomable (and downloadable) images that explain a concept better than static text ever could. Or a faculty artist’s web page which explores the meaning of the work in depth with (again) high resolution images interwoven with text and multimedia that brings the work alive. Better yet, imagine at least some of that content released under a license so others can reuse it, at least for educational purposes.
Ben noted in the comments of the last post that very few images that come up in a Google image search for an artist come from .edu domains. That does not surprise me—many artists and curators, especially in the academic realm, are nervous about posting images online and are stingy with high resolution images. However, what is considered high resolution has changed. I think of high resolution as above 1200×900—but many images on museum websites are around 300 pixels. Some museums sell high quality copies, but they could provide a nice big resolution and still sell the REALLY high resolution photo. Museum websites often are also stingy about letting you download images for your own use.
Ben also commented that some projects might be squashed by university lawyers. I think that is absolutely true, but that has been true for digital humanities in general. One of the great things about these centers is that they are constantly looking for materials to publish online, and will push for access for all. This is important because if we (as a society) don’t push for fair use from copyright holders, the copyright holders will take advantage and achieve ever more restrictions on use. This is true for books as well as paintings—but books, of course, are easier to deal with, because there are multiple copies. So we can go ahead and digitize that book that is clear of copyright, because it can be bought for a decent price, or our library already has a copy. With paintings, however, it’s more tricky. Many museums disallow photography in all galleries, even if the some galleries contain out of copyright works. This is all the more reason, I think, for digital humanities centers to step in, especially on campuses that hold works of art.
Ira Greenburg also left a great comment, saying:
Where I teach, “digital” seems to get inserted into every conversation these days – ranging in tone from vitriolic to sacrosanct. As a painter turned programmer (I still consider myself an artist), I find the debate tiresome and primarily fueled by ignorance on both sides.
I totally agree with this. I sometimes question whether digital humanities centers will continue past the next 10 or 20 years because I hope, eventually, that the facilities to create digital works, projects, and research, will be prevalent in every department on campus. Right now, though, a faculty member who wants to attempt a digital project has little support on many campuses. If they want to write a book, there’s a fairly straightforward process to follow, but a digital project requires expertise many don’t have.
Digital humanities centers are uniquely placed to reach out to fine art and art history faculty and create some unique and very exciting projects. Funding might be tough at first- but then, it was for digital humanities projects too in the beginning. I have a feeling that quite a few individual art faculty would really appreciate the help- some want to move online, but don’t know how or what the web can do for them. And if my suspicions are correct, they probably won’t get a lot of help from within their own department. (Again, depending on the institution.)
At this point I still have more questions than answers. I’ll end with a fantastic quote from Ira’s comment:
Working at the level of code, established disciplinary boundaries dissolve (and eventually the temples that house them will as well.)
You do listen to the Digital Campus podcast, don’t you?
Some museums sell high quality copies, but they could provide a nice big resolution and still sell the REALLY high resolution photo.
That’s an interesting idea. I’ve been decorating my office with images downloaded from the Library of Congress and printed via Costco. What I’d really like, however, is to get Repin’s “Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks” printed on a wallhog, to put on the wall behind me. The problem is that even the lovely 2,202 × 1,300 version at Wikimedia Commons is too low-res for a mural-sized printing.
The thing is, for all these personal decoration projects, I’m paying between 8-10 dollars (for Costco) and $100+. I’d happily pay half, or perhaps even the same amount for a higher-resolution image of Repin. But the market apparently doesn’t exist.
Jason – Yes I do listen to Digital Campus. :) I thought of these sorts of things back when I heard their episode on museums. I sort of got off on a tangent on museums here, but that wasn’t actually my original intention. oops. :)
Ben – Some museums and libraries do offer higher resolution images for a price- but you’re right, the mechanisms to support the selling of these images (and the cost of the original creation) probably cost more than they would make from selling the images.
That is probably the biggest argument I’d have for grant funding that would cover the cost of making high quality digital images which are then made available free online. This is one thing I think the NEA really *should* be involved in.
Hi Karin –
Let’s talk at THATCamp about this stuff. Dan Cohen and I have been talking lately with members of our Art History faculty about collaborating on digital projects, and we have come up with some good (but vague) ideas. Unusually, Art History is actually part of the History Department at George Mason (as opposed to being part of Fine Arts or by itself as it usually is). CHNM is also part of the History Department, and we’re hoping to use that institutional proximity to forge/test some models for digital art history.
Tom