One of the things I left out is that digital humanities centers are by no means the only entity that could help with digital projects or publications of art materials. This could also be accomplished through collaborations with other departments on campus (such as Computer Science)  or through a university press. I imagine that we’ll probably start to see a number of these collaborations at the same time.

The part of this that is stuck in my brain, and which I don’t have an answer for, is what one of these projects would look like? I now have an idea of what a history or literature project looks like, but not much of what an art history or especially a fine art project would look like. I have seen a few examples of art history sites, and just presenting the images as one would in a book is somehow a bit of a letdown. But I don’t know what it is that I expect to be different. As for fine art- I have seen several fine art projects on the internet, and again, I always think something is somehow missing. I’m going to ponder this and research more and come up with some links and ideas.

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.)

I think this is great… but.

But like all copyright mechanisms, CC licences are only a means to an end, and that end is to restrict the rights of the consumer and purchaser. Some CC licenses are unarguably vastly better than most commercial licenses. But CC is not public domain.

Every time I see a government or a library getting “into” CC, I have to ask: as opposed to what?

If the alternative is Public Domain, then moving to CC is a giant leap backwards. If you are going to spend money promoting a rights mechanism, and preserving works released under that mechanism, and putting your weight and support behind that mechanism, then let that mechanism be the Public Domain, not some “watered-down Copyright that is still undeniably Copyright”.

I can’t speak as a government or library, but I can say why I myself post my work under creative commons and not public domain.

I have been trained as an artist. In school, I heard a LOT about not giving yourself away, about protecting your copyright, your “brand,” even about legal ramifications both of using others work and others using your work. I remember that the whole thing seemed weird. There was no way then, at least not that I knew, to release my work under a license that said “please use this, please share it” and allowed me to find other artists whose work was remixable. Artists have a tenuous relationship with copyright. Those that make art by remixing know, or at least should know, the copyright law as it applies to derivative works and fair use. Most artists, rather then spend a lot of time wrestling with legal definitions, will either use public domain source material, or try to use nothing at all (which can be stifling for many people.)

In general, if you release something into the public domain, that means anyone can do anything they want with it. There are limitations of course, but you wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on if you released something in the public domain and then someone else put it in a gallery show without attribution. Of course, there is nothing to stop someone from putting a CC:By work in an art show either, but if they are following the terms of the license, at least you’ll have your name attached. It may not seem like a big deal – after all, you aren’t making money off your work either way, right? But in the art world, as most other circles, name recognition is *really* important. So if you give enough away under CC:By that people know your name, that’s social capital.

In an ideal world, Creative Commons wouldn’t be necessary- people would be polite and cite their sources. CC is a way of reminding people that yes, you can use this, but don’t pretend you made it, ok? Attribute back.

What creative commons license you use will depend on your purpose: I attribute almost everything CC:By because the important thing to me right now is name recognition. I’m building my brand, so to speak. Even if I was selling artwork, though, I’d probably stick with the CC:By SA license, because I don’t mind people making money off the work, as long as they help the cause by releasing their work into the commons as well. The brilliance of CC:By SA is that it is self perpetuating- you are free to use my content, but you have to let other people use your content. I personally don’t believe in, and will never use the Noncommercial version of the license, because it stifles other’s ability to make money as an artist (if they so choose) and is too incompatible with the other licenses. I don’t begrudge others decision to put that restriction on their content, however, I try not to use noncommercial licenses in case I want to sell something based on another work* later on. (* I added “based on another work” to try to clarify what I was saying re: Mark’s comment below. My full reply to his comment is in the comments)

As a creator, I don’t believe it is wrong to assert some rights over my work. I believe in intellectual property- I just think that as a society, we need to be able to build upon things or we will stagnate. The only problem I see with creative commons as it is is the time span- my work goes into the public domain following the same schedule as copyright law which would be 70 years after I die – that is, unless I go back and manually change the licenses of older content. Ideally, I could set a limit of my CC license, after which point it passes into the public domain. I think 10 years is reasonable. As it is now, I’ll just have to do a reevaluation of old work and release it into public domain where appropriate.

The reason I think 10 years is a reasonable term is that artists don’t live by resting on our laurels. We don’t make one really great painting or book and go “well, guess I can retire now!” – We create, we keep creating, and we keep changing. What I made 10 years ago doesn’t matter near as much as what I will create tomorrow. I think 10 years is a reasonable term for me to monetize what I can. That may be just me. I think terms up to 30ish years or until death (whichever comes first) are reasonable- but not this 70 years after death stuff.

I added a step 4 to go with step three, so that I could use use a Creative Commons licensed photo. The previous directions just pulled from Flickr’s “interesting” page, of which very few are CC licensed.

1. The first article title on the Wikipedia Random Articles page is the name of your band.
2. The last four words of the very last quotation on the Random Quotations page is the title of your album.
3. Use the random word generator to generate a word.
4. Use the word to search FlickrStorm (creative commons licensed photos) and the third picture will be your album cover. Or just choose any image.
5. Use your graphics program of choice to throw them together, and post the result.

Article Title: The World Famous Pontani Sisters
Random Quotation: The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. – Bertrand Russell
Random word: Tread
Image: Tired Cone by Travis Gray

Software & Hardware: Wacom Bamboo Tablet, ArtRage 2 (Through Wine), Gimp, Inkscape, Ubuntu 7.10

If you wanna do it, consider yourself tagged. Be sure to let me know in comments!

They’re here, and they’re beautiful. If you asked for one, it’s on the way. A few were a little dark, I’ll brighten for the next batch (and there will be a next batch.)

If anyone ever wants to get me a gift, these clip on handmade moo card holders are gorgeous.

If you see a typo, please don’t tell me.

First, there’s the idea phase. In art, this stage includes drawing in a sketchbook, taking photographs, or collecting odds and ends. For some artists, this stage includes writing, for some it does not. In writing, this stage may include journaling, starting blog entries (blog entries are often a great way to flesh out half formed ideas), notes jotted down on slips etc. For me, this stage comes in rushes- I will get a lot of ideas at the same time, and then the well will run dry, so to speak. I used to not listen to my writing impulses; I just pushed them down, saying to myself “I am not a writer.” Now I am more likely to record all of my ideas, whatever form they take. It seems like sometimes, I’m serving as a lighting rod, and ideas just come, and I wonder when I will ever have time to execute them all. The hard part here is figuring out what to act on, what has worth.

It’s all fine and good to have a list of ideas, but then comes the second stage, the execution. This stage is hard because it’s the most time consuming, it’s often not as fun as the idea generating sessions (though it can be), and it’s sometimes expensive. In painting, this stage can often have several false mis-starts – I might start several projects, only to have them peter out, before I stumble upon an idea that will stick. The execution phase sometimes happens when I’m low on ideas, so I dip into my storehouse and create. Sometime the execution phase is concurrent with new ideas. Sometimes the execution phase is dependent on collaboration – each party coming to the table with their unique ideas.

The execution phase is the romantic heart of life as an artist or writer. This is what we imagine most of the time when we think of an artist- spending hours alone in a studio, painting, sculpting, whatever. Or the writer, sitting hunched over their laptop, plugging away. The dread upon nearing completion of the execution stage is that you’ll enter the next stage- often the most annoying of all.

That third stage, for lack of a better name, I’ll call cleanup. However, I am lumping promotion in with cleanup, as they often go hand in hand. In writing, the cleanup portion begins with editing. I don’t know many people that enjoy editing, but it’s gotta be done. Depending on the presentation, the piece may go through several more editing processed by professional editors. If the piece in question is, say, a blog entry, you’re done. yay! In art, the cleanup process involved framing the piece, choosing how it will be displayed (although usually you have an inkling of this from the beginning). Unfortunately, framing something well is expensive. You can, of course, just throw the painting up on the wall, but this only seems to work well for large, modern pieces, so be careful! It’s easy to skimp on the framing, to say “eh, the buyer will buy a better frame anyway” but it really does matter. One way to alleviate this is to paint in a standard size so you can find an open back frame, this will likely be much cheaper than having one made. You can also invest in the tools to make your own frames, but it’s expensive, and it’s much too easy to turn out shoddy work. A good frame doesn稚 have to be expensive, but it will take time.

The promotion part of all this is usually just plain annoying, although some artists and writers excel at it. A writer will attempt to find an agent, or submit his or her book everywhere they can themselves. The artist will enter the artwork in competitions, or attempt to get into a gallery, or find an agent. Both the artist and writer can try to go the do it yourself route- either through a press like Lulu, or through an online store like etsy or a local arts fair. The part of all this that people don’t often think about, especially in the case of the visual artist, is how much self promotional writing one has to do. Besides cover letters that have to be uniquely tailored to each prospect, you have artist statements (usually one for each body of work), C.V.’s and, possible, press releases and other promotional material. Success could very well depend on your ability to do these things well.

Almost any writer or artist agrees that if you can get it, it’s better to have representation to handle the sale of your work, but as they say “nice work if you can get it…”

I had tried to include photography in this, but it really is a life cycle all its own. While it can start with an idea, it usually starts with an impulse. After you have a group of pictures, you cull through them to find the keepers. This revision process can happen more than once, until you have the precious few shots that are “worthy.” After that, you print, alter, print again, alter again, etc, etc. then comes that pesky framing and promotion part.

I have a lot to say about Celaya’s lecture on Tuesday night, but I probably won’t get to that until next Tuesday. In the meantime, here’s my initial thoughts about the exhibition. I need to spend more time in the room, and this may be upaated.

Enrique Martinez Celeya last came to the Sheldon in 2003 to work on “the October Cycle” (see here and here.

(Read Celeya’s Short Bio here)

Celaya’s work often deals with a creative reinterpretation. An installation in a gallery or museum doesn’t mean that a work is done and finished, the work can continue to grow. In the case of “Coming Home” the boy and elk that are the central component to “Coming Home” were originally exhibited in 2001 as part of another installation. Dieter Rosenkranz bought that installation and generously donated the boy and elk to the Sheldon. Since the Sheldon did not have the other pieces (works on paper) that went with the original exhibit, a new installation was created with Celaya.

The effect is quite enveloping. I personally am a big fan of anything that alters the “white box” aesthetic of museums- the new, wrapped room is at once comfortable because if the forest imagery and oddly disconcerting. The pose of the boy is the most telling; he is a little awkward, as if he has not fully realized his place in the world. The confrontation with the elk serves to reinforce this. The elk is massive and dwarfs the boy, making him seem insignificant and fragile. The photographs of the boy in the ocean further illustrate his fragility and isolation.

The pictures of the woman in the room introduce another odd presence, and I am left wondering if this is a mother, a saint, and angel, a sister, a friend, or, perhaps, if there is no connection at all, just a presence that further sets the boy apart. While in a photograph hanging on the wall the woman is fully covered with makeup, the photo of her that is part of the “wallpaper” of the room shows her with no makeup from the neck up. This creates a strange dichotomy- if the woman existed only in the photograph, her presence would remain alien and separate, but having her “mask” removed on the wallpaper humanizes her. This human woman seems at once out of place and at home in this strange environment. As a visitor, I connect with her, and see her as an ally in my experience of the work- she is part of the room, but she stands apart as well.

From the photos I’ve seen of the previous installation of the boy and elk, I much prefer the current installation, which is, as a whole, more encompassing than the previous exhibition. The space at the Sheldon is ideal, in that it is closed, so when one is in this room one can more fully experience it.

As a side note- this is one of those exhibits that greatly benefits from a solo visit. While it’s nice to see the work with other people, it’s also distracting. It’s worth the effort to try and get to the Sheldon at some not too crowded time.

One other note- I’ve been trying to think of an appropriate soundtrack to the exhibition. I’m going to experiment with bringing in different music on my MP3 player. Silence is good, but it seems like there would be some kind of sound that complements the installation as well.

I have a lot to say about his lecture, I took many pages of notes, but I just can’t write about it tonight. A lot of what he said really struck home, and reminded me of my entry a few days ago. He was critical of today’s art world (especially Damian Hirst) and art schools.

I really wanted to buy his book in the gift shop, but it was $60- which I may be able to afford come Thursday, but it’s going to be yet another tight month for me. What else is new?

It’s not that no Fine Art majors get a second major, but it’s less prevalent, and it seems almost discouraged. When I was trying to get my Art History minor, I could not find any ready information about how to go about getting it. I had to ask a professor, who said it wasn’t encouraged (though she was glad to help me add it). I find this very odd since Fine Art is one of those majors that has to be about something. That’s why English majors are so likely to have another major- you can’t just write about writing, and even if you write fiction, or poetry, drawing from some other field generally makes the work more interesting. The same is true of art, but one often finds among Fine Art majors and professors those boring people who are only interested in art and nothing else. Someone told me a story of an art professor invited to a book club she went to- the professor dominated the conversation, and tried to steer every topic of conversation towards Art. How boring.

In art school, however, you are in a kind of insulated world, you submerge yourself in a world that is all art, all the time. You are encouraged or even required to hang out in the studio as much as humanly possible. It’s tough to even keep up with the comings and goings of the art world, much less trying to inform yourself of art historical matters. But making art when all you are thinking about is art is like trying to nourish yourself by eating your leg (pardon the gruesome analogy)- it might work for a while, but eventually you end up stunted and unable to create anything.

No one ever told me this. If I ever do become an art teacher, I will tell young artists first to get some interests outside of art. A lot of interesting art is that made by artists who are also scientists, architects, mathematicians, computer programmers, or some other profession. You have to have something interesting to say first- the visualization stuff comes second. Of course, this isn’t always true, as some art has only to do with the visual- but it’s amazing to read about, say, a color field painter and see how much they were influenced by history – and not just art history.

The more artists draw into a little cocoon of the art world, the less they are relevant to the world at large, and that’s dangerous, not only to the art world, but to everyone. People crave relevant art. Notice I say “relevant art” – pretty pictures, or even interesting pictures, simply don’t cut it anymore. At least they don’t for me.

I am optimistic that more people that don’t think of themselves as artists will begin to make art, and to make inroads into the cultural phenomenon and presentation of that which we call “fine art.” Visual Literacy is succeeding- I see it on the Internet all the time, myspace notwithstanding. People are learning to present their ideas visually because the Internet requires it- and it’s getting more and more effective. Many people today have the capability of doing what only a small percentage could a few years ago, whether it’s creating a website, or a flash animation, or a photoshopped image. This could easily be expanded to painting. More artists are interested in more than just art, too. I almost hope that Fine Art majors are required to have another major in the future- are encouraged to have another interest that they can then make art about.

In a way, I’m so thankful I got outside of the art world. I was getting entrenched; I had metaphorically begun to eat my left arm.