Return to Babel: Emergent Diversity, Digital Resources, and Local Knowledge
This article presents the argument that the use of online communities can help to preserve and promote local narratives for cultural objects. It proposes that current technology could allow us to show visitors to museums different perspectives on a piece of art or culture, rather than the singular perspective of the museum itself.
In essence, the article states that with new technology, there is no longer a particular need for everything to remain standardised to facilitate finding. It proposes that it is now possible to have parallel schemes for finding any object, and that all of these may have validity and purpose. It proposes that having only one scheme limits the way that the audience can interact with an object, and thus with the museum.
With new technology, it is now possible to engage directly with different communities, and determine how they may classify objects, rather than simply translating exisiting schema into their cultural framework. Also, the article would like museums to explore means to getting these communities to take up authorship of narratives.
The article promotes RSS tagging as a possible means of achieving this.
Three important points are made regarding distributed communities:
1. knowledge is based in a time frame and a place. So it is important to know where and when someone makes a statement.
2. authority is a problem for all information objects. authority cannot be guaranteed centrally, but must be renegotiated in each context. authority is linked to authorship.
3. changing knowledge to information removes its dynamic character
Implications
Given that I intend to limit my dissertation to the creation of descriptive metadata, it may not be possible to use all the points of this article immediately. My understanding would be that this would require engagement with the originating culture (if such still exist), and allow a different metadata standard to be created for each. While I certainaly think this is a worthwhile endeavor, I'm not sure that about the technical capacity of a museum to have a different metadata standard for each culture. I may be mistaken, and I will need to clarify this point with the British Museum, as they have much more experience in dealing with objects from a variety of cultures.
Some points are very well made, and bear more consideration. Particularly, that knowledge is based in a time and a place, and I'm sure that metadata could be used to collect that information from those contributing to an object.
Digital: Museum as Platform, Curator as Champion, in the Age of Social Media
This article discusses the change in dialogue between museums and their audiences in the digital age. The author posits that the musuem is no longer the sole repository of knowledge and discussion about their collection, whether they wish it or not. Most activity about museum collections no longer primarily occurs on the museum's website, but on many other platforms such as social media. Also, the article states that most of a museum's visitors are now visiting it online.
New trends also allow smaller museums to expand their reach by further engagment with the public. Particularly it discusses the Torrance Art Museum in California, which has opened up their curating to crowdsourcing as an ongoing project.
Opening up collections to the online community can help museums to identify objects, such as was the case with the Powerhouse Museum in Australia, that received identification and a summary of the object from a patron.
4 points were madebased on an online discussion with the public by the Collections Trust in the UK :
1. they're our collections (the public)
2. many voices are critical to the interpretation of culture
3. the museum will attempt to go where the participation takes them.
4. the museum will provide the platform for culture, the training and advocacy to support it, and would like to work with their audience to construct the content.
So, the curator becomes the assembler of many voices, and still does require expertise.
Implications
It is important to engage with audiences actively so the museum remains relevant to the discussion about their collections. If the museum is able to do this, then their audiences will reward them with increased understanding about their own objects.
This article presents the argument that the use of online communities can help to preserve and promote local narratives for cultural objects. It proposes that current technology could allow us to show visitors to museums different perspectives on a piece of art or culture, rather than the singular perspective of the museum itself.
In essence, the article states that with new technology, there is no longer a particular need for everything to remain standardised to facilitate finding. It proposes that it is now possible to have parallel schemes for finding any object, and that all of these may have validity and purpose. It proposes that having only one scheme limits the way that the audience can interact with an object, and thus with the museum.
With new technology, it is now possible to engage directly with different communities, and determine how they may classify objects, rather than simply translating exisiting schema into their cultural framework. Also, the article would like museums to explore means to getting these communities to take up authorship of narratives.
The article promotes RSS tagging as a possible means of achieving this.
Three important points are made regarding distributed communities:
1. knowledge is based in a time frame and a place. So it is important to know where and when someone makes a statement.
2. authority is a problem for all information objects. authority cannot be guaranteed centrally, but must be renegotiated in each context. authority is linked to authorship.
3. changing knowledge to information removes its dynamic character
Implications
Given that I intend to limit my dissertation to the creation of descriptive metadata, it may not be possible to use all the points of this article immediately. My understanding would be that this would require engagement with the originating culture (if such still exist), and allow a different metadata standard to be created for each. While I certainaly think this is a worthwhile endeavor, I'm not sure that about the technical capacity of a museum to have a different metadata standard for each culture. I may be mistaken, and I will need to clarify this point with the British Museum, as they have much more experience in dealing with objects from a variety of cultures.
Some points are very well made, and bear more consideration. Particularly, that knowledge is based in a time and a place, and I'm sure that metadata could be used to collect that information from those contributing to an object.
Digital: Museum as Platform, Curator as Champion, in the Age of Social Media
This article discusses the change in dialogue between museums and their audiences in the digital age. The author posits that the musuem is no longer the sole repository of knowledge and discussion about their collection, whether they wish it or not. Most activity about museum collections no longer primarily occurs on the museum's website, but on many other platforms such as social media. Also, the article states that most of a museum's visitors are now visiting it online.
New trends also allow smaller museums to expand their reach by further engagment with the public. Particularly it discusses the Torrance Art Museum in California, which has opened up their curating to crowdsourcing as an ongoing project.
Opening up collections to the online community can help museums to identify objects, such as was the case with the Powerhouse Museum in Australia, that received identification and a summary of the object from a patron.
4 points were madebased on an online discussion with the public by the Collections Trust in the UK :
1. they're our collections (the public)
2. many voices are critical to the interpretation of culture
3. the museum will attempt to go where the participation takes them.
4. the museum will provide the platform for culture, the training and advocacy to support it, and would like to work with their audience to construct the content.
So, the curator becomes the assembler of many voices, and still does require expertise.
Implications
It is important to engage with audiences actively so the museum remains relevant to the discussion about their collections. If the museum is able to do this, then their audiences will reward them with increased understanding about their own objects.
No comments:
Post a Comment