Showcase example #1
Comments
|
Damien Hirst's In and Out of Love (Butterfly Paintings and Ashtrays) consists of 8 paintings, household paint on canvas with butterflies; 4 boxes; 1 table, formica top on steel base; and 4 glass ashtrays filled with cigarette butts.
It does not look like a particular order must be respected for the paintings? The Tate Modern had a different sequence for the paintings in 2012: http://www.damienhirst.com/in-and-out-of-love-butterfly Regardless, it might be useful to document the particulars of each new installation for the piece. Oh, and it is itself only half of the original overall installation (see curator's comment in https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/vufind/Record/1669159). Bonus question: would we want to model the piece down to the individual cigarette butts? |
|
@workergnome @SamiNorling @beaudet @danieltbrennan (not sure of Kevin Page's Github ID) This is an issue to which we can attach our ideas or items for use in a showcase example. I'm hoping y'all have ideas about what would be interesting/exciting to curatorial staff, because I live in a central office here at SI, not any of the museums that might be expected to hold good examples, and I am no domain expert! |
|
Wow, @edgartdata, that was fast, thank you! |
|
@edgartdata, from conversation this morning, I was thinking that we want an example that shows connection across institutions (federation, as @workergnome put it). I honestly don't know enough about Damien Hirst (or contemporary art, generally) to know whether we'll have a good chance at finding those connections. What do you think? |
|
I agree that focusing in on the parts of the Linked Art model that offer the most interesting opportunities for highlighting links between institutions' collections, creators, exhibitions, etc. would serve us the best in demonstrating the utility and value of linked data for art collections. Though we discussed it in detail today, I don't know if complicated partitioned artworks would fit this bill. What first comes to my mind as something that could be explored (and that I know our collections managers and curators would be intrigued by) are:
Those three ideas are the first that come to mind, but there's many more opportunities for exploration across collections that the Linked Art model will open up in the future... |
|
I would think that the issues raised by contemporary art installations with many parts would be both relevant to several institutions and bears some similarities to more traditional use cases, such as the panels and predella of a triptych being detached and/or dispersed across several locations at one museum or across several institutions. |
|
@edgartdata They very well may be; I'm coming to think that we eventually want a suite of nice examples for various audiences/purposes. @SamiNorling I agree that those commonalities would make for good cross-institution linking. With respect to your third idea (and pardoning my ignorance of the domain), do you know of institutions that have accomplished reconciliation against ULAN, or is that something we could just do "manually" for an example? |
|
@edgartdata Your mention of detached and dispersed groups of items is definitely a good lead - hadn't thought of that aspect of partitioned pieces. It brings to mind the separation of the frescoes from the Hermitage of San Baudelio de Berlanga. We have two of the frescoes in our collection, and I know of other frescoes that are in the collections of the Cincinnati Art Museum, The Met, BMFA, and Museo del Prado. |
|
@ajs6f The partners of the American Art Collaborative had some ULAN reconciliation completed, and we still have that data linking our artist identifiers with ULAN identifiers, where available. Multiple AAC partners either already had identifiers in their CMS or added them once they had the data back. We also document this in our CMS to some extent, though I'm hoping to do a lot more. I use OpenRefine in my bulk reconciliation efforts. For this demonstration, I think we could definitely handle small scale reconciliation if it's not already completed. The local example I have used for the benefits of linked data and taking the time to reconcile with external authorities is William Merritt Chase, who was the teacher of Georgia O'Keeffe - both artists that are represented in our collection, but that relationship is not catalogued in our CMS (and really, it wouldn't be practical for us to catalogue that detailed of information at any sort of scale). So reconciling with ULAN across all of our creators, and publishing that data as linked data then adds our collections to the full web of relationships that ULAN captures. That example has gotten a positive response internally as an argument for linked data and/or reconciliation work, depending on what I'm advocating for at the time. |
|
Still thinking about this a bit but I really like that frescoes example @SamiNorling. In that vein we have a substantial number of objects (mosaics, fragments, etc) that were excavated from Antioch and then dispersed to different institutions. https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/29551 Potentially an interesting case since (at least for ours, but I would imagine for the other institutions as well) their history and movements are pretty well-documented. |
|
@danieltbrennan Do you think we could ask those institutions to collaborate with us, or were you thinking that we would ourselves use whatever information we could get from each and build up a Linked.Art description ourselves? |
|
@ajs6f good question, I was more thinking the latter - that's a lot to ask from institutions that may not have the bandwidth for it (although some may be game). Something I'd float as reasonable only because I know through past experience/projects that never came to fruition that there is pretty ample documentation around that set of works. |
|
@danieltbrennan That makes sense. I would be interested in working on that. We could try coming up with a skeletal set of interlinked descriptions then enrich if we decide it's a good road to go down. @SamiNorling Do you think that either the frescoes from the Hermitage of San Baudelio de Berlanga or @danieltbrennan 's Antioch examples would give us an opportunity to show the "ULAN effect" wherein reconciling some metadata and connecting it to some "external" graph offers actual new knowledge? |
|
Here our Antioch mosaic: :) |
|
Excellent, so the Antioch example might already have two Linked.Art institutions! I'll offer this idea for review on the next call, but I already think the Antioch example is promising. @edgartdata would you be interested in working up the Damien Hirst example with me? |
|
@ajs6f Not sure either of these object groups would show the benefits of reconciliation and linked data that I mentioned, but I think they are both strong examples to demonstrate the provenance portions of the LA model. I think what I outlined with ULAN reconciliation could be an interesting demonstration of the value of linked data. It's not as model-heavy as the possibilities we've discussed, since it would place more of an emphasis on the importance of reconciliation with controlled terms/entities when creating and publishing linked data. Still, an important piece to demonstrate, and could provide a compelling argument for linked data from an art historical perspective. Just thinking of our curatorial staff, I think they'd see a lot of value in the sort of inferences that can be made about our collection when we just link to other data with a much broader scope than our current cataloging practices. I'll look into this more, but am also happy to contribute the frescoes data and try to work with other institutions' data that may have one or multiple of the frescoes as well. I imagine that among our group, we'd have contacts at other holding institutions (Cincinnati, BMFA, The Met, etc.). |
|
Okay, I'm hearing (at least) three good examples, of different kinds, each showing a different aspect of our project:
@SamiNorling, do you have a concrete example in mind for 3, or would you rather pick an interesting artist (perhaps someone, as you mentioned, for whom we could get some curatorial interest) and see what we all have when we put our resources together? Of course we don't have to actually reconcile our data against ULAN to do this; we can "can" an example by choosing an artist and manually selecting records for use therewith. |
|
@ajs6f Sorry for the delayed response - was on vacation last week :) I think both of those approaches would lead to interesting examples, and I would suggest a sort of hybrid approach to this example. We could easily select an artist as the focus, and then look out to their network as captured in ULAN to pick a handful of other artists/organizations/other entities that the focal artist is somehow related to. With that network in mind, and with an artist that is represented in multiple collections, we can collect sample object data for that specific artist and those entities in their network. Then I think we would end up with a data set that we could explore in multiple ways: through the relationships and spheres of influence or just in analyzing the data in aggregate. To get the conversation going on potential artists to feature/include, I thought about our collection and looked in ULAN for relationships (this way, if nobody else is able to contribute data, I will at least be able to demonstrate with our collection -- but that being said, if any other institution likes this approach and has stronger examples, I hope they add the ideas here!)... Idea 1
I'll keep investigating other options, but wanted to get this first network out there as an option, and to get feedback on this approach. |
|
Kerameikos.org is going to transition to using Linked Art compliant CRM, or at least harvest Linked Art JSON-LD and perform a light transformation to include several properties that Greek pottery scholars rely on for query. At the moment, the vase data are encoded in a simplified CRM model that uses some dcterms (for title, identifier) for expediency. The prototype includes vases from several collections. The data model is the same across all organizations, but the Getty vases use the Getty vocabularies and the British Museum vases use the British Museum vocabulary URIs. By reconciling Kerameikos.org concept URIs to the Getty, BM, and other external vocabulary systems (Pleiades for places, Wikidata, etc.), we are able to show / query aggregated data by means of using skos:exactMatch for inference (with union SPARQL queries, not an inference add-on activated in the SPARQL software [Fuseki]). E.g., http://kerameikos.org/id/eucharides_painter, which shows vases painted by this artist from both the Getty and BM. http://kerameikos.org/id/berlin_painter includes vases from Harvard Art Museums with IIIF service references embedded according to the Europeana Data Model spec. When we transition to Linked Art, the IIIF service metadata will be encoded according to the Linked Art spec. Nomisma.org will continue to implement the EDM spec (edm:WebResource, etc.). |
|
Hello - I have been on the call for the past weeks. I have a tool for adding linked data triples to images and then sharing and publishing that data and those triples in rdfa and in JSON-LD. It is an application, designed such that the subject URI can be any valid URI -- in other words, I did not copy the image shown here from the V&A museum, but instead simply used the URI of their image as the subject URI - you can note this in the triples. If you have an extension in your browser (like the Data Sniffer) tool, OR you can look at the source of this file and you can see the linked data triples I added to this example - which was one of the cabinets used as an example by the V&A museum: http://imgsnp.co/jy5e0 --- in this particular case, we are using a lightweight vocabulary of terms to relate the keyword to the image, however each keyword can come from the CRM or the AAT or any other vocabulary. This particular example also uses RDFa in the source. Up until recently, we had been including JSON-LD only for the images when they are published on a web page. However, I will be adding JSON-LD to the source of every image in the next few weeks. I have oIther examples I can provide as well and I can provide the login such that people can experiment with adding triples to the images of their choice. In this way - the app functions as an experimental platform to add the triples to see how linked data actually works on the web. |
|
here is another example from the met open access images: http://imgsnp.co/k5lq4 --- in which I have added the man-made object term using the CRM and used the met accession number as an identifier. This is an experimental platform and I would love the opportunity to demo the work as it directly relates to the idea of attempting to build a shared linked art model. |
|
This screen shot shows an image from the Met in the triple editor -- which allows users to build triples with relative ease. This interface is organized around our small ontology of properties, however - it can be used openly with any linked data terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dropping a note here mid-discussion on other possibilities for the artist-network (ULAN) example, I'm reminded that 20th century photography is particularly rich in well-documented figures/relationships - so that might be another area in which to look for examples. I'm reminded of this (pre-linked data) project: https://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/#connections?dateBegin=1900&dateEnd=1950 |
|
Now I'm idly wondering if anyone has done anything to visualize the enormous number of relationships in ULAN… It might be possible to find a particularly good "target" by finding someone with really interesting connections. Hm… |
|
I don't believe relationships of this nature are even encoded in the ULAN, which is why there are various stand-alone SNA projects connected to ULAN entities, but these relationships were created outside of the ULAN's own LOD structure. There's more relationship modeling at a large scale in https://snaccooperative.org/ |
|
RA could be a good one. Chronicle250 has a handy index of 250 years of its exhibition catalogs: https://chronicle250.com/index/exhibitors |
|
Asking how many of our institutions have Georgia O'Keeffe works won't give us a good measure of whether this example is worth pursuing, since ultimately we're casting a net for the "social network", starting with O'Keeffe (or whoever we go with) as the hub. The evaluation should be about degrees of separation - which works in our collections have creators that can be connected to O'Keeffe in, for example, three or less degrees of separation? From her ULAN record, her first degree network includes:
The second degree network would be an even larger list. This full picture is what we should be checking our collections for and seeing who can contribute data. This approach will give us the same starting point that picking an institution would - a larger list of artists to consider - but with more varied connections between the links, as opposed to just all "members of". Though I would assume that starting with an organization would end up giving us artists who have a variety of relationship between each other, just from having the common organization to have connected them. |
|
I love this idea! For what it's worth and for the record - I don't intend to turn all of my interactions in this group into an ImageSnippets infomercial - it's just happens that it is a framework I built for doing exactly what we are doing in a way - so it's like my child and perhaps I can get a bit too passionate and over eager to share it. I am also an artist and a pure research scientist far more interested in pure research in knowledge representation than I am in profit. I think the Georgia O'Keefe example is an excellent because of all of the interrelationships with other artists, how do you intend to show those relationships with the linked art model? Another interesting suggestion might be Matisse and Picasso ---big examples, yes - but not insurmountable, particularly where there are specific works known to have been influenced by the other. Currently, I have a convention I have been using to relate works to each other or to other artists; but I am curious if there is already a convention that some of you use for inter-linking those relationships. |
|
@SamiNorling makes a really good point-- it's about the relationship between artist and artist at least as much as the relationship between artist and art. I guess one way to ask the question would be: do we want to try to present an example based on a single artist or on some organization? Which one would be easier to explain? Which one would be more attractive? (Maybe both to different audiences?) |
|
At the current stage of our discussions, where the emphasis has been on describing the object, I'd prefer to stick with person / object, rather than person / person. For example, we have no vocabulary (nor agreement on ontology) for social network style relationships that would be needed to fully describe the relationships between people. |
|
I'm not at all comfortable with that restriction, @azaroth42. For the audiences I have to engage here at SI, the difference between a vocabulary we own and some other vocabulary is totally uninteresting. They want to see why we should invest in Linked.Art at all, and I'm not sure in the absence of the ability to link beyond person / object that I can tell them why they should. We might be running into a distinction between examples that are useful for education and those that are useful for evangelism. Can we get an agenda item for this on this week's call? |
|
Note: I'm posting this comment before reading additional comments by @ajs6f and @azaroth42 posted as I was writing this... @ajs6f I think both approaches could lead to a really interesting example - we're just at that hard part of picking one and going with it to see where it leads us. I think there'd be great interest in either. To think through this a bit...an outline for the demonstration may include (but not be limited to):
|
|
Agenda wise - Certainly! Perhaps we should clarify the intent of the discussion - is it to make a generic pitch for linked data being valuable, or is it to demonstrate why institutions should care about linked.art in particular? If the former, then any sort of distributed relationship pattern is fine, but my feeling is that pitch has been made over and over again, and people now want to see something tangible, not just be offered koolaid. If the latter, such that we can offer tangible, implementable solutions, then we shouldn't open ourselves up for the obvious criticism at this stage of "So how do you say that artist X is the grandmother of collector Y?" |
|
Yes, that's the distinction I'm making between education and evangelism. At this point, I think at my institution there's basically no audience for education without some successful evangelism. No one wants to see Yet Another Interoperability Standard (TM) unless it offers clear benefits, and to be frank, I'm in that group too. If after all the work of AAC and all the additional work of smart folks at Getty, we can't actually offer an example of anything more sophisticated then a single artist and a single object… I'm sympathetic to your point about how little we've done to understand interpersonal relationships. I just don't see why that would prevent us from presenting something that uses them, in howsoever a speculative form, to actually show why Linked.Art is interesting. To put it another way, to your point about opening ourselves up to criticism, how much longer can we wait to be able to say something as simple as "artist X was a student of artist Y"? |
|
Now jumping in to respond to the recent comments by @ajs6f and @azaroth42 ... To clarify: I did not anticipate person-to-person relationships to be part of the Linked Art spec (at least not in Phase I). It seemed that ULAN/relationships between artists could serve as a good starting point for narrowing down the artworks for which we would want to gather Linked Art JSON-LD examples, ideally from multiple institutions. E.g. - knowing that [these artists] had [these relationships] (student/teacher/student/teacher network, for example) - what are some commonalities about their works? - Shared materials/styles/techniques? Geographic distribution? Length of production process? etc. etc. Let's let ULAN do what it already does (in this case, documenting relationships between entities), but how can those linked data relationships lead us to Linked Art representations of artworks that we can now analyze at scale because of consistent data. And how does that analysis add to our understandings of those artworks, their creators, and possibly, the impact of the relationships between those artists on their creative output? |
|
@SamiNorling That's a really good point, and I should clarify my position; I don't want to see social relationships modeled in Linked.Art now. I do want to use them (expressed in any convenient form, no matter how unscholarly or inexact) to demonstrate why Linked.Art is interesting and useful. I don't have confidence that we can generate a really useful model without empirical feedback (doing hard examples) or without stealing as much as possible from extant work (reusing ULAN relationships). |
|
Attached is a spreadsheet with the output of a query to ULAN SPARQL endpoint to grab three degrees of relationships starting with Georgia O'Keeffe. If this is the example we go with, any artist listed here is fair game for any museum partner to generate sample Linked Art JSON-LD representing their artworks. If we go this route, the "social network" provides the framework for our selection of artworks to model, as well as an easily-understood and (IMO universally interesting) example of linked data, should we decide a general LOD overview is necessary for our audiences before diving into the Linked Art model. Once we have a chunk of artwork data collected (and we could focus in on a specific set of artists if it would help, since the list right now is pretty large), then the main demonstration, along with the model, would focus on any interesting facts/trends/visualizations/etc. we can distill from consuming the data in bulk. |
|
Updated Three Degrees of O'Keeffe spreadsheet: Clarified column labels re: IDs, and includes URI prefixes: |
|
This query results in 59 photographs by Stieglitz of Georgia O'Keeffe that we have in our photography collection. Warning: artistic nudity These are interesting, model wise, on two fronts -- the artist's relationship to the subject, and the role of O'Keeffe as being depicted, rather than being the artist. Further, this object depicts O'Keeffe standing in front of one of her watercolors, "Blue I." which was sold by Christies: https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/georgia-okeeffe-1887-1986-blue-i-5994689-details.aspx And ... note the orientation of the painting in the background ... it's landscape. Christies has it depicted as portrait, which is then used in pretty much every other copy of the image I can find online. Given that she painted it in 1916, and the photograph was 1917, why would she have it oriented in a way that she wasn't intending it to be seen? |
|
Hello! This is Liz Neely jumping in from the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum. As some of you know, we’ve been working on a project to deliver data from our collections as linked open data using Linked Art as a target model (learning from the AAC). The project includes data from our fine arts collection, our archives, a collection of the artist’s personal property (and the two historic homes we manage), and her personal libraries. We are doing this work with Design for Context and Charlie is doing the lifting with the data. I am thrilled with the prospect that GO’K could be a showcase example and would love to support that in any way possible! I also think she is a great example (though I am a bit biased!) One thing I wanted to bring up is thinking about the role of ULAN as a key glue, but perhaps more in connecting links than in limiting ourselves to what ULAN itself has entered – we’ve been thinking about this, and the 3 degrees of O’Keeffe that Sami pulled illustrates the point of why we need to use ULAN to get beyond ULAN data. For example, in the 3 degrees of O’Keeffe data using ULAN, Ansel Adams is listed as a 3rd degree connection to O’Keeffe. But, just looking at our collection data (and at the objects in the AAC), Adams photographed O'Keeffe as early as the 1930s and as late as the 1980s, they traveled to Yosemite together, he took installation photos of her exhibitions, they have both been in exhibitions together, there have been books about their friendship. So, the data tell a different story than ULAN does. As a showcase to a subject expert, just using ULAN and showing Adams as a 3rd degree to O’Keeffe would quickly discredit the value we try to express. Additionally, every artist has important connections that aren’t limited to artists in ULAN (In our data (mind you, as a single artist museum we might be an outlier), we are almost evenly split between ULAN, LCNAF and local sources for authorities. Wikidata may help us deal with some of those local sources.) Could it be that instead of the connections centering around ULAN, that instead ULAN 'learns' from the data of the linked data collections themselves and from the other authorities, which might tell a more nuanced story? (linked data FTW!) I’ll be joining your call next week and would love to hear your thoughts. Liz Liz Neely |
|
@lizneely, thanks for joining in! I agree that relying solely on ULAN would give us a very sparse and unreal picture of the world. I think we gravitated towards it because it is a Getty product and because so many of our sites use it, but indeed to present a compelling example we would need more relationships than it can supply. Whether ULAN can "learn" from our LD work is an interesting question, but I suspect it has as much to do with how the ULAN team intends to manage that system as much as anything we do in Linked.Art. Getty folks, of course, would know much more than I. Can you tell us a little more about the linked data you are currently producing? What vocabularies (aka join points) are you using for that? |
|
Hi @lizneely, glad to see you jumping in as well! We investigated ULAN relationships pretty much just as a way to help us set a scope for collecting artwork data (since we started with the scope as ALL OF OUR COLLECTIONS), and also because it could provide an interesting intro to linked data example, if that ends up being needed. That potential intro example becomes even stronger if we can include the linked data that GOKM is publishing. One of the greatest benefits of publishing linked data is that, if you do it right (i.e., using/reconciling with official entities like ULAN records), it ultimately connects local data with much more rich, comprehensive, and potentially more authoritative data on the web (a.k.a., GOKM's linked data about O'Keeffe). Sami |
|
I'm curious - after looking at the AAC this example page on Georgia O'Keefe: http://browse.americanartcollaborative.org/actor/ulan/500018666.html |
@azaroth42 ---- this is just an aside to this whole conversation because, I think this is a neat question. Wondering if @lizneely noticed this observation and has any guidance on the orientation of this painting as O'Keefe herself directed. Putting on my artist hat, I can think of many reasons why an artist might change the orientation of a painting to suit - in this case - the photograph being made because of the way the shape surrounded her head behind her. As an abstract artist, sometimes I am critically aware of what orientation I think a piece should be in and then other times, I realize that I've painted some of my best work upside down. Also, I have made some pieces that I intended to be displayed in one orientation and then someone else came along to buy it and really insisted that they wanted to hang it in a different orientation. Some artists are more protective of their vision at different times than others for various reasons. I love that you questioned this detail and I'm interested to see if @lizneely has a perspective. Interesting - I just pulled both of them up side by side in an ImageSnippets folder and rotated the Blue I image, is it possible she was in the middle of painting this watercolor series when this photo was made? There are some slight differences that would almost make you question slightly if it was the same 'blue' as Blue I....I did not look at the dates yet. Just find this quite curious to examine. |
|
Hello – @ajs6f – We are currently using vocabularies (glue points) on people/organization data and classification/type data. We have place data on our mind, but that is more complex and deserves its own project (connected with our viewshed work with the Land Trust). As you would suspect, people/organization comes up in a variety of categories (maker/creator/designer/manufacturer, depicted, correspondent, owner, exhibitor, exhibition venue, etc.) as does type/classification (type of artwork, genre type in archives). For these areas, the following are the authorities (in the case of person in terms of priority, i.e. if there is no ULAN entry use LCNAF, if there is no ULAN nor LCNAF use Wikidata.) People/Organization: Type/Classification: Place (future): And to the comment of making the authorities work for us -- when we saw that the ULAN bios weren't going to do the trick for us, we (and by we, I mean Charlie!) simply used the ULAN (or LCNAF) to grab the Wikidata intros for bios and link to the full Wikipedia page. (In the cases where Wikidata didn't have ULAN/LCNAF IDs, I just added them (and felt like I was helping the world of knowledge in the process, because I am a dork.)) |
|
@zeroexp As for orientation, Georgia O’Keeffe correspondence with Steiglitz reveals she preferred the orientation as portrait and not landscape as he had exhibited it at his gallery 291 (and in the photograph that Rob shared). (Source: Catalogue Raisonne (CR)) and I believe (though I didn’t dive deeply) that the exhibition installation photo at 291 is also in the CR (attaching a snapshot of the page.) These CR conclusions are not all yet input into our data set, but it should be! And then we should link directly to the correspondence (though that could be in our collection or in the Beinecke -- I didn't check and hopefully in the future with linked data it won't matter. :) ) (whoops..sorry, the below photo is upside down..) |
|
Hi -- This message is meant for Jonathan @ Moma regarding exhibition data (I didn't see your name to tag you) or anyone interested in Exhibition data. As I mentioned in today's call, we are actively researching and cataloging data for past exhibitions, venues, and O'Keeffe objects in those exhibitions. So far we have about 186 exhibitions, 1917-1948; and then about 50 from recent times (1997-now) and are working through those gaps over the next few months. A lot of those older exhibitions center around NYC and other east coast venues, and I wonder if there is any interesting crossover with your work. I'm attaching a spreadsheet (since that's the easiest thing for me to put together.) The GOKM_ID and Object IDs are local, but I can provide that info if it would be useful-I kept the Object IDs to show the # of objects cataloged to each. (These IDs will also be part of the object URL when we publish, i.e. http://data.okeeffemuseum.org/object/{GOKM Object ID}/) Let me know if you think this is anything interesting to pursue. As for international crossover, GOK has had several international shows (and we are planning more), but they tend to be monographic (which a couple exceptions such as the exhibition with Australian female modernists.) She did travel extensively, and therefore our archives have international ephemera. I'll look at the artist relationships with this lens as it might generate more crossover with collections. |
|
Hello, I'm circling back to this thread about the showcase. Philadelphia Museum of Art has been working on linked data in preparations for the Duchamp Research Portal and may be able to provide some connections to O'Keeffe. Marge Huang is ready and able to share spreadsheets or whatever you like... just let us know what would be most helpful. Thanks! |
|
Great, thanks @karinanw! I think our last discussion settled on using a new Github repo to start collecting this material. @azaroth42, have you had a chance to create that yet? We should probably start coagulating our data. |
|
@karinanw @ajs6f Rob created this repository for gathering example data: https://github.com/linked-art/showcase1. As for IMA, I'm looking for some interesting connections with O'Keeffe, and have my basic object transformation in a good place where as soon as I know what objects would make a good example, I can bulk transform to JSON-LD. Hopefully I'll be able to add some data early next week! |
|
Thanks @SamiNorling! In that case, @karinanw, you could make a |
|
@danieltbrennan Dan, I haven't been monitoring this thread so I'm sorry for the delayed response. The MoMA project you linked to we refer to as the Thomas Walther project since the project grant focused on the donation of his photo collection. Unfortunately the archives wasn't involved in that project and they never published their data in any raw form. But I'm in touch with some of the staff who developed it and am going to see if I can acquire the data. Hopefully that won't be too difficult and I'll be able to share it with linked.art. Jonathan
|
|
@lizneely I sent you that email a month ago but wasn't monitoring this thread until today so I hadn't seen you post your spreadsheet. It looks great. I thought I'd share here the spreadsheet I sent to you in case it's of interest to anyone else. In response to Liz, I produced a report of all exhibitions Georgia O'Keeffe was included in at MoMA, attached. (this is based on my own exhibition data, which is currently not absolutely identical to the information on moma.org or on github and itself not absolutely complete or up to date). This does not include data on traveling shows MoMA organized unless they also appeared in New York but some of these probably traveled to other venues. The first worksheet lists the 63 exhibitions O'Keeffe has appeared in in my dataset, pretty much all MoMA shows. The second worksheet shows all other artists who were exhibited in those shows, over 1300 names, and the number of shows they were in together. There's a lot of permanent collection rotations listed here which boosts the number of total artists. So that frequency ratio of "# of times one artist was in show with O'Keeffe"/"total number of O'Keeffe shows" can be used as an "exhibited with" kind of proximity measure and used to build visualizations or other things. And it would interest me to see someone look over the entire dataset and see how many times O'Keeffe was exhibited with any other artist compared to their total number of shows and also the frequency they appeared at MoMA compared to the total number of exhibitions in their history or whatever. Best, Jonathan
|
|
I'm late to this conversation but wanted to mention that I contacted Tom Scutt at the Paul Mellon Center a month ago about getting the raw data from the Chronicle250 project. He says that the outside vendor they hired reconciled the artist names to ULAN and I suppose otherwise structured and cleaned up the data but he was waiting for them to send him a copy of the final version. All he had at the moment was a rough spreadsheet but promised to send it all along when he received it. Jonathan
|
As per discussion on this call we are going to assemble a "showcase" example for use on a call with curators and collections managers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: