Julianna Yau’s blog

The session proposals for the Technology in the Arts conference are due on Jan 19th, and we’re reviewing them the following week. What types of topics would you like to have covered at the conference? This isn’t a formal call for feedback, but I will definitely keep responses in mind and pass along any trends.

The conference is for cultural workers and organizations for all forms of art, including music and theatre. To my knowledge, there isn’t much of an equivalent for creators. The closest things I’m aware of are my neglected e-eAsel project (if you’re aware of a Technology for Artists equivalent, please let me know!).

The 2008 conference session information is available here, and my notes from the sessions I attended can be found here.

You can send in your feedback as comments here or you can reach me on Twitter.

From managing Artifice and generally taking on way too much, I have a good idea of some of the major arts/tech/culture events coming up in the first half of 2009. Here are my choice picks (I am, of course, involved in most of these somehow):

Third Thursdays at Globe Studios
This is a new initiative of Globe Studios, where the building and many studios will be open to the public for demonstrations and other interactive activities. We will be bringing in some guests to fill the space too. Please take a look at the website if you want to participate.

Cinematheque Waterloo‘s screening of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Jan 18 and 20
One of the best films I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a ton of films). I still have two free tickets to give away.

KW CultureCamp, Feb 7
Culture + BarCamps for Kitchener-Waterloo

Technology In The Arts Conference + Canada 3.0 Conference, May 10-12
This is in Stratford, and will be a wonderful mix of art and technology.

spOtlight 2009, June 5-7
The spOtlight festival will be returning to the Waterloo Region in 2009. Here is some information about how to participate.

I wrote this on the train into Toronto yesterday morning:

---

At the Technology in the Arts conference, Elsie Orenstein gave a presentation on copyright for artists and arts managers. Although I haven’t been engaged in the discussions on copyright reform for as long as some of my colleagues, I must admit that I was still shocked when Orenstein told the audience that she felt the current Copyright Act is inadequate for protecting copyright in the digital age.

This, of course, is a sore spot and point of contention for many. On the one hand, many of us recognize and lobby for the need for copyright reform. On the other, scores of lawsuits relating to copyright infringement in digital media are being filed based purely on current copyright law. Often, the very entities which preach about current copyright law being too lax are the ones who are also finding ways to abuse it.

I believe that some of the terminology in the Copyright Act needs to be changed so that it speaks more generally to concept than specific technologies. I also believe this type of revision is very different from what many envision when they speak of “modernizing” the language in the Copyright Act.

Because of how quickly technology and its use is changing, stripping the Act of technology-specific language is wholly important. Many of the key players in the music industry are now trying to determine whether p2p file sharing constitutes a “broadcast”, and those in the literary industries are doing the same with the concept of “publication”. Rather than probing the intent of this terminology, many find themselves in a labyrinth of legal and technical jargon as they try to retrofit the technologies and methods used online and in other digital media to the terminology being used by an archaic document.

For the most part, the core concepts behind the rights and remedies provided by the Copyright Act are sound. Consultation with the various creator groups and user/public interest/consumer groups needs to happen for us to better define and revisit some of the particularities of the rights.

With the dropping cost of production and distribution of creative works, the emergence of the User Generated Content movement can not be ignored in discussions of copyright. Not only has it made us more aware of the user rights which need to be protected, but it is changing the way we see the motivation for and value of creative works.

Although not entirely accurate, the current Copyright Act sees creative works as being the product of a limited number of people and having monetary value. This is no longer entirely true. More than ever before (or perhaps simply more visible than before), people are participating in the act of artistic creation. Not all of this activity, however, is being done for monetary gain. A hobby which used to be limited to the elite, who could afford the time and money for things like painting classes from a practised artisan, is now accessible to and being practised by hundreds of thousands of individuals. Not only that, but this new community of creators are able to publish their work to an expansive audience with little investment in time, commitment or money.

This poses a problem to the creators whose artistic practise is not merely driven by the desire to create, but so much that they need to find a way to sustain themselves financially based purely on their creative work.

So, now I’ll post the scary question which I have yet to hear others ask:

Does it still make sense for creators to attempt to make a living on their creative works?

For a pessimist, the situation looks quite dire. The concept of the starving artist is not new, and creators have always struggled with how they can generate enough income from their artistic practise to not need supplementary jobs and live above the poverty line. Now that competition for patrons is becoming more fierce (especially because much of this competition is making their creations available for free), it looks as though fewer people are willing to pay for an artistic experience.

But we certainly have no shortage of artists (even living ones) who are making more than a comfortable living from what they do. Whether they be performer, writer or visual artist, we have a fair number of superstars at the national, international and local level. Joining the ranks of superstars is a whole other challenge, exasperated not directly by technology being able to dilute an artist’s work, but by the infusion of a new class of creators producing work primarily for their own enjoyment.

We should look to copyright law as an extension of our understanding and agreement on the workings of the creative industry, not as a business model in and of itself.

Overall, this was a great conference. I think I’ve finally attended enough conferences to get the hang of them, and how I need to attend them.

Some things I learnt in general:

• don’t attend all the sessions for the sake of attending all of the sessions; better to sit out than to be bored
• photoblogging: although I loved multitasking, the uploads via MMS were unreliable and the quality of pictures from my phone were poor; will take a real camera next time and upload en mass afterwards
• bring a longer extension cord, preferably with multiple outlets (as Russell was smart enough to do at CopyCamp)
• get to know the area beforehand, if possible; schedule is tight, and I’m too prone to getting lost
• work with organizers to ensure there is open WiFi

I wasn’t actually planning on attending Elsie Orenstein’s presentation on Copyright Law, Technology and Cultural Management, but I was tired and didn’t think I could handle any new information. It was also nice to get a feel for what type of information other artists and arts administrators were getting on the topic of copyright, and what their concerns were.

I took a bunch of photos, but they didn’t turn out very well because Elsie saturated the slides with info. She covered a lot of ground in an hour and a half, and I may have been the only one who wasn’t overwhelmed because of my prior knowledge of most of what she covered.

Here are my notes (~ indicates my thoughts):

“On the verge of Canadian copyright reform: A primer on copyright and the internet for artists and arts managers”

-What is the internet from an artist’s perspective?
potential worldwide audience
-source of research
-communicate exchange ideas w/in internet community
-platform for new forms of creative expression
-avoid censorship

Means of recognition/promotion
-own website/3rd party website
-brand image
-peer reviews
-self-publication option

Flickr and Rebekka Guoleifsdottir
-developed photo technique to create images that look good in thumbnail form
-got commissions thru Flickr exposure

Terry Fallis
-turned down by publishers and agents
-published 1 chapter at a time as a free, downloadable poadcast on own site, iTunes and podiobooks.om
-won Leacock award

Sources of income
-website sales of artist works
-third party wesite sales
-commissions from ads
-commissions for work
-royalties from collectives

US Hollywood Writers’ Strike – WGA 2008-2011 Settlement
-about uncertainty
-writers only getting flat-fee for downloadable version of their scripts
-now getting % of gross revenue
-studios can stream for free during 7 day window on all streamed content

What is the internet from a copyright lawyer’s perspective
-help client achieve their goals and avoid liability
-difficult because of how quickly technology is changing
-her view that current laws are inadequate
-courts are intervening with both good and bad decisions

-work gets distributed instantaneously
-how to control distribution
-how to get paid

-view by certain rights holder –> invitation to copy if it’s uploaded (“feels like free”!); particularly with younger users
-collective bargaining societies
~same type of info from most other overview sessions on copyright
-implied license –> courts consider whether certain uses are implied due to conduct

Perfect 10 v. Google – Sex, copyright & the internet
-market for thumbnail
-even thought the whole photo was displayed once clicked on by the mouse because Google only ‘framed’ content provided by a link to someone else’s server and Google itself did not make copies on its server”
-removal of content on demand (a reoccurring problem with Google, except the courts give Google leeway because they will remove content on demand)

-Canadian copyright law not based on common law
-legislators kept adding new things to the framework of old legislation
-fair use seen as user right in the US
-fair dealing in Canada finally seen that way

-WIPO, Berne
-how much fair use/fair dealing allowed
-DMCA (shhhhh)

-music industry setting prescience for other media
-p2p not quite illegal in Canada (???)

-whether a “making available right” should replace the current “right to communicate to the public by telecommunication” and extend to neighbouring rights
-TPMs
-moral rights – accreditation can be removed easily in digital works

-ISP liability
-IP addresses reused and reassigned because not everyone online at the same time
-notice & takedown –> court system in Canada; can’t deal directly with ISP
–IP address goes to a computer, not a user
~~p2p vs websites for notice and takedown?

-copyright applies to original work
-courts divided on how to define “original”
–”not copied”, “creative spark”, requiring some “skill, judgement or labour”
-in US, assembly of facts is not copyright protected; in Canada, this is different …which means databases can be protected by copyright

~overview provided, similar to my mind map… but in list form

-Robertson v. Thompson (S.C.C. 2006 decision split 5 to 4)
-compilations
-freelance writers
-CD archive of articles
-database – text only; no ads or layout
-do these databases attract copyright?
-majority of S.C.C. –> databases were structured so that the articles were decontextualized to the point that their connection with the newspaper edition was lost, even though date and page numbers referenced the original paper editions; but felt the CD was not an infringement because it reproduced the article
-Class action –> felt the look & feel of the content should not e a consideration
-US case –> Tasini v New York Times

-Canada considers p2p activity fair usage (huh??)

-CC license mentioned
-time & format shifting, remixing

-not all fair dealing provisions extend to the internet because of the wording of the legislation
~> but what about the intent of the wording?

-UMG Recordings v. MP3.com – Court rejected a “public benefit” argument

-Geist quoted from April 22, 2008
“eviscerate the fair dealing exception in the digital world”

-Michael Snow!

-Galerie d’Art du Petit-Champlain v. Theberge

~registration seen as easier in Canada because no copies of work required, but it’s not actually useful for artists
~how would we know when the work was created if the author is not known?

-impact of Disney on copyright

-Canada has reversionary terms for copyright (copyright reverts to estate after 25 years)

-Geist on “National Gallery Looking for Profits in All the Wrong Places”
-photograph of work –> secondary copyright –> Patry
-artistic merit of photo vs archiving of work through photos

-who owns copyright of photo taken by “a gallery”
-damage to work – moral rights
–need for contract wording on this

-common practice for an archive to charge for the copy of the image plus a license to publish
-impacts what we can create because of access and afforability
-market value of image which has no additional artistic value
-work involved in creating the image
–fee for getting image (admin fee) vs copyright fees of image

-gallery in Quebec w/online gallery; no money for artists; even though artists waived fees, they were not allowed to go through with it because they violated artists rights

-performances and personal recording devices
-SOCAN
-illegal copies in theatre
-artists okay vs house policy
-who owns the performance versus who is the host?
-theatre’s liability
-SOCAN says hall is responsible for remitting revenue

When Andrew Hunter & Marcel O’Gorman were preparing for this session, I thought I saw them fiddling with a bag of props. I know I’m a geek at heart because this was the most exciting session for me, based purely on the fact that we got to make a throwie at the end.

Pics and notes:

Marcel

-Critical Media Lab
-new media impact human condition
-parody of MIT Media Lab

-will show us different projects
-using technology to critique technology

Cycle of Dread
-concept of “flow”; being “in the zone”
-how does this apply to video gaming industry? most investment from gambling and gaming industries
-existential dread while in the flow state
-Facebook –> escape self-awareness; no existential dread
-”Empty Days” + “Dreadmill” = Cycle of Dread”

oncoGeiger
-Luke Murphy
-self-expression as therapeutic means for cancer patients
-Well-Tit centre at UWaterloo

-problem with developing projects like this –> much of the development happing in the business world, not in the universities –> resistence from the arts & humanities to commercialization; good, but need to involve some to keep up

-impact of technology on the human body

-Busines Factory
-Mario Polese, University Affairs, May 2008:
“Universities should not function like motors for economic development. This is what they may become one day, when community organizations and government call on the expertise of their researhers. But that role must accrue to them through their mission to teach and do research, and not the other way around”
-ideas first, technology 2nd

MESDAG
-geocaching (photo)
-geocaching + social networking + Built environment = MESADG
-childhood obesity
-getting kids active
-GPS + accelerometer + wireless database
-”su-veillance” (anti surveillance)
-accelerometer linked to Blckberry; get a prompt every day (e.g. take picture of tree; take picture of 1 way sign); upload to web; fill grid; when grid filled, they win
-can track whether these games impact their activity (devices w/game versus devices w/out game)
-promoting physical fitness
-promoting environmental awareness

-large-scale projects vs gurilla style (promoting messiness)
-”the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn”, Alvin Toffler, “Rethinking the Future”
-demystiying the technology
-calling for an embracing of the messiness

-transparency of technology
-impact of technology on the human condition
-engage the artist
-requirement of the critical role
-combine technology and bodies to engage the community with ore than e-newsletters
-use technology to integrate the community into art projects

- – -

Andrew (Render Gallery)

-wanted to move away from traditional concept of gallery
-building relationships with people in other departments
-work outside of limits of Fine Arts program
-Environmental Studies; School of Architecture
-UWaterloo seen as the tech university
-Andrew not a sophisticated user of technology
-works with artists who are immersed in technology
-interested in the mass of people who are “left behind” or don’t have access to the technology
-interested in the environmental impact of technology

Proboscis (slide)
-artist group based in London, England
-Urban Tapestries (developed a decade ago)
-knowledge sharing; social interaction
-work with school kids and people in low income housing
-many communities they worked with didn’t have access to technology
-had to develop other tools which could be connected to their tools
-StoryCubes
-DIFFUSION eBook
-”this is not a book”
-DIFFUSION Generator
-Robotic Feral Project
–environmental sensor + kids toys (robotic) = mapping
-Snout
–wearable sensors
–Snout Event on Flickr
–sensors are on the snout of the costume
–LEDs on outfit
-AnArcheology Labs (collab w/Render)
-knowledge of how to use technology, not just access to it
-students at the university more interested in fine arts, not technology
-strong community-based interactions, both with Proboscis and the community and Proboscis and Render
-Render not interested in moving art into the community (that role already filled by CAFKA and KWAG); more about interdisciplinary work and meaningful impact on lives of “young people” (pre-university age)
-different ways of applying technological knowledge –> not just about working for Google

-Throwies project w/Children’s Museum in KW

Ken Coulter’s presentation, Understanding Your Audience and Your Community – Mapping Software that Reveals Key Characteristics, was mostly a case study in what the Oakville Centre for the Performing Arts was able to get from MapInfo Inc’s PSYTE.

Much of the information he presented is available on PSYTE’s website, so here are the general thoughts/notes I was able to get out of the presentation:

-tracking info about audience
-what do they believe and how do we talk to them?

Todays Audience
-values based on age

Changes, Changes, Changes
-flexibility, choice and convenience
-the value proposition (time vs money)
-brand loyalty
–brand is the trust in your implied promise
–consistency of what is offered

-membership mapping

~where are they? who are they? how do they spend their money?
~what about the people you WANT to attract?

-using stats to determine what type of content to produce for communications
-story captures
-outcomes
-pre and post change surveys

-people want their opinions to be heard
-what does your service do for the community?

-stats also give you a view of how others see you
-one time buyers (important because they had to change their behaviour to interact with you) vs behavioural subscribers vs loyal subscribers
-what do you provide that others don’t?
-computer as communication device, not calculator or typerwriter

User Generated Content – what people are saying to each other about you

Environics Institute
-EXPENSIVE!!!

This was a great presentation by Brian Porter and Tony Hushion from the ROM

Photos and notes:

-started with video of eye-level view from land animals/insects
-Animal Borne Image Samples
-new museum workers don’t typically have a museum background (more about storytelling)
-polarized opinion of the crystal building at the ROM
-people visiting to see the architecture of the building

The new ROM – who do we aspire to be?
-natural science and art & culture
-urban renewal
-physical location – the Gardiner, the AGO
-reliable and stable institution physically
-separation in governance (judiciary and day-to-day admin)

-attendance is ahead of forecast; people can only be curious about new architecture for so long
-March Break was most successful on record
-construction impacted business because many people thought they were closed (incl. students)
-tons of upcoming programming (only 2 slides photographed)

Shanghai Kaleidoscope show
-all about the technology
-photo of quote on slide
-the “next culture”

Shanghai Historical Photos exhibit
-digital image to showcase Shanghai 100yrs ago
-juxtaposition of two shows

-both exhibitions dependent on technology
-photographs in historical photo exhibit based on their ability to digitalize work

New Media Resources
-Information Technology Services
–Web/database/network/systems
—still need a strong support in the physical
—need strong IT support and support for the infrastructure (e.g. setup of hardware)
—IT people can work with the content people
-Media Productions
–Video/television/multimedia & exhibition/gallery AV
-Publications
–Co-publishing/academic/catalogues
-Digital Image Centre
–Photography/scanning/copying/image licensing
–3D imaging unit
–digitalization of assets is key
–can’t move to the next level without digitalization
-Information Centre
–Rights and Reproductions co-ordinator
–Digital Media Assets co-ordinator

-ROM uses Final Cut Pro for most of their editing
-they have podcasts
-website
–really focused on using it for transactions and registration
–not a rich content site (yet)
–mostly marketing site
-ROM on FB
-ArtShare FB app

What is the concept of the mindful museum?
-museum as a masoleum
-museum as a machine
-museum as a metaphor (i.e. the Agora)
-museum as a mall – drained and devoted to pleasure; an attraction (like Disney; no longer about education)
-photo of quote re mindful museum quote
–”being primarily about the objects it contains”
–Louvre – 25 minutes from door to objects
–”mindful museum puts art in your face”
–CBC website podcast –> CBC Ideas –> 1 yr ago, Adam Copnik on the mindful museum (closest I could find was “Canada: Nation or Notion?“… that’s a direct link to the mp3, and I haven’t previewed it yet… also see this blog post)

-photo of projection from show
-because of success of the show getting people to look around, continue to use the space to put art infront of people as soon as they enter
-Sony donated flat screen monitors to ROM
-traditional vs digital donor walls
-digital donor wall – interactive; stories about the donors
–background image is from archival images of building; meant to be blurry and background image
–speaker mounted on ceiling, sound directed to viewer (instead of broadcasting to the entire room)
–not just about donors; also about the history of the ROM

-Digital gallery for education
–manipulate objects on projection
–provide digital options for younger audience who is already using technology at home
–in-house creation and management of content vs outsourcing
–often spend almost as much time with 3rd party as having to do it yourself
–ROM did it in-house

-podast – Constructing the Baronsaurus
-shows recreating a dinosaur at high-speed
-also uploaded to YouTube

-4 flatscreen monitors with touch-screen technology
–interactive display in front of dinosaurs
–didn’t want dioramas
–skeletons only
–images licensed from BBC (Walking with Dinosaurs)
–mindful of the audience

-Dipali (sp??)
-South Asian history and culture
-women in S.A. art
-same thing happening with First Peoples Paul Kane paintings show
–worked with John Basai – filmmaker
–kiosk, browser-based, with info on work
–more info for visitors

-new textiles gallery
-curator had specific ideas of how she wanted to use technology
-texture of textiles
-how they are created
-how a loom works
-video of how suit made

Canadian Mining Hall of Fame
-minerals and ores
-satellite exhibits
-how to take photos and bring that to life?
-used model of donor wall
-part of mining/minerals gallery

-elabelling – current RFP for delivery solution
-necessary for densely stoked display cases

-flatscreens everywhere!!

Schad Gallery of Biodiversity
-snippets that demonstrate life (ref: video at beginning)
-combo of media
-include media studio for ongoing program
–video producer and programmer to create programming for schools etc
-presents social networking web opportunity

Iconic Objects
-new marketing campaign
-must-see iconic pieces (regardless of what their current feature show is)
-short video sequences
-mindful museum – about the objects

Lessons Learned
-enhanced accessibility – audio tours
–transcripts of all podcasts
-evening and weekend IT support
-remote monitoring & updating
-hire for specific skill sets
-donor intervention – how much?
-avoid technology for the sake of technology
-allow time for R&D
-test, test, test

What can small museums do?
-seek curatorial support (test the waters)
-talk to visitors (measure the “groundswell”)
-do a POST assessment:
–people (visitors – enhancing their experience)
–objectives (goals?)
–strategy (providing context, more engagemen?)
–technology (solution)
-involve prospective donors
-develop digital assets

-new book: Bold Visions
-not about passive entertainment
-artifacts are not given a theatre setting

Questions
-how was video produced?
–camera technology

-at what point in development does interactive strategy come into things?
–wanted it to happen early, but due to project evolving, some of that got cut and was reintroduced at the end

-what about changing content?
–plan is that the content will be rotated
–funding exists to do this

-what happens when exhibition closes?
–dinosaur exhibit is permanent, but expect content to be updated

-collaboration & availability; produce in collaboration with other museums? make it available to them?
–not typically a practise to collaborate because of IP issues, but open to the idea where it makes sense
–developing portable content

-digital donor wall
–help with interface (Overdrive)
–content was in-house

-when does the technology become too much? interfering with experience with actual item? filter? adding so many layers?
–audience wants the context being provided through the technology
–objects don’t always speak for themselves
–technology is only one means of expression
–ROM also about education

-Charlene Li + Josh Bernoff
-Forester Research
-Groundswell book

This afternoon, there was a workshop presented by Rowley Mossop: When Virtual Worlds Collide – Challenges for the Arts in the Hypermedia Age. It was a much more focused presentation and discussion on some of the things discussed by Eli and John this morning, but with a much stronger marketing slant (comments with ~ are mine):

-songza.com

-new media –> impact on:
–concept of rarity
–production, distribution, etc
–behaviour & expectation

-the experience –> the emotional investment
-price/value of distribution & experience is shifting

-incumbent media are innovating to protect the value of their existing experience & products
-entrant media are innovating to build new businesses from new experiences & products
-innovations will impact how audiences expect to experience culture

-how can we use emerging technology to create something of value to attract and retain users/buyers?
-what is valuable to users? buyers? advertisers? funders?

-concept of RARITY
-emerging technology combinations are replacing rarity with ubiquity
–songza
–youtube
–the real news (broadcast out of Bathurst St in Toronto; technology has made it possible to reach a wide audience with a small budget)
-being able to find things
–rarity used to be a value because things were hard to find; ubiquity now more prevalent and effective
~~> but, again, what about Barney?

-”we all know now that intellectual property doesn’t mean much”
~~> what?!?!

-asking why people would go to concerts which were formerly sold on rarity if everything is available online
-need another strategy if your work is based on rarity (again, what about Barney’s success at forcing rarity?)

-market definitions based on geography
–no longer apply
–used to NEED to have geographic footprint & monopoly due to technological restraints
–because of reach, loss of local ads & personalities as value
–also loss of value for scheduled programming to reach specific audience

-users don’t pay content creators for access
~~> no, they pay the companies who provide access to the content, which is causing a whole host of problems between creators and those companies

-cost of content creation & distribution dropping
-boundaries of IP are dissolving
-offline, the cost of production is often higher than the price people are willing to pay for it

-new tarrifs, new ways to pay, new products
-ad-supported content

~it’s easy for people to make money by creating content in new formats and media, but what about people who are offering traditional things? how do we bridge the two? esp with physical objects?

-it’s all about “the experience”
-how to make live experience valuable rather than simply a replacement
-people find there is a higher engagement level online
-incorporate audience into the art!
-sampling ~~> not just for beauty products and food!

-metropera.com/metroperafamily.org
–haven’t changed the core of what they do or offer
–created impression of rarity
~~~>how does that fit with all the talk about rarity disappearing? I think there are two models here…
–redefined their market
–made themselves THE opera house of the world
–multiple formats of broadcasts; many ad-supported

John Darlymple from the Textiles Museum of Canada had a great presentation, Connecting Cloth, Culture + Art, on what they have been doing for the last 10 years.

Notes (and Flickr images)

-museums piggypack on technology developed by corporations
-the role of how the money is made
-focusing on the public and the programming; start with the inward looking, but the focus is on the outside
-three themes: reconsidering the role of collection management; keeping/setting pace with technology; how important a really conceptually strong program is for online presence

1997
-concept of shooting digitally was different
-digital cameras were inferior to 35mm cameras
-slides and indexes
-slides were scanned and saved onto CDs
-everything was still very physical
-did have website, built by a volunteer’s son
-very amateurish website
-just getting online, didn’t care what it was
-Museums Assistant Program
-collection management driven

phase 2
-grant from Virtual Museum of Canada
-trying to create a virtual museum –> recreating real world
-John felt this was the wrong decision because the internet is not the real world, but the internet can provide options which aren’t available in the real world
-gallery is decontextualized setting
-Cloth & Clay website –> archived on the Textiles Museum website
-online identity can be bigger than physical presence
-sites were static HTML because that’s all they know
-John attended course where it was taught by a web designer and a curator, but there was no link between the two
Cloth & Clay did as much as they could with static HTML
-requirement for digitalization of work —> Collections Manager
-requirement for better collections management and images

phase 3
-create online destination
-entrypoint to collection
-relevant themes
-told government they needed to digitalize collection and have a database of the images
-creating something online that we can’t do in physical space –> moving objects around; didn’t use quicktime
-also allowed people to zoom into images
-Zoomify
-plugins –> something that’s open and that people would already have
-challenge to store and backup images (highres source images) and space online –> changed much since then
-slides taken by many different people (volunteers, proffessional photographers) and scanned at different resolutions
-need to take the different shots; need to not reshoot images every time; not just file format but relevancy of images
-has style guide for how to shoot images of textiles!
-government funding insisted on digital images
-shot images from a camera on the roof
-MimsyXG vs archaic Access DB
–different levels of consistency of data input, tagging
–need to investigate how to transfer data –> rebuild vs import
–just access isn’t enough –> NEED consistency of data
–needed a fundamental shift of definition/concept of collection management
-60% of collection photographed
-not just adding all sorts of little notes on db info (resulted in inconsistency with use of fields; nothing was publication-ready)
-kept fields simple –> much to document, not many curators to sign-off; wanted to do everything in French (don’t -operate in French, but wanted to be able to offer the information in French online); built thesaurus for terms and used that for standard English data input and translated to French
-Textile Museum: collection; contemporary art & exhibition program (most dynamic part of their programming); educational programming (other programs had educational aspects, but they also have a specific ed program)
-use web to exhibit work for longer than the few weeks they can keep stuff on display due to the fragility of the work
-Digital Threads
-asked artists to create digital art – artists asked were not digital artists; had to work closely with them to make this work
-theme grouping of work, rather than chronological
-Joanna Berzowska
-didn’t want it to be a database experience
-serve researcher, but should be usable for general museum going audience and teachers
-clearest terminology and titles for users

(no, I don’t know what happened to the phase 4 notes…I’m guessing they’re the tail end of the phase 3 notes)

phase 5
launching a new website soon
In Touch (hoping to change name)
deliver online project
create hands-on learning experience
move things, feel the weight, etc
computer animation –> molecular reaction of textile
–> like SL?
take apart a textile online and reconstitute work
physics-based technology
increase level of immersion for users –> cultural journey
mgmgrand.com –> type of immersion textile museum is looking for
–time-out in the immersion experience to get more detail

questions
-level of skillset – challenge?
–had to identify target audience
–design site for target audience and user behaviour

-finding the right partner for these projects, esp for people who are not big on social media

-connection between online presence and marketing
–rely on emarketing
–online museum brings people to the physical museum

-concept of draft publishing versus polished publishing; Sebastian from Australia (forget the gallery…)
–more interactive publishing when things are draft; wikis, etc
–having everything polished only is not necessarily the best option, and they are welcome to feedback

-YorkU –> Kate Fletcher (?) –> takes digital and almost hologram