[NetBehaviour] Exploring Tate Art Open Data 2

Michael Szpakowski szpako at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 9 17:17:31 CET 2014

Isn't one of the problems with all this data led stuff that data is a human construct  - so it depends upon human assumptions,classifications and questions. Of course in a sense everything does but it strikes me that data carries a aura of objectivity which is quite misleading. What we discover depends entirely upon what questions we ask and they in turn are grow out of our pre-conceptions and what the questioner perceives to be in their interest...
I'm not saying it's not interesting or useful but that maybe that the whole shiny concept needs scrutinising a little more...
To be more concrete - there's nothing whatsoever objective about what constitutes an art movement so any data derived from questions atound this notion this is predicated upon a human construct subject to outright lies, self interest, self deception, mistakes, failure to observe, squeezing round pegs into square holes &c (not only this of course).


 From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org> 
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:52 PM
Subject: [NetBehaviour] Exploring Tate Art Open Data 2


"This is the second in a series of posts examining Tate’s excellent
collection dataset"

Contains colourful diagrams showing how many artworks from each art
movement were produced in each year, the duration of each art movement
in the Tate's collection, and how many artists connect each movement as
a social network.

- Rob.
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140209/f1c9464d/attachment.htm>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list