[NetBehaviour] Exploring Tate Art Open Data 2

Bjørn Magnhildøen noemata at gmail.com
Sun Feb 9 23:33:47 CET 2014

data visualisation is art (for me) if you remove some of the context /
the text accompanied, then you see something strange, an art work
which (in some way) embodies in a very formal way thousands of other
works (the figure that looks like a flame eg., you title it 'burning
the art', which also means processing and conserving its data.)

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 09/02/14 08:17 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>> 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.
> It is, and this is one of the reasons why I am visualizing Tate's
> models. This is as much an examination of the model as of what it
> attempts to represent.
> That said, some of the data is more quantitative than others. And to
> take an obvious example the representation of women artists that the
> collection data makes concrete is a thing.
>> 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...
> Absolutely, just like everything else in the humanities. The difference
> is only that this kind of visualization is novel enough that we can see
> its obvious deficiencies. This can be a springboard for wider critique
> of methods.
>> 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).
> I've found no great surprises in the Tate collection data, which I take
> as a confirmation of how well existing models have done. Mostly I've
> learnt about minor art movements I haven't heard of before and got more
> of a feel for the flow of particular careers and genres. I'd like to
> take the Turner bequest out and re-examine the data as I think that
> would significantly alter the iconography of the collection.
> If the quantitative data contradicted an argument (e.g. if it revealed
> that in fact there are works by more female than male artists in the
> collection), that would be interesting. If the qualitative data
> contradicted another model (of movements for example) that would also be
> interesting, and that leads into institutional critique.
> I regard data visualisation as visual rhetoric, a term that I apparently
> didn't make up, although I think I mean it more literally than other
> users. This both sets its limits and contextualises its strengths and risks.
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list