MataData

Hi Edward, all,

You propose a mouthful (is that a terribly mixed metaphor?). Anyway,
I wouldn't break it down quite that way; I'd break a work down
according to levels of description from conceptual to functional to
technical in that order. But I won't belabor that issues when I've
got a 44 page paper to do that for me (see
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/about_bampfa/formalnotation.pdf) and
if you don't like the model proposed in this paper, you can always
use it to swat really big flies.

I was very piqued by your comment number 5., that 'genre' may or may
not be remembered for ten years. Much as I hate to admit this
(because I hate thinking about my own work being remembered as a
watered-down stereotype), I actually think that genre may be one of
the most memorable elements of metadata about art. Think about it in
terms of painting; few of us might now that a particular 19th century
painting was painted with a new form of synthetic cobalt or
ultramarine blue invented only a few years prior (technical
metadata), but we all know it's "impressionist" (genre). We may not
recall even the artist on first view (Jacques Braque? Georges
Braque?) but we can tell it's "cubist" from across the room.

Like I said, part of me resists the idea that my own work, or any
art, can be reduced down to a one-word term, and I hope that we're
building more robust metadata systems than they used in the past, but
this thought would seem to underscore the importance of the Rhizome
metadata/vocabulary project.

Rick




>How about breaking down the definition of any given work into a
>number of separate stages?
>
>1.What are the file formats? HTML, XHTML, .swf, .mov, .mpg,
>.jpg, .gif etc., or combinations thereof.
>2.Any additional information about viewing requirements:
>Windows-only, Mac-only, JavaScript required, popups used, etc.
>3.Content: audio, animation, text, images, interactive
>elements, generative elements, etc.
>4.Mode of presentation: CD, DVD, online, installation, via
>mobile phone, etc.
>5.General description of the work, including genre: this would
>include the "folksonomy" terms such as "web.art" which may or may
>not mean anything ten years from now.
>6.Maybe some technical information about how it was produced,
>ie. what coding language was used? I'm not sure if answers to this
>question are 100% implied by answers to questions 1 and 2.
>
>- Edward Picot
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php


–


Richard Rinehart
—————
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
—————
University of California, Berkeley
—————
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

On 3.5.2006, at 22:02, Richard Rinehart wrote:

> painting was painted with a new form of synthetic cobalt or
> ultramarine blue invented only a few years prior (technical metadata),

Dang, I was sure you were going to say it was Rabo Karabekian.

>
>
>
>
>> How about breaking down the definition of any given work into a
>> number of separate stages?
>>
>> 1.What are the file formats? HTML,
>> XHTML, .swf, .mov, .mpg, .jpg, .gif etc., or combinations thereof.
>> 2.Any additional information about viewing requirements: Windows-
>> only, Mac-only, JavaScript required, popups used, etc.
>> 3.Content: audio, animation, text, images, interactive elements,
>> generative elements, etc.
>> 4.Mode of presentation: CD, DVD, online, installation, via mobile
>> phone, etc.
>> 5.General description of the work, including genre: this would
>> include the "folksonomy" terms such as "web.art" which may or may
>> not mean anything ten years from now.
>> 6.Maybe some technical information about how it was produced, ie.
>> what coding language was used? I'm not sure if answers to this
>> question are 100% implied by answers to questions 1 and 2.
>>
>> - Edward Picot
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>
>
> –
>
>
> Richard Rinehart
> —————
> Director of Digital Media
> Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
> bampfa.berkeley.edu
> —————
> University of California, Berkeley
> —————
> 2625 Durant Ave.
> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
> ph.510.642.5240
> fx.510.642.5269
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit