Richard Rinehart
Since the beginning
r.rinehart@bucknell.edu
Works in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania United States of America

PORTFOLIO (4)
BIO
Richard Rinehart is the Director of the Samek Art Museum at Bucknell University. Previous to holding his position at Bucknell, Richard was the Digital Media Director and Adjunct Curator at the UC Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive. Richard has taught digital art studio and theory at UC Berkeley in the Center for New Media and Art Practice departments. He has also been visiting faculty at the San Francisco Art Institute, UC Santa Cruz, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and JFK University. Richard sits on the Executive Committee of the UC Berkeley Center for New Media and has served on the Board of Directors for New Langton Arts in San Francisco. Richard manages research projects in the area of digital culture, including the NEA-funded project, 'Archiving the Avant Garde', a national consortium of museums and artists distilling the essence of digital art in order to document and preserve it. Richard is a new media artist whose art works, papers, projects, and more can be found at http://www.coyoteyip.com
Discussions (28) Opportunities (4) Events (14) Jobs (8)
DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Patrick,

These are great ideas. Here are some additional thoughts in two
separate emails:

On submitting artwork to Rhizome/RAW/ArtBAse, it looks like we'll
need to ask for more metadata in the future, in which case it will
require a form, etc. I guess as long as it's clear that one is
submitting to the ArtBase as well as RAW, that would let folks know
why it requires a form, etc. Of course there would presumably still
be the option of sending a quick announcement to RAW without
submitting to the ArtBase, no? But having the incentive that when you
submit to the ArtBase, you are also submitting to RAW, is of course
appealing and, hopefully, motivating.

In addition to a full blown folksonomy, I think it would still be
important to have the contributor/artist tag their work with a
controlled vocabulary standard term (AAT, etc) as well. The
controlled list is much easier to include in a system (it's just a
static list) and I think would be in parallel to the folksonomic
system. This would, however, provide a) immediate and near term
compatibility with the large range of external systems using these
standards and b) provide a long term mapping between the controlled
terms and the developing folksonomies that could help, in the end, to
improve and expand said controlled vocab sources. Thus, Rhizome's and
Rhizome members' are able to impact and educate the larger art world.

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

At 12:39 PM -0400 5/16/06, Patrick May wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On May 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>>Yes, perhaps a hybrid model would work. Actually, I think that
>>technically, the folksonomy/tagging bit might be the hardest to
>>implement (but worth it), whereas also having the AAT/etc terms in
>>a list is a pretty easy and fairly static entity to include.
>
>Making the Artbase a folksonomy will go beyond adding tags to the
>metadata. Websites like Flickr or del.icio.us give up some control
>in an effort to encourage participation. The premise is that the
>main constraint on the success of a classification system is the
>actual work of tagging. These sites focus first on getting more
>people to tag and assume that valuable information can be aggregated
>from the result.
>
>To implement a folksonomy with the Artbase, I suggest we create
>other rewards besides the act of tagging itself.
>
>Instead of submitting to the Artbase, artists could "send a Linked
>Artwork to RAW". The artwork could be online, linked from the
>artist's profile, and a notification could be sent to the RAW
>mailing list. There also could be a way to browse the RAW Linked
>Artworks, just like there are ways of browsing the calendar or
>opportunities.
>
>At the same time, these RAW Linked Artworks could be queued for
>selection into the curated Artbase, just like RAW emails are queued
>for selection into RARE.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Patrick
>
>
>--
>Patrick May
>Director of Technology
>Rhizome.org
>phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
>AIM: cyclochew
>+ + +
>
>>At 12:51 PM +0100 4/26/06, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>>>Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>>>
>>>>I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>>>folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>>>thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>>>
>>>I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in mind for
>>>paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies are both
>>>formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the
>>>word "blue"
>>>but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the RDF using
>>>wordnet or a thesaurus.
>>>
>>>>Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is
>>>>not yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is
>>>>the single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>>>collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>>>AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>>>update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>>>community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>>>practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure
>>>>which is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty
>>>>unit that had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in
>>>>updating the AAT based on feedback from the relevant community
>>>>(us).
>>>
>>>Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>>>
>>>Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a process to add
>>>more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have a list of
>>>terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people could add
>>>terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome
>>>community) could then
>>>keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>>>
>>>A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement though. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for
>>>Rhizome to get
>>>licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>>>unfortunately written
>>>for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time
>>>having this stuff
>>>available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue stream. ;-)
>>>
>>>- Rob.
>>>
>>>+
>>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>>-> 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: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> 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

--

DISCUSSION

Re: 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: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Hi everyone,

The tagging sounds very interesting indeed. Would this be the same as
the folksonomy or parallel to it (same system)? I could see the two
types of terms living in the ArtBase easily: controlled vocabularies
and the folksonomic terms. On the former, controlled vocabularies,
Lauren's question is important: who is it for? I have found that
controlled vocabularies are mainly for "professionals" in the field
as they are more precise terms (ie. the AAT prefers 'serigraph'
instead of 'silkscreen'), but the main benefit of controlled vocabs
are manifold. First, they can, if done well (AAT does this, and
Rhizome's hybrid model could too) provide a mapping between the
"popular" and "professional" versions of a term (the thesaurus
model), they provide a consistency that allows for consistent results
during machine manipulation of the data (ie searching), and perhaps
more importantly they provide a standard so that the any particular
data-set that uses them can be shared and transported between systems.

In the cultural heritage field there's been increasing emphasis on
broad sharing of data; we all know that our data needs to live on our
own websites, yes, and we can provide great functionality with that,
but we need to be able to share the data-source in such a way that it
can be incorporated into other systems too. For instance, I can
easily see in the future, that Rhizome might want to export the
entire ArtBase and allow the records to be used inside another
portal/system such as one of the following: Univ. of California
Digital Library (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/),Univ. of Michigan OAIster
(http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/), or the Library of
Congress' American Memory (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html).
Additionally, some might want to incorporate the ArtBase terms
(rather than the records/data) in software tools like the Variable
Media Questionnaire (http://variablemedia.net). To achieve any of
these, there has to be some structure to the ArtBase that others will
understand (ie. shared standards). The benefits of this sharing
include: new functionality, new data-contexts, new audiences and
uses. Some of this sharing can be achieved via dynamic linking/API's
while other forms require static record export/import. This does not
prohibit local practices or folksonomies, but it argues for a hybrid
system.

Terms for the ArtBase could come from two streams. First is the
folksonomies/tagging aggregated by the ArtBase from us. The second
could be existing controlled vocabularies (such as the AAT) that are
mined for appropriate terms and incorporated into a list for the
ArtBase (Rhizome members could suggest sources). Submitters of new
works to the ArtBase could be encouraged to both choose a
"controlled" term or two, some previously "tagged" terms, or a new
term.

Whew...what do you all think?

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

>Hey Lauren & everyone,
>
>On Apr 29, 2006, at 6:00 AM, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>>
>>1) Sal: By members tagging the ArtBase, were you thinking that the tags of
>>both artist and audience would be reflected on an individual ArtBase page?
>
>Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. They could be presented
>separately, but both on the page (this can be pretty discreet,
>design wise, on opsound the tags are almost invisible until you
>mouse over them - or little ajax windows could open). The reasons
>to keep them on the ArtBase page are twofold. One, it can help
>someone to get a feel for what kind of piece it is, as they're
>browsing through -- this is a rather modest benefit, I think. More
>importantly, though, a visitor can use these tags as links to wander
>through the ArtBase and discover other works which they might not
>have found -- the more paths through the forest the better, imho.
>Also, I think the community-created folksonomy tags are potentially
>quite useful for research in the future. If you add a date_tagged
>field, for instance, someone could use the database to map the
>evolution of terms and ideas in new media art during a particular
>period.
>
>> Just a note: This would also
>>mean that tagging -- besides being a part of the artbase/ text submission
>>process -- would become a Member benefit which is a good thing in my mind.
>
>Yes! I thought this too. I like it as a benefit of membership.
>Helps build the idea of a community.
>
>> Do we add words through research/ conversations with these
>>constituencies within the Rhizome community, or do we rely on pre-existing
>>vocabularies or our own knowledge. What do people think?
>
>If it's combined with a free-form tagging system, I'm pretty
>comfortable with just using your own knowledge and common sense,
>building from the keyword/genre system that's in place -- it might
>be nice to present the list to the list (so to speak) and get a
>little feedback first, and to other curators etc. as well. Some
>provision (at least in the form of acknowledgment) should be made
>for adding new terms as new forms and ideas develop over time.
>Letting the Artbase curators add the controlled vocabulary seems
>natural -- and a good use for the curators ;-)
>
>Also, of course it's pretty easy to combine tags and rss feeds.
>This means you could potentially subscribe to a feed for let's say
>'animation' or 'database' and keep tabs on what's coming in (great
>for curators!).
>
>You could also consider offering an API to the rhizome ArtBase
>database, so anyone could configure their own presentation of it.
>This way, you could give people access to data that you don't
>necessarily want to display on the page (for clutter reasons
>perhaps) -- for instance the date_tagged type of data I mentioned
>above.
>Someone could use the API to extract that data and present it
>(possibly, of course, as an artwork, Rhizome beginning to eat
>itself).
>
>S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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

--

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Thanks Sal,

You summed it up nicely. It's great to see convergence on some of
these issues on the list.

Richard Rinehart

At 12:44 PM -0400 4/26/06, Sal Randolph wrote:
>I second rob & david's arguments about why folksonomies are great,
>and I think they would mix amazingly well with rhizome membership
>(all members would get to tag the artbase as they like). tag cloud
>of the artbase indeed!! It would naturally evolve as the field of
>inquiry evolves. Also as someone who has implemented a tagging
>system with freetag recently, it's *really* easy to do (freetag is
>php, and I know rhizome's using ruby, but it doesn't look all that
>hard to write one either, just from surveying the code).
>
>Personally I would advocate for a double system, as some have done:
>free folksonomy tagging by everyone, and then a layer of curated
>language for either genre or keyword. multiple points of
>intellectual access are a good thing.
>
>
>On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:51 AM, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>
>>Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>>
>>>I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>>folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>>thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>>
>>I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in mind for
>>paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies are both
>>formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the
>>word "blue"
>>but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the RDF using
>>wordnet or a thesaurus.
>>
>>>Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is
>>>not yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is the
>>>single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>>collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>>AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>>update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>>community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>>practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure which
>>>is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty unit
>>>that had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in updating the
>>>AAT based on feedback from the relevant community (us).
>>
>>Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>>
>>Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a process to add
>>more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have a list of
>>terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people could add
>>terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome community)
>>could then
>>keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>>
>>A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement though. :-)
>>
>>
>>On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for Rhizome to get
>>licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>>unfortunately written
>>for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time having
>>this stuff
>>available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue stream. ;-)
>>
>>- Rob.
>>
>>+
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> 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
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Hi again,

Yes, perhaps a hybrid model would work. Actually, I think that
technically, the folksonomy/tagging bit might be the hardest to
implement (but worth it), whereas also having the AAT/etc terms in a
list is a pretty easy and fairly static entity to include.

You mention an interesting note about ArtBase including licenses for
commercial software as having the original software (or better yet,
source code, see previous post) is helpful for preservation. I do
rememeber that Howard Besser at NYU had mentioned a couple years ago
the idea of convincing Congress to give software companies a tax
break to release their old software into the public domain because it
has little value for them, but great value for preservation. Does
anyone else know about this project and what became of it. It might
be relevant here......

Richard Rinehart

At 12:51 PM +0100 4/26/06, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>
>>I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>
>I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in mind for
>paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies are both
>formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the word "blue"
>but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the RDF using
>wordnet or a thesaurus.
>
>>Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is not
>>yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is the
>>single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure which
>>is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty unit that
>>had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in updating the AAT
>>based on feedback from the relevant community (us).
>
>Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>
>Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a process to add
>more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have a list of
>terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people could add
>terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome community) could then
>keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>
>A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement though. :-)
>
>
>On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for Rhizome to get
>licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>unfortunately written
>for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time having this stuff
>available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue stream. ;-)
>
>- Rob.
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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