Table of Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….3
The internet and the spread of Art ……………………………………………………………………………………3
The Google Art Projecct …………………..……………………………………………………….………………………9
Controversies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
What remains to be done? ………………………………………..……………………………………………………13
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………….…….………………………14
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...17
Introduction
Currently, the major museums in the world are undergoing a profound change as they have identified the importance of reaching for a global audience. With this, however, the museums’ management necessarily becomes more complex and multiaspec t. This essay will focus on this new goal, and particularly on the use of digital museum experiences as a way to achieve it. It will discuss why the digital museum tends to be a trend of museum development, how the art institutions use digital media to increase their influence to the public, and the problems derived from this new trend.
The Internet and the spread of art
In the age of information explosion, science is developing and knowledge is renewing itself rapidly. Already in 1992 the Global Information Infrastructure Plan recognized that “the information society has become a major objective of worldwide public interest” (Takahashi, et al.). Now, with the expansion of the Internet, this objective is a reality, at least in developed countries. According to the World Bank (2010), Australia’s percentage of Internet users went from 5% in 1992 to 75.9% in 2010. With this new tool, people gain access to knowledge that was previously unreachable, and those interested in spreading it have become much better equipped to do so. Steven Zucker’s, principal of Smarthistory.org and Ddean of the School of Graduate Studies at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) describes this transformation in information as going “from Acropolis—that inaccessible treasury on the fortified hill—to Agora, a marketplace of ideas offering space for conversation, a forum for civic engagement and debate, and opportunity for a variety of encounters among audiences” (Proctor, 2010). Even if it is clear that Australia is changing much more rapidly than the rest of the word, it can be seen in the graph below that this is, in fact, a global trend.
Fig: Internet users as percentage of population
Furthermore, not only has the Internet grown exponentially, it has also replaced traditional media as the main source of information for many sectors of the population. Roy Morgan Research points out that while the percentage of people that use TV as the main source of information has been consistently decreasing to only 52% in 2007; the percentage of people who use the Internet to inform themselves has been increasing, reaching a level of 9.5% . But, more importantly, if these trends continue the Internet will become the main source of information for 50% of Australians in under ten years. (Roy Morgan, 2007). These figures are even more extreme among the young (15 to 25 years old) where 79% of them already depend solely on the Internet to inform themselves (Wattenberg, 2011). This evolution of the media is so clear that most newspaper reproduce the entirety of their daily prints on their website and most major TV networks are starting to rebroadcast their contents online. It not only allows them to keep up high visibility but it also provides an extremely high return of investment since the costs of entry are relatively low and the audience is constantly increasing. Under these considerations it is can be seen that the common phrase “if it exists, it’s in Google” is no exaggeration.
Museums have caught up with this trend and are starting to have a stronger presence on the Internet. For example, in its strategy for 2012, the British Museum recognized that Internet exposure is central to increasing the interests in the museum’s collections. It even went to state that “by 2012, the Museum’s physical presence in London will be complemented by a globally accessible media resource […] as a result, visits to the Museum’s main web site should double to over 14m by 2012” (The British Museum, 2012). The importance of achieving this goal cannot be overstated. It has at least two main advantages.
First, by giving relevant information to the visitor before they reach the museum he should be able to put the content of the actual museum in a better context and make a more informed observation of what he sees once he arrives to the analog museum. Stuer (2001) argues that achieving this can produce a more comprehensive and enjoyable experience for the visitor, making it more likely for him to later on return to the museum or simply become more interested in the art he has seen.
Second, by increasing the presence museums have on the Internet they are targeting a key sector of the population. Internet users is a group dominated by young people, mainly in the range of 16 to 19 years old, which is also a sector that museums have a hard time appealing to because it this groupis normally misinformed or has preconception that it is not compatible with its theirinterests (Veirum& Christensen, 2011). Digital museums open an opportunity for art to become more visible among the youth, and for disabling false preconceptions of museums as esoteric and uninteresting places. Furthermore, Veirum& Christensen also argue that, due to the social nature of museum visits, “targeting teenagers with digital technologies could be the way, not only to reach a new young audience, but also to engage current, older, visitors at a higher level” (2011).
The Australian Powerhouse Museum is another example of a museum that is adapting to this new trend of digital museums. This case in particular is interesting because of its use of crowdsourcing. In 2009 the Powerhouse Museum published the vast majority of its collection online but not all records were complete. Since then, outside experts have been contacting the museum offering help in completing their records without requesting payment in exchange . Similarly, Tate Britian used Flickr to crowdsource the contents for the photographic exhibition How We Are: Photographing BritianBritain. (Proctor, 2010) These are typical examples of how the Internet is creating cooperation systems that can be superior to the traditional institutional models.
To better understand the possible impact that crowdsourcing can have on museums it is useful to analyze the case of Flickr. As with most models of cooperation, Flickr is dominated by a very steep power-law distribution, where the top contributors give hundreds of times more than the average contributor. Specifically in Flickr, the top 15% contributors account for 60% of the photos. (Shirky, 2009) Normally, institutions, such as museums, could hire how?this 15% and receive a very good return on their investment. However, crowdsourcing allows Flicker to not have to give up on the other 40% of the contributions because everybody is able to freely contribute. Digital museums, such as the one created by the Powerhouse Museum, could potentially achieve the same thing. For example, museums could hire professionals to tag the contents of their digital versions so people can find what they are looking for in an easier way. However, it is much easier, and cheaper, to crowdsource this function, so that every contributing visitor of the digital museum is able to tag what they see without increasing the institutional costs for the museum. Another example of how powerful this could be is that visitors to the digital museum can easily make use of tools like Twitter and Facebook to publicize what they liked to a degree that is likely to surpass the efforts of the hired museum employees. In Shirky’s terms (2009), digital media and crowdsourcing allows us to take the collection of museums to the individuals, instead of trying to make the individuals go to the museums.
Crowdsourcing and the social networks really do bring a qualitative change to the potential consequences of digital museums. Digital museums by themselves are only an alternative way to access specific collections; and, just like analog museums, they are likely to be ignored by those who are not already interested in arts or sciences. However, Twitter and Facebook are likely to expose uninterested people to these new contents. For instance, someone may not be interested in art and is following on Twitter a colleague of his. If that colleague “retweets” an iImpressionist work he really enjoyed during his visit to the digital museum then the uninterested follower will be forcibly exposed to that particular piece, raising the opportunity for him to gain interest on the impressionist school. In sum, digital museums, in combination with social networks, not only create new ways to access art and science, but they also expose new, previously uninterested audiences to them.
It is worth noting that crowdsourcing has gone beyond digital museums, and is now also a part of traditional ones. The Torrence Art Museum in California accepted project proposals by the general public, effectively turning the public to potential curators (Proctor, 2010). This allows the museum to respond to the demand of new expositions efficiently and within a small budget by not having to depend on a limited amount of staff or contractors. Moreover, it brings a strong degree of diversification to the way museums present their collections so they can attract a wide variety of visitors interested in different things.
This trend on has not been met without resistance however . Neal Stimler, of the Metropolitan Museum, states: “I do not share the view that using social media makes everyone a curator. Curators are the most trusted expert’s whose aggregated knowledge […] defines the meaning and value of art” (Proctor, 2010). Nevertheless, the defense of art expertise is a concern that seems to be diminishing more and more. Angelina Russo suggests that many voices are critical to the interpretation of culture that museums are creating, and that the participation of the audience is paramount to achieving a genuine collaborative deconstruction of culture. More in the line of what
Russo suggests, the Milwuakee Art museum developed the American Furniture/Googledexhibition. On this exhibition, the traditional labels for each object were replaced by computer screen where each visitor was able to explore in specific related websites, to get more information about the piece that they were observing. This allows for a much more personal interpretation of what is being seen and arguably could produce a more engaging experience. Likewise, Proctor(2010) argues that the job of the curators is shifting from a focus on the reproduction of knowledge to the generation of new sensations by using more temporary exhibitions. It then seems like the collaboration between outside experts and curators that social media allows are a response to a previously existing demand of democratizing the control and the access to art.
In a similar line of thought, De Bruyne and his colleagues argue that digital museums can provide unprecedented help for education purposes in schools, and even outside the classroom, since it’s not only much easier to use the digital museums than to arrange a school visit, but also because they can expose the students to a wide variety of collections that they would normally only be able to see in textbooks (Stueret al, 2001). Nevertheless, their most compelling argument is a different one. They argue that while museums can only appeal to one kind of visitor at a time , digital museums offer a wide variety of tools for different kind of publics. They argue that the regular “Search” function can give visitors that are already familiarized with the art they enjoy a very accessible and fast way to find what they are looking for, but it is not particularly useful for someone who is just starting to get interested in art. In such cases, the digital museum can offer traditional “Theme Packages” where all related pieces are presented together, so the visitor does not have to know beforehand what he would like to see. The disadvantage of theme packages, according to the authors, is that they present everything in a prearranged order, acquiring an inheritable exclusive nature and leaving little room for personal discovery. They suggest that a third approach, called “Theme Generator”, where the visitor is assisted by tools that limit or suggest certain results to his query’s can give a middle ground between the other two models, which allows for gratifying personal discoveries without overwhelming the visitor with an entire catalog. Therefore, digital museums don’t have to change exhibitions when trying to attract a specific kind of visitors like analog museums do, allowing for a much wider audience to take full advantage of the collection.
As it can be seen there are many museums that are starting to take advantage of some of the potential of the Internet as a platform for art. However, most of them are focusing in just one use. Google, however, is trying an integrated approach that takes advantage of the Internet as a whole. Its main project, called Google Art Project, is in many ways synthesizes all that is possible when using the Internet in an efficient, multidimensional, way.
Google Art Project
The Google Art Project is without a doubt the most successful digital museum to date. It started in February 2011, under the direction of AmitSood. As one of the most powerful companies in the world, Google seems to understand the power of “numbers”, just as what they have in Google Books. Since 2011, The Google Art Project has added 134 new museums to its site from around the world. Just like Amit said: “The Art Project is going global. ” (Brown, 2012). The project includes many of the major museums around the world. People around the world could be able to see the many of the masterworks that are collected by the Tate London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Uffizi, the Van Gogh Museum, the Museum of Islamic artArt, the Hong Kong Museum of Art, and the Freer Gallery of Art. Of course such a massive collection would usually bring logistical impossibilities if it were a physical collection. For example, all the artworks online is provided with brief context detail and artist background, they also have links to external information. If that was not enough, all pieces have tags to identify them with others that share a common denominator with it. Achieving this requires an amount of human resources that are impossible to hire for one institution. However, Google uses the Internet to crowdsource this task, removing the institutional costs of doing the task. Of course this means that some of the descriptions may not be accurate, but that seems like a reasonable price to pay for being able to do something that was not really an option with traditional hiring.
Another example of the great potential of that the Google Art Project is that it gives is about crowdsourcing. This can be and an integral approach to the possibilities that the Internet offers is throughtheir incorporation of social media. It is interesting that this is one of the revolutionary aspects of this project because it is its extremely simplicitye. All that it requires is an interface that allows the visitor to easily share what they see on their Twitter and Facebook accounts. Doing so allows to crowdsource the generation of the museum’s publicity to the thousands that visit it every day . This not only extremely reduces publicity costs, but, as it has been said, it's probably a better publicity because it actually reaches to people that are not already interested in the arts. Another feature of the Google Art Project is that it currently provides a virtual tour for 46 museums. This “Street View” technology provides 360-degree images for the interior and exterior of the selected galleries. Theis “Walk through” function can help visitors to observe the main buildings of museums, digitally walk through the galleries’ corridors, stand in the the exhibition halls, and even look around from the windows. This means, internet visitors not only look at artworks, but also enjoy how the curator has set up each exhibition. This is especially helpful if the art works rely on a special installation, such as ceiling and wall installation or group sculpture . Visitors have complete information; they are able to find anything inside the real exhibition room. Unfortunately, there are still some limitations as to the specific locations the visitor can put his camera in, which greatly reduces the mobility and the sense of immersion that the visitor can experience. However, the giga-pixel camera that Google uses to digitalize its material can give extremely realistic pictures, where even the texture can be discerned; which somewhat compensates for the limitations of the virtual tour.
Finally, an aspect that needs to be mentioned about The Google Art Project is its powerful ability to search with conveniencet. Using the most advancedof the technical aspects of the regular Google search engine, this ability of search allows people to find their favorite artists and artworks, regardless of them being in different collections and museums. This model is especially useful for those looking to expand their preexisting knowledge and experiences, because with the ability to search all collections for the same tag it is very possible that the visitor will end up discovering new pieces he did not know about that are related to his favorite artist or genre . This of course comes with the disadvantage of all search models but Google seems aware of that.
Google’s Cultural Institute is pursuing its goal of ‘help preserve and promote culture online’ through other means too. Google has very recently announced a new platform that will also focus on providing cultural institutions with more ways to reach to a global audience. Similar to the theme packages model that Stuer mentions, this new platform will try to narrate the stories behind key moments of human history in the last century, such as the Holocasut, the D-Day, etc. To do this it will put 42 online exhibits with the help of 17 cultural institutions such as the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (Crossan, 2012). Like stated above, this kind of exhibitions can create an emotionally engaging experience for visitors that do not have previous knowledge of what they are seeing. Yet, what makes this project particularly interesting is that, with the power of Google sponsoring it, it does it in a magnitude that no individual museum could hope to rival. Therefore, it is an example of how the digital media allows for a kind of inter-museum cooperation that was previously not possible. It is worth noting that this also creates new challenges for curators since they will most likely have to create a collective view of this kind of cooperative work .
The Controversies
Despite these various benefits of employing digital museums, there have been two main controversies surrounding them. First and foremost, there has been an increasing concern when it comes to the copyright infringement they can potentially allowoccur. While not all material is restricted by copyright, contemporary pieces cannot be freely distributed. This has actually been one of the main obstacles that digital museums have had to face, because coming to a legal and financial arrangement between them and the owner of the piece can be a very expensive and logistically troublesome. This is not only because of the usual impediments but also because it is, in fact, very difficult to protect the copyright of a specific piece once it goes online. It is difficult to measure how serious is copyright infringement on the Internet, and even more to have a clear idea of art copyright infringement, however there is some data available that should be considered. For example, the Recording Industry Association of America (2012) calculates that only of all the music that is acquired globally only 37% is obtained legally. Likewise, in the video games industry, the piracy rate can go from 40% to 80% depending on the country (Svensson, 2012). Even though these are entirely different markets, this data shows just how difficult it would be to restrict the illegal reproduction and commercialization of art once it reaches the Internet. Therefore, the potential of art piracy seems very real and there is no clear answer to what could be done to prevent it.
In addition to the copyright concerns, the rise of digital museums has spurred the debate about the possibility of them being detrimental, or even replacing, ordinary museums. Some experts worry that people will be satisfied by looking at the artifact online and lose interest in an ordinary museum to observe the real one. At first this concern would seem reasonable; after all going to the museum can be physically draining and the higher digital resolutions offer much more vivid images than before. Most of these controversies, however, seem to be based on a general disinformation about what is the use of digital museums. With this in mind Marty (2008) developed a nationwide survey to the users of seven different museums in Australia. His results showed that the typical online museum visitor that completed the survey visit museums approximately four times a year, visits museum websites approximately once a week, and considers it very important for museums to have museum web sites. In addition to this, possibly the most important result he found is that digital museums seem to complement, rather than replace, traditional ones. For example, 61% of the responders thought that digital museums were particularly good for accessing research materials and for educational actives; while 67% of them agreed that analog museums were the best alternatives for exploring the collections. Consequently it is not surprising that 74% disagreed with the statement that websites could come to replace the regular museums. Overall it would seem that the piece itself, the curatorial job, and the academic floor talk are irreplaceable.
A final concern with digital museums is that they might not be able to keep up with the changes in the analog exhibitions in traditional museums. Curators frequently change what is being shown and the way that it is being viewed, and the process of digitializing that experience is costly and takes time. Therefore, it would be true that digital museums would have a very hard to incorporating these changes. However this is only a problem because it is being assumed that digital museums should imitate the contents of analog ones. As it has been already shown, people use digital and analog museums for different purposes, so it is illogical for both of them to offer the same thing. This controversy, then, disappears when it is realized that digital museums should not imitate analog ones.
What remains to be done ?
Even though the advantages of digital museums, social media and the Internet in general can bring to museums are plenty, there are still more room to grow in terms of how efficient these new tools are being used. According to Adhikari , a consultant in the field of social media, one of the most common mistakes that museums are making in their expansion towards social media is not tailored to the demographics of the Internet, instead their messages have remained the same that are used to attract usual museum visitors. This, however, is not an inherent problem with the Internet as a platform but a consequence of an overall lack of familiarity with it by the museum authorities .
Additionally, the interaction is limited to accessing the information that the museums have put online (like watching a video on YouTube). Therefore in order to keep the interactions going the museum needs to keep producing all its content, which end up consuming a lot of the available resources. This is a severe appears to be a bigobstacle because there is no obvious way of solving it. However, as Chirs ChrisMilk and AronKoblin showed with their The Exquisite Forest project (2012), it is entirely possible to create contexts where it is not necessary for the museum to create all of its content, similar to the crowdsourcing efforts that were mentioned earlier. Moreover, it is an example of how creative efforts can produce worthwhile pieces regardless of technical ability thanks to the use of new technology only available through the Internet. Adhikari also argues that it is important to break certain social media stereotypes that the mainstream media has been trying to create. Particularly, some institutions are still reluctant to participate in the digital platforms because of the preconceived notation , often prevalent on the senior management members, that doing so will “dumb down” the content. Even though at the beginnings of the Internet as a platform for arts and sciences this might have been true due to lack of knowledge of how to use it properly, all of the examples quoted in this text can prove the falseness of that conception.
In sum, museums need to recognize that the Internet is more than just a marketing tool. They are about creating an infrastructure that allows for everyone who is interested in art or museums?to participate in the production of content, so that this production is sustainable, collective in nature, and diversified.
Conclusion
At the beginning, this paper analyzed the rise of the Internet as a global trend that is the special acute in Australia. It is no exaggeration to say that this is causing a change in the nature of human communication: persons who have access and who wish to collaborate with others can now do so much easier and efficient, the spread of knowledge and information is unprecedented, and so is the access that institutions have to the opinions of their audiences. This raises challenges and opportunities in all industries on the planet, and museums are starting to be heavily influentiated influencedby this change of context.
It was shown that museums such as the British Museum are starting to embrace the possibilities offered by the Internet to make the experience of art something that transcends its walls; where people can now stay in touch with their artistic and scientific interests before and after visiting the museum. The Powerhouse Museum’s experience with crowdsourcing,has also mentioned, and explored to realize that Digital Museums can have access to an amount of human resources that no single traditional museum can hope to rival, and do so at minimal costs. This Thesenew human rescoures have not been applied to administrative tasks, they have also been applied to new activities exclusively to digital museums. The best example of this, as it was said , is how every visitor to a digital museum potentially means not only that others will hear about what he saw, but will also likely see it; . This bringsbringing the exposure of art to a new level. Crowdsourcing has also been applied to other, more creative, areas. It has even been employed for curating an entire exhibition. The debate about the role of curators has been spared from this, and it seems clear that from now on certain will be a collaborative task.
The incorporation of digital museums really seems like a requirement. Perhaps the single most important reason for this is the capacity that they have to appeal to different audiences simultaneously. Currently it is very difficult for curators to construct an exhibition that will not exclude a segment of the possible audience. However, digital museums, through the implementation of the Search, Theme Package, and Theme Generator models , are able to give experts and novices in art the same degree of quality experience by giving them specifically what they need in order to satisfy their interests. This characteristic alone would seems to justify digital museums as an excellent tool for spreading the art and sciences, and as an efficient way to make institutional finances healthier.
Perhaps the best example of what can be achieved through the Internet as a platform for expanding the arts and sciences is the Google Art Project. Unlike many other digital museums, Google takes an integral approach to the possibilities that the internet can offer. It has created an ecosystem for thriving crowdsourcing, it has incorporated the power of social media so it is extremely easy for anyone to share his(or her) experiences with his(or her) social network, and, most importantly given its global audience an amount of content superior to that of any other museum. The Google Art project does have flaws however. One of them is that is catalog approach has the same issues as the Search model described by Stuert. Fortunately, Google is developing new platforms that will complement the existing weaknesses of the Google Art project. This of course is partially a testament to the power of a multi-billion company but also it is also a testament of the power behind the Internet and its ever increasing user base.
With the rise of digital museums that has been raising concerns too. The main and biggest one is, by far, copyright. It is difficult to measure the magnitude of the problem because it is impossible to get completely accurate data. But from the information given, it can be seen that copyright, as we currently understand it, is unrealistic on the Internet. It seems to be an inherent flaw in the platform itself and, therefore, they are no clear solutions to the problem. Both the music and the video games industry have found palliatives to the issue, and it will be up to the art industry to figure something that works for it. In the meantime it is a problem that cannot be underestimated, especially in terms of what it does to rising artists.
Another concern that some people also have is that digital museums will prove to be so superior to traditional ones in terms of giving the audience what they want that eventually all museums will be digital. This is an unjustified concern. It was shown that people will decide which kind of museum to attend depending on their specific needs. For some things digital museums are definitely a better and preferred option; but for exploring art traditional museums are still overwhelmingly preferred. This point illustrates one of the main conclusions of this paper very well, and that is that digital museums function better when they do not try to imitate analog ones; and the physicality of traditional museums make them irreplaceable when it comes to leaving the contents of it. Digital museums specialize in some areas, and traditional ones in others; therefore these two kinds really should seek to complement each other instead of engaging in a false competition. Finally, as fast as the rise of digital museums is, there is still much unfamiliar with how to best use the Internet. The main challenge for now is for the art industry to realize that it can be much more than just a marketing tool, and start using it as a way to create an environment where the production and the communication of art is self sustainable through the use of crowdsourcing.
References
Word Bank, World Bank Database.Retrvied from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2?cid=GPD_44
Proctor, Nancy. (2010). ‘Digital: Museum as Platform, Curator as Champion, in the Age of Social Media.’ Curator, January 2010, 35-43.
Proctor, Nancy. (2011). ‘The Google Art: A New Generation of Museums on the Web?’ Curator the Museum journal, 2 February 2011, http://www.curatorjournal.org/archives/489
Brown, Mark. (2012). “Ten more UK galleries join Google Art Project's virtual culture tours”, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 April, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/apr/03/national-gallery-google-art-project
Veirum, E. N., and Christensen, F. M. (2011). “If it’s not on the Net it doesn’t exist”, Museum Management and Curatorship, 26:1, 3-9.
Takahashi, J. “Global Digital Museum: Multimedia Information Access
Wattenberg, M. “Is voting for young people?” USA: University of California, 2001.
Peter StuerTheHyperMuseum Theme Generator System in Bearman, D. and Trant, J. (eds) Museums and the web 2001: Selected papers. Archives & Museums Informatics, 2001, pp. 127, 137)
Steve Corrsan, Collections Link. Retrived:http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/discover/sustaining-digital/1512-google-cultural-institute-launches-new-platform-for-culture-sector
Milk C and Koblin A. The Exquiste Project [Website] Retrieved from http://www.exquisiteforest.com/
Marty, P (2008) “Museum websites and museum visitors: digital museum resources and their use” Museum Management and Curatorship. 23:1,81-99
篇目
介绍
互联网和艺术的传播................................................................................................ 3
谷歌艺术Projecct的
争议
仍有许多工作要做什么?
介绍
目前,各大博物馆在世界正在经历着一场深刻的变革,因为他们已经确定的重要性达到了全球观众。然而,有了这个,博物馆的管理必然成为更加复杂和multiaspec的吨。这篇文章将集中在这个新的目标,特别是在数字博物馆的经验,使用的方式来实现它。数字博物馆将讨论为什么往往是博物馆发展的趋势,艺术机构如何使用数字媒体来提高自己的影响力向公众,以及衍生的问题,从这个新的趋势。
互联网和艺术的传播
在信息爆炸的时代,科学的发展和知识的迅速更新本身。早在1992年确认全球信息基础设施计划“ , ”信息社会已成为全球公共利益“ (高桥等)的一个主要目标。现在,随着互联网的扩张,这个目标是现实的,至少在发达国家。根据世界银行(2010年) ,澳大利亚的互联网用户的百分比从1992年的5 %到2010年的75.9% 。有了这个新的工具,人们获得知识,这是以前无法到达,和那些有兴趣在蔓延,它已经变得更好的装备,这样做的。史蒂文·朱克,学校的研究生院在时装技术学院( FIT ) Smarthistory.org Ddean主要描述了这一信息转化为正在进行的“从雅典卫城(Acropolis) ,人迹罕至的国库强化山集市,市场提供谈话的空间,公民参与和辩论的论坛,和观众之间的各种邂逅的“ (普罗克特2010 )的机会的想法。即使很显然,澳大利亚正在发生变化的速度远远超过其余的字,可以看到下图中,其实这是一个全球性的趋势。
图:互联网用户占人口的百分比
此外,不仅具有互联网成倍增长,它也取代了传统媒体的许多部门的人口信息的主要来源。罗伊摩根研究指出,而作为信息的主要来源,人们使用电视的百分比已持续下降到只有52% ,2007年;谁使用互联网的人告知自己的百分比不断增加,达到的水平9.5%。但是,更重要的是,如果这些趋势继续上网将成为主要的信息来源, 50 %的澳大利亚人下十年。 (罗伊摩根,2007年) 。这些数字甚至更极端之间的年轻人( 15至25岁),其中79 %的人已经完全依赖在互联网上告知自己(瓦滕伯格, 2011) 。媒体的这种演变是如此的清晰, ,大多数报纸再现他们的日常打印的全部在其网站上最重大的电视网络开始网上转播其内容。它不仅可以让他们保持了较高的知名度,但它也提供了一个非常高的投资回报率,因为相对较低的进入成本和观众的不断增加。在这些考虑,它是常见的词组“ ,如果它存在,它在谷歌可以看出, ”毫不夸张。
博物馆已经赶上了这一趋势,并开始在互联网上有更强的存在。例如,在其2012年的战略,大英博物馆认识到,互联网上曝光是中央博物馆的藏品中增加的利益。它甚至去声明说:“到2012年,在伦敦博物馆的物理存在将补充一个全局访问的媒体资源[ ... ]作为一个结果,参观博物馆的主网页的网站应该翻番到超过14米,由2012年” (在英国博物馆, 2012年) 。实现这一目标的重要性不能被夸大。它具有至少两个主要优点。
首先,通过向访问者提供相关信息才抵达博物馆,他应该是在一个更好的背景下,能够把实际的博物馆的内容,做出更明智的观察,他所看到的,一旦他到达模拟博物馆。 Stuer (2001)认为,实现这一目标,可以产生一个访客更全面,更愉快的体验,使之更容易为他后来返回到博物馆或者干脆成为更感兴趣的是他已经看到了艺术。
其次,通过增加存在博物馆在互联网上,他们的目标的一个关键部门的人口。网民是一群年轻人为主,主要集中在16至19岁的范围,这也是一个部门,博物馆也很难吸引,因为这个通常groupis误导或有成见,这是不符合其theirinterests ( Veirum克里斯滕森, 2011) 。打开数字博物馆艺术的机会,在青年中变得更加明显,为禁用虚假先入为主博物馆,深奥和无趣的地方。此外, Veirum &克里斯滕森还认为,由于参观博物馆的社会性质, “数字技术针对青少年可能会的方式,不仅以达到新的年轻观众,而且还从事在更高层次上的电流,老年人,游客“( 2011年)。
澳大利亚动力博物馆是一个博物馆,是适应这一新趋势的数字博物馆的另一个例子。特别有趣的是,这种情况下,由于其采用众包。动力博物馆(Powerhouse Museum)发表在2009年其网上收集绝大多数,但并非所有记录完整。从那时起,外界专家一直在接触博物馆提供帮助完成他们的记录,不要求支付交换。同样,泰特英方使用Flickr的摄影展,我们是如何:摄影BritianBritain的众包的内容。 (普罗克特2010 )互联网是如何建立合作机制,可以比传统的体制模式,这些都是典型的例子。
为了更好地理解造成的影响,可以对博物馆众包Flickr的分析的情况下是非常有用的。大多数的合作模式, Flickr是一个非常陡峭的幂律分布,其中顶部的贡献者给予数百倍以上的平均贡献为主。特别在Flickr ,前15%的出资占60 %的照片。 ( Shirky的, 2009 ),在正常情况下,机构,如博物馆,可以聘请怎么样?这15% ,并收到很好的投资回报。然而,众包允许闪烁没有放弃对其他40%的贡献,因为每个人都能够自由作出贡献。数字博物馆,如动力博物馆的创建,可能达到同样的事情。例如,博物馆可以聘请专业人士来标记他们的数字版本的内容,使人们可以找到他们正在寻找一个更简单的方法。然而,它是更容易,更便宜,众包这一功能,使每一个贡献访问者的数字博物馆是能够标记他们所看到的不增加机构成本博物馆。多么强大,这可能是另外一个例子是,数字博物馆的参观者可以很容易地利用工具,如Twitter和Facebook来宣传他们喜欢什么,是有可能超越聘请博物馆员工的努力在一定程度上。 Shirky的条款(2009年) ,数字媒体和众包使我们能够采取的收集博物馆的个人,而不是试图让个人去博物馆。
众包和社交网络确实带来了质的变化,以数字博物馆的潜在后果。数字博物馆本身只是一个替代的方式来访问特定的集合,就像模拟的博物馆,他们很可能会被忽略的那些人是不是已经在艺术或科学感兴趣。然而,Twitter和Facebook容易暴露不感兴趣的人,对这些新的内容。例如,有人可能无法对艺术感兴趣的,是继在Twitter上他的一个同事。如果那位同事“锐推” iImpressionist的工作,他真的很喜欢在他访问期间向数字博物馆,无心恋战的追随者将被强行暴露于特定的一块,提高的机会,他获得利息印象派。总之,数字博物馆,在与社交网络相结合,不仅创造新的艺术和科学的方式来访问,但他们也暴露了他们新的,以前不感兴趣的受众。
这是值得注意的,众包已经超越了数字博物馆,现在也有一部分是传统的。在加州托伦斯艺术博物馆接受项目受到广大市民的建议,有效地将公众潜在的馆长(普罗克特2010 ) 。这让博物馆以应对有效需求的新论述,在一个小预算,不必依赖于数量有限的员工或承包商。此外,它带来了强大的多元化程度博物馆展示自己的藏品的方式,使他们能够吸引多种不同的事情有兴趣的游客。
这种趋势已经无阻力,但没有得到满足。尼尔Stimler ,大都会博物馆,指出:“我不同意这样的观点,使用社会化媒体,让大家策展人。策展人是最值得信赖的专家的聚合知识[...]定义的意义和价值的艺术“ (普罗克特2010 ) 。不过,防守的艺术专长,这似乎是减少越来越多的关注。安吉丽娜·鲁索表明,许多声音文化博物馆正在创建的解释是至关重要的,而观众的参与是最重要的,以实现真正协作的文化解构。在什么样的线
日俄建议, Milwuakee的艺术博物馆开发美式家具/ Googledexhibition 。在本次展会上,传统的电脑屏幕上,其中每个访问者能够探索在特定的相关网站,获得更多的信息,他们观察的片约每个对象的标签被替换。这使得什么是被视为一个更加个性化的解释,可以说是能产生一个更引人入胜的体验。同样,宝洁(2010)认为,策展人的工作正在从一家专注于知识的再现一代新的感觉,通过使用更多的临时展览。然后,它似乎像外部专家和策展人之间的协作,社交媒体允许访问控制和对艺术民主化以前存在的需求响应。
类似思想线,德Bruyne和他的同事们认为,数字博物馆可以提供前所未有的帮助在学校作教育用途,甚至在课堂之外,因为它不仅更容易使用的数字博物馆比安排学校参观,但也因为他们可以揭露学生各种各样的集合,他们通常只能够在教科书里看到( Stueret人,2001年) 。不过,他们最有说服力的论据是不同的。他们认为,博物馆只能吸引一类顾客的时间,不同种类的公众数字博物馆提供种类繁多的工具。他们认为,常规的“搜索”功能,可以让参观者已经熟悉他们的艺术享受交通十分便利,快捷的方式找到他们正在寻找的,但它是不是特别有用的人谁是刚刚起步兴趣在艺术上。在这种情况下,数字博物馆可以提供传统的“主题包”,所有相关的作品都在一起,所以游客不会事先知道什么,他想看到的。主题包的缺点,根据作者,是他们目前一切都在预先安排的顺序,取得可继承的独占性和个人发现留下一点余地。他们建议,一个第三个方法,被称为“发电机主题” ,那里的游客的辅助工具,限制或提示了一定的成绩他查询的可以给一个中间的地面其他两种模式之间,这喜人个人发现允许没有铺天盖地的访客,整个目录。因此,数字博物馆都没有改变时,试图吸引特定种类的游客喜欢模拟博物馆做展览,让更广泛的观众充分利用集合。
可以看出,有许多博物馆开始利用一些潜在的互联网作为一个平台,为艺术。然而,他们中的大部分都集中在短短的一个使用。然而,谷歌试图利用互联网作为一个整体的综合方法。其主要项目,被称为谷歌艺术项目,在很多方面是合成高效,多维的方式使用互联网时的一切可能。
谷歌艺术项目
谷歌艺术项目是毫无疑问迄今为止最成功的数字博物馆。它于2011年2月开始,的指导下AmitSood 。作为在世界上最具实力的公司之一,谷歌似乎明白了“数字”的力量,就像他们有什么在谷歌图书。 2011年以来,谷歌艺术项目已新增134个新的博物馆,其网站的,来自世界各地的。就像阿米特说:“艺术项目走出去。 “(布朗, 2012年) 。该项目包括了许多世界各地的主要博物馆。世界各地的人们能够看到许多由泰特伦敦,纽约大都会艺术博物馆的杰作收集,乌菲兹美术馆,梵高博物馆,美术馆,香港艺术馆伊斯兰artArt ,弗利尔美术馆。当然,这样一个庞大的集合通常会带来后勤不可能的事,如果它是一个物理集合。例如,所有的艺术品在线提供简短的的上下文细节和艺术家背景,他们也有外部的信息的链接。如果这还不够,所有作品有标签,以确定他们与他人共享一个共同点。实现这一目标,需要一个量,是不可能设立一个机构,聘请人力资源。然而,谷歌使用互联网众包这一任务,做任务删除的制度成本。当然,这意味着一些描述可能不准确,但是这似乎是一个合理的价格来支付能够做一些事情,这是不是一个真正的选择与传统的招聘。
另一个例子,谷歌艺术项目的巨大潜力是它给众包。这可能是和社会化媒体的组成方式的可能性互联网提供throughtheir的成立。有趣的是,这是这个项目的一个革命性的方面,因为这是它的非常simplicitye的。它需要的是一个接口,允许访问者轻松地分享他们看他们的Twitter和Facebook帐户。这样做使博物馆的宣传访问它每天数千众包的一代。这不仅极大地降低了宣传成本,但是,它已经表示,它可能是一个更好的宣传效果,因为它实际上是不是已经对艺术有兴趣的人达到。谷歌艺术项目的另一个特点是,它目前提供虚拟参观博物馆46 。这种“街景”技术提供了选定的画廊内部和外部的360度全景图片。泰斯“通过”功能可以帮助游客来观察博物馆的主要建筑物,数字走通过画廊走廊,站在展馆,甚至环顾四周从窗户走。这意味着,互联网参观者不仅看的作品,而且还可以享受馆长如何设置每个展览。这是特别有用的,如果依赖于一个特殊的安装,如天花板和墙壁安装或一组雕塑艺术作品。游客有完整的信息,他们能够找到任何真正的展览室里面。不幸的是,仍然有一定的局限性的具体位置,游客可以把他的相机,这大大降低了流动性和沉浸感,游客可以体验。然而,千兆像素的摄像头,谷歌利用数字化的材料可以提供极其逼真的图片,就可以看出端倪,均匀的质地,这在一定程度上补偿了虚拟旅游的局限性。
最后需要提到的谷歌艺术项目,一个方面是其强大的能力搜索与conveniencet的。使用最advancedof的常规的谷歌搜索引擎技术方面的搜索,这种能力可以让人们找到自己喜爱的艺术家和艺术作品,无论他们在不同的收藏和博物馆。这种模式尤其适用于那些希望扩大他们已有的知识和经验,因为搜索所有集合的能力,对相同的标记,它是非常有可能的是,游客将发现新的作品,他不知道相关他喜爱的艺术家或流派。当然,这都与所有的搜索模型的缺点,但谷歌似乎意识到这一点。
谷歌文化研究所追求的目标“有助于维护和促进文化在线”通过其他手段也。谷歌最近宣布了一个新的平台,也将重点放在文化事业机构提供更多的方式来达到向全球观众。 Stuer提到,这个新平台将尝试讲述在上个世纪,人类历史的关键时刻背后的故事,如Holocasut , D日,等要做到这一点,它将把42在线主题包模型相似展品的帮助下, 17个文化机构,如奥斯威辛 - 比克瑙国家博物馆( Crossan 2012 ) 。喜欢如上所述,这样的展览,可以创建一个情感引人入胜的体验,游客没有以前的知识,他们所看到的。然而,是什么让这个项目特别有趣的是,谷歌的力量办学,但它确实在一个幅度,没有个别博物馆希望媲美。因此,它是如何在数字媒体博物馆间的一种合作,是以前不可能允许一个例子。这是值得注意的,这也创造了新的挑战,策展人,因为他们将最有可能创造这种协同工作的集体意见。
争议
尽管这些不同的利益采用数字博物馆,已经有两个主要的争议。首先,出现了越来越多的关注,当它涉及到侵犯著作权,他们可能会allowoccur 。虽然不是所有的材料受版权限制,当代作品不能自由分发。这其实是数字博物馆不得不面对的主要障碍之一,因为未来的法律和财务安排他们和业主之间的一块可以是一个非常昂贵和后勤麻烦。这不仅是因为通常的障碍,但也因为它是,事实上,非常困难的一个特定的一块,一旦上线为了保护版权。严重的是如何在互联网上侵犯版权,这是难以衡量的,更要考虑到艺术著作权侵权有一个清晰的思路,但有一些数据应该考虑。例如,美国唱片工业协会(2012年)计算,仅收购全球只有37%获得合法所有的音乐。同样,在视频游戏产业的盗版率可以从40%到80 %取决于该国(斯文森, 2012) 。尽管它们是完全不同的市场,这一数据表明,一旦到达互联网将限制非法复制和商业化的艺术,它是多么困难。因此,潜在的艺术盗版似乎非常真实的,有什么可以做,以防止它没有明确的答案。
除了版权问题,数字博物馆的兴起促使他们是有害的,甚至是更换,普通博物馆的可能性的辩论。一些专家担心,将满足人们在网上神器,失去兴趣观察真正的在一个普通的博物馆。起初,这种担心似乎是合理的,毕竟去博物馆可以身体排水和更高的数字分辨率提供了比以前更生动的图像。然而,大多数这些争论,似乎是基于一般造谣有什么用数字博物馆。与这记马蒂(2008)开发一个全国性的调查,以七个不同的博物馆在澳大利亚的用户。他的研究结果显示,典型的网上博物馆完成了调查,参观博物馆的游客,一年的约4倍,参观博物馆网站,约每周1次,并认为非常重要的博物馆,博物馆网站。除了这个,可能他发现的最重要的结果是,数字博物馆似乎是补充,而不是取代传统的。例如,61 %的应答者认为,数字博物馆访问研究材料和教育活性特别好,而67 %的人同意,模拟博物馆探索集合的最佳替代品。因此,并不奇怪, 74 %的人不同意的声明,网站可以来取代常规的博物馆。总体来说,这似乎是作品本身的策展工作,学术地板谈话是不可替代的。
与数字博物馆的最后一个问题是,他们可能无法跟上的变化模拟在传统博物馆的展览。策展人经常改变正在显示的内容和方式,它正被观看的的过程中digitializing这一经验是昂贵的,需要时间。因此,这将是真正的数字博物馆将有一个非常难以将这些更改。然而,这仅仅是一个问题,因为它被假定,数字博物馆应该模仿模拟的内容。 ,因为它已经已经表明,人们使用数字和模拟博物馆的目的不同,因此提供相同的事情,这对他们俩是不合逻辑的。这种争论,然后消失,当它意识到,数字博物馆不应该模仿模拟的。
仍有许多工作要做什么?
尽管数字博物馆的优势,社交媒体和互联网一般可以带来很多的博物馆,仍然有更大的成长空间正在使用这些新的工具,如何高效。据阿迪卡里,在社交媒体领域的顾问,博物馆,使他们对社会化媒体的扩张最常见的错误之一是不适合的互联网人口,而不是他们的消息仍然是相同的,用于吸引一般的参观者。然而,这是不与互联网作为一个平台,一个内在的问题,但总体上缺乏熟悉博物馆机关后果。
此外,交互是有限的访问博物馆的信息都放到网上(如YouTube上观看视频) 。因此,为了保持去博物馆的相互作用,需要继续生产其所有内容,最终消耗了大量的可用资源。这是一个严重似乎是bigobstacle的,因为没有明显的方式解决。然而,由于Chirs ChrisMilk AronKoblin的显示与他们精湛的森林项目(2012年) ,它是完全有可能创建上下文,这是没有必要为博物馆创建的所有内容,类似于前面提到的“众包”的努力。此外,它是创造性的努力如何能够产生有价值的作品,无论技术能力由于新技术可通过互联网使用的一个例子。阿迪卡里也认为,重要的是,彻底打破某些主流媒体一直试图创建的社交媒体定型。特别是,一些机构仍然不愿参与,往往多见于高级管理人员因为先入为主的符号,数字平台,这样做将“降格”的内容。即使在互联网作为一个平台,让艺术和科学的开端,这可能是真实的,由于缺乏知识,如何正确地使用它,在本文中的所有例子都可以证明这一概念的虚伪。
总之,博物馆需要认识到,互联网是多只是一种营销手段。他们关于建立基础设施,让大家谁是有兴趣参与内容的生产,使这一生产是可持续的,集体性质的,和多元化的艺术博物馆?
结论
本文一开始,兴起的互联网作为一个全球性的趋势,在澳大利亚是特殊的急性分析。可以毫不夸张地说,这是造成人类沟通的本质:人有机会和希望与他人合作的人,现在可以这样做更容易和高效的变化,知识和信息的传播是前所未有的,所以是接入机构有他们的观众的意见。这就提出了这个星球上所有行业的挑战和机遇,和博物馆都开始受到这种变化的背景下influentiated influencedby 。
结果表明,博物馆,如大英博物馆开始接受因特网提供的可能性,使艺术的东西,超越了它的墙壁的经验,那里的人们现在可以留在触摸之前与他们的艺术和科学利益在走访博物馆。 Powerhouse博物馆的经验,也提到与众包,并探讨了实现数字博物馆可以访问人力资源,没有一个单一的传统的博物馆希望媲美,而这样做在最小的成本。还没有被应用到管理任务本Thesenew人力rescoures ,他们也被应用到新的活动,专门为数字博物馆。最好的例子,因为它是说,每个数字博物馆的游客可能不仅意味着别人会听到什么,他看到的,但也有可能会看到它。这bringsbringing艺术的曝光到一个新水平。众包也被应用到其他更多的创意领域。它甚至已经被雇用的策划整个展览。关于策展人的角色的争论已幸免,这似乎很清楚,从现在开始,一定会是一个合作的任务。
数字博物馆的成立似乎真的像一个要求。也许是一个最重要的原因是他们有能力同时吸引不同的受众。目前这是很困难的策展人构造展览,它将不排除一个段可能观众。然而,通过实施搜索,数字博物馆,主题旅游,主题发电机模型,能够给专家和新手在艺术品质的体验相同程度的专门给他们,他们需要什么,为了满足他们的利益。这种特性就似乎证明数字作为一个极好的工具,传播艺术和科学博物馆,作为一种有效的方法,健康的财政体制。
什么可以作为一个平台,通过互联网实现扩大艺术和科学也许最好的例子是谷歌艺术项目。不像许多其他数字博物馆,谷歌需要一个整体的方法,互联网可以提供的可能性。它已经建立了一个生态系统蓬勃发展的众包,它已纳入社会化媒体的力量,所以它是非常容易对任何人分享他(或她)的经验与他(或她)的社交网络,并且,最重要的是其全球观众内容量优于任何其他博物馆。谷歌艺术项目,但是有瑕疵。其中之一是目录搜索模型由Stuert描述的方法具有相同的问题。幸运的是,谷歌正在开发新的平台将补充现有的谷歌艺术项目的弱点。当然,这是部分证明了一个多亿美元的公司的力量,但也证明它也是一个互联网及其背后的力量不断增长的用户群。
随着数字博物馆的兴起,已令人担忧。主要的和最大的一个是,到目前为止,版权。这是难以测量的幅度的问题,因为它是不可能得到完全准确的数据。但是,从提供信息,它可以看出,版权,因为我们目前的理解,在互联网上是不现实的。这似乎是平台本身的固有缺陷,因此,他们还没有明确的解决问题的办法。音乐和视频游戏行业已经找到治标不治本的问题,这将是艺术产业弄清楚它的一些作品。在此期间,这是一个问题,也不容小觑,尤其是在是做什么的艺术家上升。
有些人也有另一个值得关注的是,数字博物馆,将被证明是在给观众他们想要的东西,最终所有的博物馆将是数字方面等都优于传统的。这是不合理关注。结果表明,人们会根据他们的具体需求决定哪种博物馆出席。对于一些事物,数字博物馆绝对是一个更好的和首选的选项,但为探索艺术传统的博物馆仍压倒性的首选。这一点说明了本文的主要结论之一,非常好,那就是数字博物馆更好地发挥作用时,他们不试图模仿模拟的和传统的博物馆的肉体,使他们不可替代的,当它涉及到离开它的内容。数字博物馆专门在一些地区,和传统的,因此这两种真的应该寻求相互补充,而不是搞虚假竞争。最后,以最快的速度数字博物馆的兴起,仍有许多不熟悉如何最好地利用互联网。现在面临的主要挑战是为艺术产业来实现,它可以远远超过只是一种营销手段,并开始使用它作为一种方式来创建一个环境下的生产和艺术的沟通是通过使用自我可持续众包。
参考文献
世界银行,世界银行从http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2?cid=GPD_44 Database.Retrvied
普罗克特南希。 (2010年) 。 “数字博物馆为平台,策展人作为冠军,在社会化媒体时代。 ”馆长, 2010年1月35-43 。
普罗克特南希。 (2011年) 。 “谷歌艺术的博物馆:新一代Web上的?”博物馆馆长杂志, 2011年2月2 http://www.curatorjournal.org/archives/489
布朗,马克。 ( 2012年) 。 “十多个英国画廊加入谷歌艺术项目的虚拟的文化之旅”, “卫报, 4月3日星期二, 2012年, http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/apr/03/national-gallery-谷歌艺术项目
Veirum , E.北路,克里斯滕森, F. M. (2011) 。 “如果它不是在网络上不存在” ,博物馆管理和策展, 26:1 , 3-9。
高桥, J. “全球数字博物馆多媒体信息访问
瓦滕伯格, M. “是年轻人投票? ”美国加州大学, 2001年。
彼得StuerTheHyperMuseum主题发电机系统比尔曼, D.特兰特( EDS )博物馆和2001年的网页:入选论文。档案馆及博物馆信息学, 2001年,第127页, 137页)
史蒂夫Corrsan ,集合链接。
牛奶C和Koblin的A. Exquiste项目[公司网址]取自http://www.exquisiteforest.com/的
马蒂, P (2008 ) “博物馆网站和参观者:数字博物馆资源及其使用”博物馆管理和策展。 23:1,81-99