“Conserving Digital Art for Deep Time” by Marchese

Conference:


Title:

    Conserving Digital Art for Deep Time

Presenter(s):



Abstract:


    Displaying digital art in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is already proving to be a challenge. Exhibiting this same art in the distant future will depend upon new thinking and practices developed today by artists, conservators, and curators. Established software engineering methods for dealing with aging systems can provide a new model for the conservation of digital art, and a foundation for the enhancement of art-historical scholarship. Artists with an interest in a more refined approach to the programming that underpins their work will also be interested in software engineering concepts.

References:


    1. C. Becker, et al., “Preserving Interactive Multimedia Art: A Case Study in Preservation Planning,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4822, 257–266 (2007).

    2. NINCH Working Group on Best Practices, “The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials Online: The National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage” (2002), retrieved January 10, 2011 from www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ ninchguide/.

    3. J. Ippolito, “Accommodating the Unpredictable: The Variable Media Questionnaire,” Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications and Montréal: The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, 2003).

    4. ERPANET, “The Archiving and Preservation of Born-Digital Art Workshop: Briefing Paper,” The ERPANET Workshop on Preservation of Digital Art (2004). Retrieved January 10, 2011 from www.erpanet.org/events/2004/glasgowart/briefingpa er.pdf.

    5. For a concise review of the current state of the problem, see T.A. Yeung, S. Carpendale, and S. Greenberg, “Preservation of Art in the Digital Realm,” The Proceedings of iPRES2008: The Fifth International Conference on Digital Preservation (London: British Library, 2008).

    6. International Council of Museums Committee for Conservation, “The Conservator-Restorer: A Definition of the Profession, Section 2.1.” Retrieved January 10, 2011 from www.icom-cc.org/47/ about-icom-cc/definition-of-profession/.

    7. P. Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations,” Tate Papers, Autumn (2006). Retrieved March 15, 2011 from www.tate.org.uk/research/ tateresearch/tatepapers/06autumn/laurenson.htm.

    8. R.S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).9. R.K. Ko, “A Computer Scientist’s Introductory Guide to Business Process Management (BPM),” Crossroads, Vol. 15, No. 4, 11 18 (2009).

    10. J. Ransom, I. Sommerville, and I. Warren, “A Method for Assessing Legacy Systems for Evolution,” Proceedings of the 2nd Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 98), March 8–11, 1998 (Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 1998) 128.

    11. For a complete discussion, see C. Larman, Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005).

    12. J. Zellen, Trigger, Pace Digital Gallery, New York, NY, October 18–November 8, 2005. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from www.jodyzellen.com/pace2.html.

    13. F.T. Marchese, “The Making of Trigger and the Agile Engineering of Artist-Scientist Collaboration,” Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Visualization: IV’06, London, July 2006 (Washington, DC: IEEE Press, 2006) 839–844.

    14. C. Upson, et al., “The Application Visualization System: A Computational Environment for Scientific Visualization,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 4, 30–42 (1989).


Type:



Art Paper/Presentation Type: