Frankly, I think data visualizations, when butchered, sap the charm and wonder out of art works displayed in museums. The act of quantifying certain aspects of an art work – dimensions, color and creditline – is definitely a nod to the scientific method, which yields practical insight, but it is not a priority for viewers, especially in a nuanced, nebulous and creative humanities field like art.
(Note that I’m specifically talking about art museums. All the readings for this week are about the way open data is utilized by art museums like the MoMA and Cooper-Hewitt, so I figured I’d make them the topic of my blog post.)
Visualizations of the nationality of artists represented in museums, trend in color use and top donors of museums (as shown in the post by Helen Wall) may be useful for academics, curators and other professionals who work in the industry, but beg the question of so what, why should we care for viewers. I would imagine that for a viewer who paid either in money or time to see a collection, he or she would be more interested in the collection itself, not the minute, out-of-context details about the collection. Would you read about the dimensions of Michelangelo’s artworks from early- to mid-1500s while standing in front of David?
Also, objectifying and quantifying a masterpiece like William Turner’s “Fishermen at the Sea” adds formality and rigidity to the natural thought process that occurs when one stands in front of an artwork. Data visualizations of art works, more often than not, I think, inhibit resonance and wonder which evoke personal connections, deep thoughts and feelings – stuff that allows viewers to form a more lasting connection to a museum.
Personally, if I were in Paris, I would choose a visit to the Louvre over a flip through data visualizations of art works by da Vinci that are displayed in the Louvre. And that is precisely what I did when I visited France a few summers ago. The line at the Louvre was unforgivingly long that day, and my very very impatient father half-jokingly asked, “What if we come back tomorrow? You know, there are so many e-tours, articles and data visualizations of the collections.” Knowing my dad (who’s a stats and data junkie by the way), I knew that the chances of him suddenly becoming more patient the next day was close to none. So, I said no and we waited hours and hours. And I am so glad that we did because I still remember how thrilled I felt when I saw “July 28: Liberty Leading the People.” It’s art, not data visualizations, that make you feel.
I think there is a difference between viewing an art work in a museum or gallery space and looking at additional information on the internet, or on a digital platform. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that one should replace a work of art with a data visualization. I think a data visualization could enhance the “resonance” of a work of art or a collection with a viewer.
I think what you’re talking about, viewing the data visualizations vs the actual art, right in a sense — of course most people would prefer to see the actual art form over a data visualization. However, I don’t think data visualizations are meant to replace the art. Instead, it acts as a supplementary material so the viewer can understand the artists’ works over a period of time (how they changed, like the DH101 project), or how it compares to other works in the same space.
I agree that for viewer’s data visualization don’t provide much. Typically when a person goes to a museum, they go to view art and not to view research. However I think there is an exception when data visualization becomes the art, when it is so visually appealing that it creates both wonder and resonance. Here is an example of that http://www.refikanadol.com/works/virtual-depictions-san-francisco/