Author: cgimber

Last week we discussed new means of museum-viewer participation in the digital age. This week’s readings introduce another approach to the same challenge: how can today’s museums engage new generations with their wealth of cultural knowledge? If we understand the web as a fluid, albeit imperfect, medium for information creation and distribution, why not open source the data that forms the backbone of the modern museum?

In her article “Where next for open cultural data in museums?”, Mia Ridge argues that although “each open cultural dataset added to the web of data contributes to the wider network of content and knowledge and creates new possibilities for innovative experiences of our shared cultural heritage”, we have only just begun to unlock the potential of open cultural data. The key to doing so lies in the networked nature of the web: access, usability, and licensing.

Without easy access, open data on the web is no longer “open.” Although some records may require APIs and sophisticated data structures these containers may stand in the way of the layman and restrict use of the data. Therefore it is important for museums weigh all options in order to determine the best way to share their data on the web.

Usability is another important concern for open cultural data. I spend a lot of time researching tools, plugins, and libraries on Github when starting a code-based project. It’s amazing how often people publish their work as a gigantic codebase without a proper readme (documentation/reference). This “it’s all there, trust me” mentality should be avoided at all costs when sharing cultural data because it alienates users. Clear classification, complete datasets, standard formatting, helpful notes, and documentation/reference make it easy for users to access the data they need to create amazing content.

Finally, Ridge mentions confusing or incompatible licenses as reason for the under-use of open cultural data. Although museums may wish to restrict usage of data, it is incredibly important that their licenses are clear to users. Github makes it easy to add standard licenses such as Creative Commons or MIT to repositories.

This week’s readings reminded me of my experience at the Mingei International Museum at Balboa Park, San Diego. About a year ago I visited the museum for an exhibit entitled “Surf Craft: Design and the Culture of Board Riding” with some friends. I was really excited because I had never been to a surfboard exhibition before and, like most surfers, shared a fascination for surfboards as a craft object.

“People have made surfboards for centuries. Standing alone, these boards are often striking examples of functional design. Together, they tell a compelling story about the evolution of an important American art form. Traditional craft, cutting-edge engineering and minimalist art converge in the Museum’s new exhibition devoted to surfboards built from the late 1940s to the present day.”

–Richard Kenvin, curator and surf historian (from my hometown)

The exhibit was a perfect fit for the museum, which was named after the Japanese word mingei, meaning art of the people. This craft-focused art museum setting afforded a more approachable relationship between museum goer and object. Someone with no knowledge of surfing or surf culture could appreciate the diversity of shapes and forms and stop to appreciate a board with of high visual interest, while a more knowledgable visitor could take note of the functional variants across time and space or research a particular shaper. Don’t get me wrong, the “museum effect” certainly changed my viewing relations with the surfboards, but not as much as I had expected considering their origin as functional, everyday objects. I guess in this way, the exhibition supports Svetlana Alpers’ conclusion that “museums provide a place where our eyes are exercised and where we are invited to find both unexpected as well as expected crafted objects to be of visual interest to us.”