hi all:
thanks to Kelli for raising some of these excellent questions/concerns.
(and making networked or mixed reality performances,
my ensemble and I have lately started to give up worrying about documenation,
and if when we document, it is most likely a transient piece of
tranfer work (to a different platform, say video or website) that loses
signifidance 4 months later when we perform the piece in a new and
different version with different real time syntheses and avatar interventions
in the virtual world. digital preservation, it seems to me, is not a concept
that works all that well with dynamic/distributed work, and how could it?)
others have been working on some form of tracings/descriptor systems,
and we heard recently about "Synchronous Objects" , and now about
the "Siobhan Davies Archive".
But what Annet refers to as "permanent access" is lovely in its complete
paradoxicality.
there is no permanent "access", of course, how could there be.
there never has been free access to (most) art or cuttural heritages.
with regards
Johannes Birringer
dap lab / dans sans joux
http://www.danssansjoux.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of annet
Sent: Thu 6/18/2009 9:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] documenting and archiving - results archive 2020
Hi Kelli,
Thanks very much for your response. It is good to hear what policies
institutes like the Tate are following.
With regard to the works you name as examples, were these bought by the
Tate and taking into the collection? I presume by giving a commission
they would be? But if not, or if so, would that have made a difference
with regard to their documentation/preservation?
As I understand there is always the difference in status and importance
between the documentation archive and the collection archive. Going back
to the initial question posed by Sarah, the difference between
documentation and preservation, what would that mean in terms of works
that are only documented?
And to give a bit more context for the quote you're referring to: "by
changing the terminology from 'digital preservation' to 'permanent
access' might give an incentive to the importance and understanding of
the work."
This terminology came up in one of the groups and it was said that the
EU doesn't speak about digital preservation and permanent access is the
preferred terminology, because it would better describe what the
incentive of all the effort is: giving access to art and cultural
heritage. It seems formost to be some sort of marketing terminology, but
maybe some people that were in that group (with Alessandro) could
elaborate on this??
All best, Annet
|