My digital collection contains various artworks from my apartment. Most of the artworks are prints of original paintings. I have purchased some of the works, and others were gifted. I didn’t have a particular theme or criteria in mind when adding objects, other than including some of my favorites. The 5 works are: Heron on Paper, Provence Lavender, Whispering Noon, New Orleans Map, and Fellowship.
In order to describe my collection, I used the DublinCore elements Title, Type, Creator, Date, Description, Format, Subject, and Accrual Method. When deciding which metadata items to use, I mainly considered the potential audience and general expectations around finding and understanding a work of art. This collection is in my apartment, therefore figuring out the audience presented a challenge. For this digital collection, the most likely audience would be myself, a future roommate, a friend, or a family member. One of the benefits of this limited audience was that it made prioritizing metadata fields simpler. The information my objects carry is not as changeable or interpretable as typical museum objects.
Therefore, the metadata fields I chose are mainly useful for identifying the artwork and telling the viewer the title, format, artist, subject matter, and when I acquired the piece. The items are artworks, so just by looking at the image the viewer will probably have an idea about the subject without looking further into the metadata. However, I included subject metadata as well in order to make the collection more searchable and accessible.
One of the challenges was determining whether to include location data regarding the geographical subject of the work, or the physical location of the work in my home. If this collection was for works in a public gallery, it would make sense to give the viewer information about where to find the actual art in the gallery. My home is not a gallery, so location did not seem important. Regarding geographical metadata, most of the items do not have relevant geographical location, such as Heron on Paper or the Fellowship, so to keep the metadata fields consistent I opted to include geographical locations in the subject field if relevant.
When deciding on the values for subject, I had to decide whether to include subject tags about the style or types of artworks in addition to the subject matter. The description, type, and format tags all contain information on the type of work. The subject tag therefore contains only information on the topic of the work, for instance Heron on Paper’s subjects include “birds” and “nature”, not “watercolor”.
The metadata for this collection could be expanded. If I continued to add artworks, I would like to include values for place, publisher, medium, and coverage. I think publisher would be especially useful as it would allow me to organize and find works based on who and what made them. If I or another viewer wanted to find where something came from so another purchase could be made from the same printing company, publisher metadata would be very useful. Medium would be extremely important if this collection was expanded to more complex or varied works. I focused on prints on paper, but I would like to be able to add specificity. If the collection included photographs, ceramics, or other types of artwork the medium term should be used.
More and more museums are building digital exhibits. Digital and interactive museum experiences can increase visitation, reach new audiences, and give visitors new and deeper ways to interact with, and learn from, the museum’s collection.
Museum budget constraints present one of the biggest challenges to implementing digital exhibits. As the New Media Consortium discusses in their 2016 Horizon Report, not only do museums need the funds to design digital exhibits, but also the money to train staff. Traditional museum exhibits are also expensive, but the technologies associated with digital exhibits are constantly evolving, upgrading, and becoming obsolete. Digital exhibits therefore lack some of the staying power that physical exhibits do, they may be more expensive for the museum “per visitor” because their life-span is often shortened by changing tech. Digital exhibits are valuable, and museums will continue to spend the money to stay relevant, accessible, and experimental. However, as tech trends are changing faster and faster, it is important for museums to invest in staff digital literacy training and implement more lasting digital exhibits and technologies.
Digital exhibits help break down visitor access barriers. Students and teachers can access museum resources in the classroom. Adults with internet access can now preview major museum collections around the world and “visit” museums they otherwise would never see through virtual tours, digital collections, and mobile device applications. Digital exhibits can also make museums more accessible for people with disabilities. These digital experiences can supplement in person visits or provide totally virtual interactions.
Digital exhibits, using tech as advanced as virtual reality and artificial intelligence, or as simple as digitized collections are a vital part of museum programming. Visitors are becoming more familiar with the tech, and are expecting museums to present them with new ideas and interactions.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.