It is qui­et today. A few voic­es and key­board tap­ping. Today is work­ing time.

Since it is also qui­eter for me, let me report, what we have done so far.

On Mon­day, we had a live­ly dis­cus­sion on the sub­ject of data, data analy­sis and data visu­al­iza­tion in the con­text of art his­to­ry. Many aspects came up from the truth of data, the neces­si­ty of clean­ing and the view­point of the end-user. The ques­tion was raised how art-his­to­ri­an and infor­ma­tion sci­en­tists can work togeth­er even if there is this per­ceived gap. That gap con­sists of dif­fer­ent approach­es, ways of think­ing and even con­cepts asso­ci­at­ed with par­tic­u­lar terms. It was agreed, how­ev­er, that we have to be the agents of change we want to see. This group is such a diverse group of peo­ple from dif­fer­ent back­grounds that the fruit­ful­ness of inter­dis­ci­pli­nary collaboration—that is the flip side of the coin—can prob­a­bly nowhere bet­ter be yield­ed than here.

There were also solu­tions pro­posed how to fill that gap:

  1. It needs time to work togeth­er.
  2. It needs com­mu­ni­ca­tion, includ­ing visu­al com­mu­ni­ca­tion (flipcharts are avail­able).
  3. It needs trans­la­tors, who can bring the fields togeth­er.
  4. It needs a shared vision. If every­one knows the goal it is eas­i­er to do the first step.
  5. It needs an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary mind-set of open­ness and cog­ni­tive flex­i­bil­i­ty.

Are there more ele­ments that you think are impor­tant? What are your expe­ri­ences? Let me know in the com­ments below or via Twit­ter @HxxxKxxx.

Then we were talk­ing about data sources and on Tues­day gath­ered a list of tools. And after a Post-It wall of ideas we formed 8 project teams that start­ed work­ing togeth­er. Here is the list of pre­lim­i­nary group names:

  1. Church inte­ri­ors
  2. Group One (lat­er renamed Picas­so Group)
  3. The Amer­i­cans
  4. The Asso­cia­tives
  5. Meta­da­ta Group
  6. Image Sim­i­lar­i­ty Group
  7. Gen­er­a­tive Machine Learn­ing Group
  8. Chat­bot for Exhi­bi­tions

Addi­tion­al input came from con­tex­tu­al­is­ing Lunch Talks by Nuria Rodríguez Orte­ga and Anna Benkows­ka-Kafel and the very inspir­ing Evening Talk with Lev Manovich. Also the Light­ning Talks, where every­one had the chance to present their home project, showed what a fan­tas­tic group comes togeth­er here.

All par­tic­i­pants are now in high activ­i­ty, dis­cussing and ges­tur­ing in front of dis­plays. That is won­der­ful to watch… Today we are look­ing for­ward to lis­ten­ing to the Lunch Talk by Justin Under­hill (Berke­ley Uni­ver­si­ty) and tomor­row by Mario Klinge­mann (Google Fel­low). On Fri­day we will be pre­sent­ing the results in a pub­lic event in the Depart­ment for Art His­to­ry.

You can fol­low those parts of the event via live stream­ing. Past lec­tures are also archived. You can also fol­low us on the Twit­ter hash­tag #Cod­ing­Dur­er which is pop­u­lat­ed with many tweets not only from par­tic­i­pants. Here you can con­tribute and get into a con­ver­sa­tion, bring for­ward your own projects and ideas. We also try to keep you up-to-date on our blog. Have a look at it from time to time.

We would like to have the glob­al net­work be part of the event and inter­weave their tal­ents into our group.

You can also see an overview of Day 1 and Day 2 on Twit­ter.

That’s it for the moment from me.

 

2 thoughts to “A moment to report

  • Jodi Cranston

    Thanks, Har­ald, for giv­ing this great sum­ma­ry for those of us who are not able to attend but are fol­low­ing close­ly from afar! This looks like such an amaz­ing event!

    One thing that has always struck me as inter­est­ing about dig­i­tal art his­to­ry conferences/events is how often the chal­lenges and obsta­cles are dis­cussed. This is absolute­ly a vital con­ver­sa­tion. But I am also eager for more con­ver­sa­tions about the ways in which dig­i­tal tools can or can­not reshape the cen­tral epis­te­molo­gies that under­pin art his­to­ry. It would be inter­est­ing to hear what the par­tic­i­pants of Cod­ing Dur­er think. Are these group projects able to take the dis­ci­pline in a new direc­tion? Or are these dig­i­tal tools help­ful for ask­ing the same ques­tions and just get­ting the answers more quick­ly? I’d be inter­est­ed in know­ing which, if any, project ideas were reject­ed and why and if the ways in which the data sources were struc­tured had any impact on their project ideas. Thanks, and look­ing for­ward to more!!

  • mm
    Harald Klinke

    I will bring this into the dis­cus­sion tonight and will post the results.

Comments are closed.