It's not just how many images get posted, Homer, it's also size that matters,
because a painting is not like a written text, which only has to be large
enough to identify its words.
A change in size is a change in visuality (ask William if you don't believe
it) - so ideally, a reproduction should be the same size as the original
(except with certain highly detailed or miniature work, like engravings or
coins, that need to be seen with magnification)
I suppose this is a controversial statement because over the past few years,
there has been a trend among art magazines to shrink the size of the
reproductions they print -- and yes, much can be identified, like style and
subject matter, about a painting even at the size of a postage stamp.
But what's gone is aesthetic effect.
That's why one of the goals in art reproduction should be to achieve same
size - and that's why most internet images need to be at least 1200 pixels
high -- and often twice or many times that. (even if it's too large to fit on
the screen without scrolling. Hopefully, some day, wall size screens will
become economical, but until that day, a
scrolling screen or a zoomable image will have to do)
I would drop the subject If it were too expensive to post large images on the
internet -- but it's not. There are sites, like Blogger, that can afford to
offer unlimited free space to an unlimited number of users.
So yes --- I do think that public repositories of visual culture should post
life-size images of their collection on their web sites, and they neglect
their cultural responsibility if they do not.
BTW - regarding the few Asian museum websites that I've visited, the images
tend to be larger, but there also seems to be no interest in showing
everything -- only enough to whet the appetite. I suppose this would be
understandable if everything were on display, but in the National Palace
Museum in Taipei, for example, only 2% of their collection can be seen at any
one time.
**********
*****
>NGA: 106,000 in the collection and the NGA searchable database.
MoMA: Online collection consists of approximately 24,436 objects, representing
almost 4,937 individual artists, out of a total collection of 150,000
paintings and 22,000 media works.
LACMA: They're displaying a paltry 3,700 works from their permanent
collection. They have 70,000 works online. Their entire collection consists of
over 100,000 pieces, meaning that they've put 70% online.
SFMOMA: Total collection numbers more than 26,000 works, of which "more than
3,500" are online. That's 13.4%.
AIC: More than 300,000 items, of which "over 33,000" are online.
Cleveland MoA: More than 43,000 works in the collection; their online database
has a record of every item, and of that total, "just over half" include images
in the database.
High MoA: More than 11,000 pieces. It doesn't say how many are online nor does
it have an explicit "browse the collection" link.
Dallas MoA: 23,00 in collection; 4,900 online, i.e., 21%, more than twice the
rate of the British Museum.
Etc.
For whatever reason, American museum management just does not think that
seeing their entire collection is important.
Every one of these museums makes its collection available for study.
They are more in the business of running a high-end amusement park.
Oh, how tiresome.
____________________________________________________________
Click to find great rates on medical insurance, save big, shop here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUNng6toyQYALUspPWWePAhn
s3CNzXRjWAwwPg6Vvhb740nhUmNVG/
