data visualisation is art (for me) if you remove some of the context / the text accompanied, then you see something strange, an art work which (in some way) embodies in a very formal way thousands of other works (the figure that looks like a flame eg., you title it 'burning the art', which also means processing and conserving its data.) da
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/02/14 08:17 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote: >> Isn't one of the problems with all this data led stuff that data is a >> human construct - so it depends upon human assumptions,classifications >> and questions. > > It is, and this is one of the reasons why I am visualizing Tate's > models. This is as much an examination of the model as of what it > attempts to represent. > > That said, some of the data is more quantitative than others. And to > take an obvious example the representation of women artists that the > collection data makes concrete is a thing. > >> Of course in a sense everything does but it strikes me >> that data carries a aura of objectivity which is quite misleading. What >> we discover depends entirely upon what questions we ask and they in turn >> are grow out of our pre-conceptions and what the questioner perceives to >> be in their interest... > > Absolutely, just like everything else in the humanities. The difference > is only that this kind of visualization is novel enough that we can see > its obvious deficiencies. This can be a springboard for wider critique > of methods. > >> I'm not saying it's not interesting or useful but that maybe that the >> whole shiny concept needs scrutinising a little more... >> To be more concrete - there's nothing whatsoever objective about what >> constitutes an art movement so any data derived from questions atound >> this notion this is predicated upon a human construct subject to >> outright lies, self interest, self deception, mistakes, failure to >> observe, squeezing round pegs into square holes &c (not only this of >> course). > > I've found no great surprises in the Tate collection data, which I take > as a confirmation of how well existing models have done. Mostly I've > learnt about minor art movements I haven't heard of before and got more > of a feel for the flow of particular careers and genres. I'd like to > take the Turner bequest out and re-examine the data as I think that > would significantly alter the iconography of the collection. > > If the quantitative data contradicted an argument (e.g. if it revealed > that in fact there are works by more female than male artists in the > collection), that would be interesting. If the qualitative data > contradicted another model (of movements for example) that would also be > interesting, and that leads into institutional critique. > > I regard data visualisation as visual rhetoric, a term that I apparently > didn't make up, although I think I mean it more literally than other > users. This both sets its limits and contextualises its strengths and risks. > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
