How often do you work under these
ideal conditions?
Rarely all; often some.
What are acceptable substitutes for
these ideal situations and in what contexts?
High Resolution reproductions (photos or digital
images) after viewing original; for prolonged study, less high
quality reproductions can serve as memory aids.
Almost none; sometimes, photocopies or microfilm
Use of the Internet is in statu nascendi; same is
true of the PC
How does the form and location of
materials affect the ways you can use this material?
Only certain kinds of analysis of works of art can
be made away from originals: content and iconography.
Using reproductions of unpublished documents is dangerous.
Transcriptions of printed, published document usually must be
checked, although they are very helpful in indicating where
such records are to be found.
Low(er)end hardware limits depth of building and searching
databases, visual and textual.
ORIGINAL
Does "original" have any value for
you in your work?
(1) Experience with the "original" is of primary
importance.
(2) ditto
(3) n.a.
How much of your time do you work
with an "original" as opposed to a copy or surrogate of the
original?
10% of my time
20% of my time
50% of my time
How important is it to work with the
"original"?
REDUNDANT
If you work with an original, what
proportion of a physical original do you actively use in your
work?
[don't understand question or n.a.]
How are originals contextualized
(with other originals, with usage, as part of a continuum over
time, etc)?
For an art historian who works from objects, the
statement implied by this question represents one of the
primary objectives of the profession. The aim is to gain
historical insights through works of visual art.
The primary value of finding and studying documents is to
contextualize the work of art on as many levels as possible.
Placing art historical information in relational databases
is an electronic way of contextualizing art objects and
demonstrating their interrelationships. Databases comprised of
digitized models of "artistic environments" i.e. architectural
ambients containing or incorporating objects of art, seen in
"real time," provide surrogate views of context that may be
unique (i.e. no longer extant; difficult of access; changed).
Multiple examples in one database provide possibilities for
comparisons and continuum-building.
How do you weigh quality against
quantity of resources in their value to your work?
They are of equal value in all three cases
If you use databases or datasets, how
would you describe the similarities and differences with other
kinds of "original" source material?
In relation to printed catalogues, bibliographies,
etc, electronic versions are better, more flexible, easier to
search and copy, and therefore more immediately usable for
analysis and synthesis.
INTERROGATION
What questions do you ask of these
materials?
Subject? Current Location? Size? Condition? Maker?
Date? Where made? For whom? For what purpose? What normally
expected? What differences from the norm? What is the
significance of the differences (patron-dependent;
artist-dependent)? What effect on future?
How does document relate to object; is the relationship
verifiable on physical evidence? If documentary evidence is
contradictory (2 or more conflicting dates; two objects with
same description e.g.), what are the implications of conflict?
Has another scholar transcribed or interpreted the document
differently? How can these differences be resolved.
Can I find the answers to the above questions on the
Internet?
What questions would you like to be
able to ask of them?
Where can I get help in structuring the categories
of my material in a transparent way?
Is there a model for posing questions of relationships
(beyond mechanical links which I call parallel thinking or
indications of "furthermore" additions, but not integration.
How can I categorize the all phases of the data in a way
that expresses and points to resolution of the conflicting
evidence and interpretation.
How do you find what you are looking
for in the material?
Observation; archaeological description (verbal
description of everything visual to force viewer to see
everything). Compare to same-type object to find differences.
In original documents, look for presumed names, dates,
price, patron, locale. Consult bibliographies, dictionaries,
encyclopedias, scholarly publications (indexes, text, notes).
Read, read, read.
In electronic databases, search by word, type, and link.
How do you define what you are
looking for?
Visual elements that depend on tradition for
points of departure and preconceived expectations; elements
that have no visual precedents; evidence of originality;
significance of original contribution for the time and the
future.
How do you make explicit your
assumptions and bias?
By trying to remember always to state my
conviction
1) that visual evidence is time-bound historical evidence;
2) that visual artists mean everything they say with visual
language, and
3) anyone can see visual evidence but it takes patience and
historical training to converse in the language of vision.
How do you situate your work in the
context of other earlier work or of work from other
fields?
Frequent reference, in publications and often in
lectures, to the pertinent work of others. By its nature, art
history is interdependent with all the other areas of the
humanities, and which are therefore included in the references.
EVALUATION
What do you most highly value about
these materials?
The assistance they provide in attaining
historical insights through transparency, availability,
reliability, consistency. [Is this answer pertinent?]
How do you evaluate any particular
resource?
Judgment based on quality of transparency,
availability, reliability, consistency.
What is the balance in your use of
primary and secondary material?
50/50
CONSTRUCTION &
RE-CONSTRUCTION
How do you combine, relate, compare
different materials?
Written prose articles and books the aims of which
are to combine, relate, and compare the materials I have found
through research for the purpose of articulating what I believe
to be historical insights.
Do you re-construct materials? What
is the value-added in the work you do (eg in scholarly/documentary
editions; restoring/preserving original resources,
etc.)?
Relating research materials is my way of
reconstructing a view of history. My contribution is to
"reconstruct" in an original way that sheds new light on a
historical question.
How do you build an argument; what is
the relation between evidence, analysis and theory?
Define the problem and/or anomaly in a given
historical situation or "event."
Describe how the problem might have been solved in periods
preceding and contemporary with the "event."
By comparison, this evidence is the basis for analysis of
the "event," and discovery of its contribution. In my work,
theory enters in only as the "event" itself, and not as a
guiding principle.
What constitutes your understanding
of "rigor" and results that can be tested and evaluated by others
in your field?
Honest accounting of "visual language";
descriptions close to configuration of the object; strict
adherence to visible attributes.
Consistency, logic, and truth to the material facts (e.g.
citation of a document in complete form and not cut to prove a
point).
Controllable standards used for data entry.
How are your results tested and
gauged?
[By Whom?] By others: book reviews, citations in
notes in the publication of others, and commentaries at
professional conferences. Use of my contributions by others
for teaching, and further research.
COLLABORATION
Do you collaborate with others? If so
describe the division of labor?
(1) and (2): Only in "side by side play." Working
as an editor, or when my work is being edited, there is give
and take discussion and exchanges of opinion.
(3) My work with computer graphics is done in collaboration
with a graphics specialist and a mathematician. I provide 100%
of the historical information and visual source material, and I
define the intellectual problems at hand, and the technicians
provide programming and all other electronic operations.
If you collaborate, do you work on
the same material?
In effect, yes. But literally, we each bring
together different areas of expertise
What do you most value about
collaboration?
Having my mind stretched by the collaborators'
expertise, which is different from mine. Learning new ways to
think about my own data. Finding compatible methods to combine
our contributions.
DISSEMINATION
How do you disseminate your work; in
what forms?
Publications: articles and books. Public
lectures: conferences and invited talks.
How do audiences find you?
Bibliographies; conferences; word of mouth.
How do the forms of dissemination
affect the way you present your work?
When writing for a general audience I tend to
argue a point less and I do not supply bibliographic
references. The information I transmit, however, it the same
because I do not believe in "talking down" and I do believe
that audiences benefit from being asked to rise to the level of
the lecture or text at hand.
What is the relationship between your
research process and the ways materials/research results are used
in teaching? Is there a significant difference in their use in
undergraduate and graduate teaching?
I often describe how I found evidence or how I
reached a conclusion for the purpose of teaching art historical
methodology.
What is the relationship between your
research process and dissemination to broader publics?
There is no relation between "process" and the
broader public. There is a relation between my conclusions and
their articulation and a broader public, for whom I often write
or lecture, with clarity of expression as my primary goal.
[?]
How are debates shaped and expressed
around research and its primary sources?
[I don't understand this question] Questions
following a lecture often take the form of debates. I
participate in a art historical discussion group once a week
for purpose of debating such issues.
