Wired Art History

How wired is your art history? I've found some interesting blogs (here and here) that debate the way the internet and cyberspace is making us more wired in the sense of not only being connected to the web, but also distracted by computer technology that competes for our attention. It got me thinking about such conditions as multi-tasking and to give it another name, continuous partial attention, is for better or worse, affecting our productivity as art historians, both educators and students.

I'm getting more and more into a wired state. I have 3 computers, one for writing, archiving, etc, a netbook linked to a large monitor, always tuned to the internet, and a laptop downstairs by the T.V. When I get up in the morning, just like my coffee, I have to get my fix of Artdaily, the aptly named Artfix and all the various art info sites; watching TV at night, I cannot resist checking mails, Twitter, Facebook, art blogs, to see what is happening in the field. Who's published what? What exhibitions are coming up? In what direction is the art market heading? Any interesting conference opportunities on the horizon? And so on…. I know I should scale this virtual dependency down, but I like it because it reinforces the impression that art history is in flux, ceaselessly mutating, morphing from one shape to another- exploding with ideas and energy. It think it's a reaction to a time before the internet when information moved slower, not shooting packets down the superhighway, but gridlocked in publication schedules, slow turnaround times and similar. I know that world still exists- I have a number of publications that will eventually emerge as result of this process- but on-line publishing, for better or worse, has meant that ideas spread and are debated faster.

Despite this, web based technology is taking a long time to be absorbed into the traditional structures of assessment and teaching, especially art history. Our discipline hasn't exactly made things easy; it has a history, if not exactly of Luddism, then certainly distrust of new technologies and their applications. This is most evident in connoisseurship which, we know from recent events, still hasn't really come to terms with X rays, inflectography or the cutting edge of scientific method in general. Incidentally, I do use image software to zoom in on details in classes on connoisseurship and visual methodology, but I don't see much evidence of this in universities.

Now in 2010, I must confess disappointment that the windows revolution has made little impact on the teaching of art history. Why, given the discipline's visual emphasis, hasn't there been such a push for it from leaders of the field, especially as it's omniscient in our culture? One of the books that diagnoses our predicament for me is the late Anne Friedberg's marvelous book on visuality and the windows phenomenon. Friedberg uses a mixed metaphor- window and desktop to describe the interface between computer and user.

"Each window is in essence a variable- size virtual screen that reflects the progress of some activity. The general effect is of looking at a small desk with papers of varying size lying partially on top of one another. The "window" here refers to a "variable size virtual screen" but is also a component of a mixed metaphor: a window and a desk. The desktop metaphor of a stack of papers, in overlapping array, implies a view from above. The window metaphor implies looking into or out of an aperture, a "perspective" position facing an upright perpendicular surface. Stacking windows on top of each other, piling documents in layers, meant that the user could minimize the limited "real estate" of the relatively small screen. The space mapped onto the computer screen was both deep and flat. It implied a new haptics in the position of its user: in front of and above."  

I think Friedberg has unwittingly provided a metaphor for the failure of art history to engage with the computer proactively: most art historians see the computer as a virtual desk, an extension of the research archive or database, but not a window in the sense of perspective that opens upon onto the wired world; although some like me have cottoned onto the potential of that. Friedberg drew on Walter Benjamin's ideas on reception and distraction to explore the phenomenon of multi-tasking in relation to the way windows are split on one computer as well as the fractured experienced caused by working between different computers. As Friedberg says, computer multi-tasking made it possible to "combine work with leisure", running an academic or financial doc while shopping on Amazon or other outlets. With the windows revolution, productivity should be equated with "a fractured subjectivity." Linda Stone, an expert on attention issues, goes further in order to make an interesting distinction between multi-tasking and what she calls continuous partial attention.  

"In the case of continuous partial attention, we're motivated by a desire not to miss anything. We're engaged in two activities that both demand cognition. We're talking on the phone and driving. We're writing an email and participating in a conference call. We're carrying on a conversation at dinner and texting under the table on the Blackberry or iPhone.

Continuous partial attention also describes a state in which attention is on a priority or primary task, while, at the same time, scanning for other people, activities, or opportunities, and replacing the primary task with something that seems, in this next moment, more important. When we do this, we may have the feeling that our brains process multiple activities in parallel. Researchers say that while we can rapidly shift between activities, our brains process serially.

Continuous partial attention involves a kind of vigilance that is not characteristic of multi-tasking. With cpa, we feel most alive when we're connected, plugged in, and in the know. We constantly SCAN for opportunities – activities or people – in any given moment. With every opportunity we ask, "What can I gain here?"

It's difficult to monitor how technologically determined distraction will evolve where the individual work habits of art historians are concerned, but we can analyses one area- the use of gadgets like audio guides in museums, and their effect on the contemplation of the pictures. As Artworld Salon rightly points out, the disadvantages of applications on devices like IPhones- and audio guides resemble them more these days-greatly outweigh their benefits:

"So what's not to love? Quite a bit, I think. For museums especially, such apps come loaded with subtle butterfly effects that techno-evangelists ignore at their peril.

First, they represent to an incursion of technology into a refreshingly gadget-free domain heretofore devoted to physical objects and direct collective experience. There is a case to be made, perhaps, for exempting some areas of life from the relentless digitization and intermediation of everything. Of course it's easier to find the great blue whale by letting your PDA guide you. But what about the joy of aimless browsing and discovery? Here as elsewhere, technology has a way of taking the mystery and the surprise – not to mention the unpremeditated educational encounter – out of cultural experiences. What's more, it subtly transforms a group dynamic into a bespoke, private pursuit. Analogies with newspapers abound."

A few weeks ago at the Renaissance drawings exhibition at the British Museum, I got an idea of how the museum was becoming more wired in the sense discussed here. I was amazed to see visitors not only listening to audio commentary through headphones, but simultaneously holding IPhone-like screens on which the drawing they were looking at was digitally displayed. There are implications here for public museology and connoisseurship issues, but I'll leave that for another post.

For myself, I think I need to reach a balance between the contemplation of art and the use of the technology that undoubtedly distracts me. Is it possible to obtain the serene meditation of the Buddha whilst being bombarded by information overload, over-stimulation and the assault of the wired world in general? Well, at least I don't own an IPad.  

Images

Nam June Paik, Electronic Superhighway, 1995.

Mr PC and the windows revolution.

The Virtual Window

The Fractured Experience

Nam June Paik, T.V. Buddha, 1974.

 

 

 

Comments

[H Niyazi]

Fascinating post David! When I started looking for Art blogs late last year, I was dismayed with how few there are! Yours was indeed one of the first I found.

My background on the web has been working for sites dedicated to technology and gaming. When I turned my focus to my other love(Art) I took the relative scarcity of these online resources as an invitation to fill the gap :)

I think the recent winners list compiled by online PhD was a great idea - and I hope to consolidate this with a project I am planning. Art History on the web needs to be better promoted!

As for the classroom, from your post and other things I have read by other Art Historians working in education is that there is not as widespread use of technology in teaching Art History as one would imagine for such a visually rich topic!

My only response to that is that educational institutions really need to catch up.

Familiarity with the world of digital artists has shown me that technology is being used and adopted by new artists of all ages and expertise at a phenomenal rate - something which I hope to expose with my upcoming articles on this medium - the first one will be up this Friday :)

H

[Art History Today]

Thanks H.

Yes, I think art history needs to be promoted more through various web projects- it'll be interesting to see what you- and others- do to achieve this. I'll return to this via connoisseurship later on.

it's my impression too that only digital artists are really only making the most of the technology, not art historians.

Loved your gaming posts- I could easily get distracted by renaissance virtual worlds- too tempting.

David

[M]

Great post! "The Virtual Window" by Friedman sounds like a fascinating read. I'll have to check it out.

Art historians definitely are behind when it comes to technology. I have tried to integrate it more into my classroom, by often showing blogs/articles/videos to my students during lecture. I feel like technology is a great tool to emphasize that art history really is a dynamic discipline - students don't always get that sense from reading stuffy, authoritative textbooks and looking at archaic slides.

I also can relate to your comment about over-stimulation when it comes to art. There does need to be a good balance between the meditation/inspiration of art and the over-stimulation of technology. Many times I've gone to a museum or gallery, and spent my time distracted from the art because I'm formulating a new blog post in my head!

[Art History Today]

M- The Friedberg text is really worth reading.

You've hit the nail on the head with dynamic. Art history moves slowly, almost imperceptibly, in some of the areas I work in.

Yes, I'm guilty of multi-tasking/ cpa-ing in the museum too.

David

[Margaret]

I loved this post! (even though I sort of disagree!). The intersection between technology and art will continue to be an exciting and controversial one. By the way, your post was featured in this month's Art History Carnival.

[Art History Today]

Thanks Margaret

[Tuscanyart]

You make some good points, and you've observed a huge problem with art history in academia (which is kinda why I got out). I think it comes down to funding. There are so many possibilities for using technology in art history classrooms and also in humanities libraries, but neither have any money. Most humanities departments, including art history, have outdated low resolution projectors, so even if we go to the trouble of getting great high res images from museums with which to teach, in the end the students simply cannot see what we're talking about. (It hasn't changed much from when I did my undergrad in Canada, when I remember that we received a batch of hand-me-down slide projectors from one of the scientific departments.)
Libraries COULD transform themselves into invaluable resources for the comparitive study of primary sources if they had the money to invest in touch screen tables where we could compare scanned and actual versions; instead the physical library is becoming less and less necessary for work up to a certain level.
I could go on, but I won't. But I will add you to my RSS reader!

[Art History Today]

Thanks for all these points. Money is the burning question- as always!

I'm really pressed for time at the moment but I hope to get to these issues in the not too distant future.

David