Project Idea: Part 2

For this week’s blog, I have added a few more visualizations that examine specific goals for each excavation, as well as the type of information researchers intend to gain from their fieldwork. One aspect that emerged from this data was the lack of consideration regarding site preservation. Although government officials in Pompeii state that one of their primary concerns is preservation of the ancient ruins, I was surprised that these issues were not addressed by institutions conducting current fieldwork projects. This issue seems even more problematic considering the recent collapse of a significant number of excavated houses in Pompeii in the past few weeks. 

As the second draft of my paper has been a major focus of my weekend, I am undecided whether all of the visuals will be included in the final draft of the project. I have also spent a considerable amount of time considering where my data may be lacking, as well as how I could change or expand the project if I had the time. One aspect of concern was the use of  a single city, and if I had a few more weeks, I would have chosen a compatible site to Pompeii, either in Greece or Turkey, in order to compare data from two primary regions in Classical archaeology today; however, maybe in the future.

Clio Proj 2

Project Update: Part 1

In my blog two weeks ago, I had been contemplating two project ideas. Thanks to many helpful comments, and after carefully researching the available information for each topic, I have decided to challenge Stephen Dyson’s statements that Classical archaeology’s ”big dig”  is dying , and  fieldwork research methods have become antiquated and ineffective at producing any form of innovative scholarship. I am limiting my data sample to 60 excavations in Pompeii, conducted  between 2003-2010. The Fasti Online site provided an excellent source of information to begin my research, although one concern I had in using this site was the limited time frame of their online reports of excavations (2001-2010), and the fact that Dyson’s article was published in 1993. After exploring the site more closely, I discovered that many of the institutions researching and/or funding the excavations have separate websites that provide a general timeline of previous excavations, as well as the findings from their current fieldwork and  their future research goals for the site. 

The data I have compiled is organized into categories, specifically the Pompeian regions excavated during the 21st century, the seasons (years) in which a site was excavated, the type of fieldwork conducted, a historical timeline of excavations in a region, and the researching and funding institutions overseeing each excavation.  The data I have analysed so far is providing conclusive evidence to validate my argument that Classical archaeology is far from dying, and that current fieldwork is thriving and producing valuable scholarship in the study of Ancient Greek and Roman art.

 I have completed three visualizations for my project (I plan to have at least five), and I have downloaded my powerpoint to provide at least a preliminary view of the data. The map, downloaded from google site maps, is based on an excavation plan created by Italian archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli in the mid-nineteenth century. The city is divided into nine regions, and each region is subdivided into numbered insulas. The black squares I placed on the map indicate the specific excavation sites that I am using as data to validate my argument. 

The second visualization is a bar graph of the excavation seasons conducted within each region from 2003-2010. Although the graph documents peaks and lulls in the number of excavations, the data is misleading because the excavation reports published by the research and/or funding institutions document not only the season in which they physically excavated the site, but the many years of research before and after the excavations.

 The third visualization is a pie chart documenting the types of fieldwork examined at each site, such as excavations of an entire insula (a block of buildings), a domus (house), or a taberna (shop/bar). The number of fieldwork projects is larger than the total number of sites because many individually listed excavations include work on mulitple projects located within one site. (ie: Reg VIII.7- insula, taberna, workshop, domus, urban gate).

Hopefully my explanation of the visuals provides at least a brief explanation of the data I have compiled and organized…I am far from finished. I anticipate at least two more graph type images, as I am also examining the research and funding institutions for each excavtion, as well as some type of historical timeline of excavations prior to 2003. I will have more information in my next blog, but any concerns, criticisms, or questions would be greatly appreciated.

Clio Proj 2

Copyright…It’s Complicated

In order to gain a better understanding of copyright law for my first project, I examined specific aspects of Cohen and Rosenzweig’s Ch. 7,  ”Owning the Past”, but I had not read the entire chapter until this week. The gradual growth of copyright from its beginnings in 1783 through the current day is amazing, and disconcerting. One can only imagine how current laws will be amended as 2018 approaches, and the continued growth of the web makes the issue even more complicated.

 One part of this chapter I want to focus on is Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act that details “fair use” of a copyrighted work. I spent a significant amount of time going over the four factors that must be considered when contemplating the fair use of a work protected by copyright. The first three factors are fairly straightforward, but the final factor in the amendment ia a bit more complicated. The fourth point in the amendment states that the “effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” must be determined. How exactly is the “effect” meant to be determined? I am not sure. One point Cohen and Rosenzweig made, and I considered very seriously in my first project, was that all of the factors of fair use must be satisfied, not simply one or two. I attempted to resolve my copyright dilemma with a few solutions, one involved contacting the journals I wished to use on my website. I also realized, and that, due to certain copyright restrictions, not every visitor to my site would be able to access certain documents or images. Although the likelihood of being sued for copyright infringement is minimal, it would not be worth the risk.

The second reading I want to discuss is John Willinsky’s ”The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship.” I have been a strong supporter of open access to research and scholarship, especially within the sciences, for many years, and over time this field has made its journals and databases more accessible to the public. Unfortunately, I have not seen the same type of progress in the humanities, and I don’t quite understand the resistance.

In Chapter 1 of Willinsky’s book, Rudy Baum (p. 7) makes a strong statement against open access when he argues that the “open-access movement’s demand that an entirely new and unproven model for STM publishing be adopted is not in the best interest of science.” He goes on to say that “it’s human nature to want something for nothing. Unfortunately, excellence rarely comes without a price.” Baum’s comments were made in 2004, and attitudes have changed significantly in the field of science, technology, and medicine, as far as access to publications and research, but his comment struck a cord with me when considering the humanities. Why keep humanities scholarship locked away behind restricted databases? Is the issue about money? Maybe. Why aren’t scholars fighting to have their work accessible by the public? Are they concerned that someone will criticize or question their ideas? I am not sure of the exact reasons. There is some excellent research being done in every field of the humanities, and I hope that the restrictive barrier that has been placed around humanities scholarship will be removed so that these publications will be accessible to a much broader audience.

Project Idea…or two

After many hours of exploring the sites and tools on our project guide and the course website, as well as agonizing over a feasible topic, I have come up with two preliminary ideas. My first idea continues in the direction of my first project, but I would examine the changes in scholarship written on a single work of art, the Apollo Belvedere.  This sculpture is unique because it was initially mistaken as a Greek original in the mid 18th century, and approximately a century later reclassified as a Roman copy.

 My project will examine the changes in shift in scholarly opinion regarding this sculpture, from its high acclaim as a Greek masterpiece, to its disregard as a Roman copy, and now, the revised interpretation of the artwork. As far as possible tools or sites, I am intrigued by the tools available at DiRT Wiki and Many Eyes. Graphs charting the publications is one possibility,because the discussion of this artwork dropped off significantly in the early 20th century, after it was recognized as a Roman copy. Another idea is to evaluate the change in the types of text conveying positive and negative attitudes about the artwork; Wordle may be a possible tool to create this type of visualization.

 My second idea is based on an article by Stephen Dyson, Classics professor at SUNY Buffalo. Dyson discusses the New Age of Archaeology, and he states that the “center of fieldwork tradition, based on the ”big dig,” is dying” due to economic and political issues. I was intrigued by his statement, not certain if it was true or not, because he provides no specific data to support his claim.  I began searching for a listing of recent excavation to determine if I could prove or disprove his comment; his article was published in 1993. The International Association of Classical Archaeology created a website in 1998, entitled Fasti Online, and they have an extensive listing of excavations worldwide. I am considering examining one significant site, such as Pompeii and/or Herculaneum, to argue against his statement, as the number of excavations is extensive. The site includes the specific location and the number of seasons of an excavation, and funding source(s). I can envision using the site’s data to create maps and graphs to validate my hypothesis. Well, that is as far as I have gotten at the moment. Feedback or criticism would be greatly appreciated.

Quantitative Analysis in Action

Will Thomas and Edward Ayers article “The Difference Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities” takes many of the elements discussed in Moretti’s book and applies them in a manner that made much more sense to me. One significant difference between the two readings is that Moretti seemed to simply gather data without a defined intention (and that method has its merits because there are no preconceived ideas to influence the analysis of the resulting data),  but Thomas and Ayers state early in their article that they wish to “try to understand the paradox that slavery created little differences between the North and South;” they analyze many different indices, including voting patterns , wealth distribution, and industrial production, to reach a plausible conclusion to this dilemma.

My knowledge of the article’s topic is most likely on a par with the average student, meaning it is general at best; although, I have taken a number of American art history courses that require examining this time period more closely. Thomas and Ayers article brought to light a vastly different perspective of slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War. I appreciated their use of a limited framework, examining two counties that border opposite ends of the Mason-Dixon Line, Augusta and Franklin. The model of a “prism” for their research, “putting together components of argument, evidence, and historiography in sequences that are modular and connected,” brought to light some fascinating findings through their use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Extensive Markup Language (XML). One question I have been pondering: where did they acquire the technology for the GIS? They do not give a specific answer as to the source of this tool (maybe I missed it), except to explain what GIS brought to their research.

Regardless of this last question, the scholarship in Thomas and Ayers’s article compiling, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and spatial evidence, demonstrates, in my mind, digital historical scholarship at its best. In their introduction , they comment how close reading of existing literature on slavery and modern life during this specific period could never provide the wealth of information they attained through their use of digital tools. Will Thomas and Edward Ayers article demonstrates that combining traditional research methods with digital tools and resources has the potential to transform humanities scholarship.

Innovative Models For Humanities Scholarship

Before I begin my blog discussing Moretti’s book, I wanted to share a post from “Blogging Pompeii,” one of the three blogs I subscribed to at the beginning of the semester, and  a blog which I use in my ARTH seminar, Pompeii. The post is a document/draft, Rome Wasn’t Digitized in a Day: Building a CyberInfrastructure for Digital Classicists, written by Alison Babeu from the Perseus Project, that examines the develoment and study of digital classics. The multitude of resources and digital projects related to classics is exciting, and seems pertinent to the discussion from our last class.      

Franco Moretti’s Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History discusses three intriguing models commonly used in the natural and social sciences, and he examines how they may be applied to humanities scholarship. For the purpose of this blog, I am examining his ideas and how they may be applicable in the field of art history. Finding new and innovative ways to conduct research and analyze data is critical in any field of academia, and the notion of using maps, graphs, and trees is intriguing.

The quantitative and computational statistics that graphs provide seems applicable to art history in numerous areas, including the analysis of different sculptural types and the examination of different art historical texts. The clear organization and visual information graphs provide seems ideal for many aspects of art history, although  I agree with Moretti that one issue in creating graphs, albeit in the humanities or sciences, is the daunting task of gathering and organizing data, but the work is worth the information gained.

Moretti examines literary maps and their usefulness in preparing text for  analysis. He notes that depending on the baseline material, maps can take many forms. In art history, maps are used in the traditional manner, but Moretti’s description of “choosing a unit, finding its occurrences, and placing them in a space” may present a more specialized use of maps in the history of art. For instance, taking one type of sculpture, determining the different locations in which examples of this type were found, and generating a map of these occurrences, may provide a more detailed explanation behind the production of that specific sculptural type.

Moretti describes the artificial construct of the tree “as a simplified description of a matrix of distance.” The idea of “divergence” from a point of origin, or from one point to another, appears to be Moretti’s use of this model. The examination of how far an artwork has diverged from its original form, or prototype, is a key aspect in the study of Ancient Greek and Roman art, and the use of a tree model to demonstrate this change may prove very useful in providing a visual analysis of these changes.

I am intrigued by Moretti’s use of these three models in the humanities. One aspect I found concerning is his notion that the models “share a clear preference for explanation over interpretation.” I can’t imagine creating a tree, map, or graph, and not drawing some interpretive conclusion from the data; possibly I misunderstood Moretti’s very brief discussion of this point at the conclusion of his book. Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the use of these different models and how they may enhance humanities scholarship.

The Balancing Act of Scholarship

The article by Patrick Leary, “Googling the Victorians,” discusses two serious issues regarding the internet and humanities scholarship: the growing concern that scholars will not access print and manuscript sources for their research, and the limitations of the internet. There is no question that the vast amount of information on the internet provides an invaluable resource for scholars and researchers in all fields of academia. Patrick Leary mentions the “eureka moments” happening more frequently in front of a computer screen, and I am sure all of us have had this experience in varying degrees; however, the lure of the internet to become our sole source of information is a serious issue.

     Leary’s concern that scholars may neglect or limit their use of print resources is justifiable, and I have seen a growing tendency among students to lean heavily on internet sources, rather than going to the library to conduct research for their papers. In my opinion, as contemporary scholars we have access to the best of both worlds, and scholars must not be lured into one-dimensional research. The development of the internet is a tool many historians, even a decade ago, did not have the option to use in their work; however, we must not become complacent in looking only to online resources.

David Bell’s article, “The Bookless Future: What the Internet is Doing to Scholarship” also discusses the impending controversy of scholars exclusively using online sources. As an art historian, there is no greater thrill than examining a primary source or artwork in person, and I do believe serious scholars will find a balance between online and print sources. Bell also addresses the difficulty of reading a scholarly article or book from a web screen. Although I have read more on-line this semester than ever before, it is not my preferred method of research. Do the new computer gadgets (I can’t think of the correct word at the moment) make the tedious process of reading document’s online easier?  I don’t own any, so I am curious whether they make a difference.  Another question I have is whether a bookless future in scholarship will actually become a reality? I believe scholars have more influence in this area then they realize, and from my perspective, we need to utilize both online and print sources.

Social tagging…aka Folksonomy

    After perusing the Steve Museum Social Tagging Project and  trying out different word searches, I decided to research the notion of social tagging. In my search, the term “folksonomy” (hopefully I spelled this correctly) kept appearing. I came across this 2005 article in the NYTimes that does a nice job of explaining this unusual word, which seems to be a synonym for social tagging, social bookmarking, and so forth. I guess I have been sleeping under a rock somewhere, or more likely had my head buried in a book for the last few years, but I am completely unfamiliar with the entire concept of social tagging.

     I am always supportive of programs that are designed to increase visitors to museums, albeit online or in-person, but one aspect I am still unsure of regarding the Steve Project is how do they plan to implement this program in order to make a visitor’s use of an on-line museum collection easier. I looked at a number of the museum websites involved in the project, and I really had to search for any mention of social tagging. The MET simply had a mention of social bookmarking on their Study and Research link. I understand the rationale in creating more detailed metadata for works of art, but I believe difficulties visitors may experience in accessing works of art on line is far more complicated than a keyword search. I have been accessing online galleries for many years, and certain sites are simply designed better than others. Case in point the two museums I frequent most in Baltimore: The Walters Art Museum and the BMA. The Walters search engine for their collection is very efficient and easy to use, while the BMA is horrendous; I simply visit the BMA and don’t waste my time trying to access the works. I understand the rationale behind the Steve Project, but I am not convinced in how successful the project will be in attracting more visitors to online museum collections….I guess time will tell. Although, it is quite possible I have missed the point with the Steve Project, as my focus at the moment is finishing my own project. More on that later.

Project Home Page

After playing with a number of sketches, and looking at more websites than I can recall, I have created three mock ups  or wireframes for my home page.  I am a minimalist at heart, so I am aiming for a clear and conside web design. One has the navigation to the right, and the other two at the top.; the heavy black border is simply to provide boundaries, not part of the design. Hopefully in the next day or two, I will revise the rough draft of my paper and I will post the project description/mission statement that will be in the middle of the page. I included blank spots for possible images (right or left?), and the contrasting color is still up for debate. The home page navigation will remain static throughout the website. I hope to have more detailed images of interior pages in the next few days. Sorry if my post seems scattered…I am still throwing ideas around in my head. Comments, criticisms, ideas?

                        

                        

Wiki Pros and Cons

    Roy Rosenzweig’s “Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past” challenged me to reflect on my own biased opinions of the website. I was not aware of the complicated history behind the development and evolution of Wikipedia; and if not for this assignment, I probably never would have known. The simplistic notion to create only four ”general guidelines” for contributors seems commendable, but it also explains, and justifies, the concerns of scholars and historians.  Considering the second guideline that Wikipedia articles should ”avoid bias” through a “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) appears ideal in theory, but as Wikipedia concedes, this is ”difficult” as “the articles are edited by people, and people are inherently biased.” After reading several history entries, especially those longer than a paragraph, the notion of bias free writing seems implausible.       

     My personal view regarding Wikipedia is that it serves an educational need for the public, but the historical information posted to this site must be  viewed with a heavy dose of caution, especially for anyone conducting scholarly research. Rosenzweig points out that “one reason historians need to pay attention to Wikipedia is because students do.” A typical college syllabus commonly states that Wikipedia is not considered a valid source for a college-level  paper, and I absolutely agree. This is not to say that I have not perused through Wikipedia, as well as other on-line, open source encyclopedias, when presented with an unfamilar subject; the House of the Vettii is a topic I am presently researching, and as Sarah stated in her post, I took a quick look at the entry’s bibliography, and then proceeded forward in search of more scholarly sources. I believe students at all levels should not be discouraged from accessing Wikipedia, but it simply can not be a “one-stop shopping” for their research; and let’s be honest, many students would never look further if not explicitly instructed.

   Despite my concerns regarding Wikipedia, I am supportive of the use of open source online encyclopedias to inform and educate the general public. Many web users simply want to broaden their level of knowledge, albeit history or other subjects of interest, and Wikipedia provides an ideal and easily accessible source. Another positive attribute Rosenzweig discusses is whether the ”wiki way can foster the collaboration of historical knowledge.” He brings to light the value of “volunteer labor of amateurs and enthusiasts to advance historical understanding.” Wikipedia provides an ideal  outlet for their contributions, and historians and scholars would be wise to at least consider their articles.

    As I examined the “history” and “discussion” tabs of various Wikipedia historical entries, I came across a disturbing fact in the “revision history statistics” for the entry on Ancient Rome. The largest number of revisions by one user to this entry (135) were made by a teenager, user name Galanskov; at least that is what his profile stated. I found this information disconcerting, and it affirmed my opinion that the information on Wikipedia should be viewed with some level caution.

    The debate over the pros and cons of using Wikipedia, from my perspective, will remain a hotly debated issue among scholars and historians. Yet, the question asked by Roy Rosenzweig, whether history can be open source, has been definitively answered by the website’s huge popularity with the general public, and the volume of articles published and revised by both scholars and non-scholars. Although Rosenzweig’s article did not change my skeptical view of Wikipedia, the value of this site for informing and educating the public can not be minimized.