Viewer tagging in art museums: Comparisons to concepts and vocabularies of art museum visitors

Advances in Classification Research Online

Volumn 17, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Smith, Martha Kellogg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTS COMPUTING; COST EFFECTIVENESS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; ONLINE SYSTEMS; SEARCH ENGINES;

ART IMAGE; ART MUSEUMS; COST EFFECTIVE; CULTURAL HERITAGES; ONLINE MUSEUMS; THEORETICAL MODELING; USER-GENERATED;

MUSEUMS;

EID: 84869842320     PISSN: 23249773     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.7152/acro.v17i1.12492     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Abu-Shumays, M., and Leinhard, G. (2002). Two docents in three museums: Central and peripheral participation. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 45-80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Bar-Ilan, J., Shoham, S., Idan, A., Miller, Y., and Shachak, A. (2006). Structured vs. unstructured tagging: A case study. Paper presented at WWW 2006 Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop, May 22, 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://www.rawsugar.com/www2006/taggingworkshopschedule.html.
3. Bearman, D., and Trant, J. (2005). Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement: Exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections. D-Lib Magazine 11(9). Retrieved November 13, 2005, from www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bearman/09bearman.html.
4. Brown, P., Hidderley, G. R., Griffin, H., and Rollason, S. (1996). The democratic indexing of images. The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 2: 107-120.
5. Chun, S., Cherry, R., Hiwiller, D., Trant, J., and Wyman, B. (2006). Steve.museum: An ongoing experiment in social tagging, folksonomy, and museums. Paper presented at Museums and the Web 2006, March 22-25, 2006, Albuquerque, NM. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/wyman/wyman.html.
6. Duhaime, C. P., Joy, A., and Ross, C. A. (1989). A picture speaks a thousand words: The consumption of contemporary art. Montréal, QC: École des hautes études commerciales.
7. Dunn, H. (2000). Collection level description: The museum perspective. D-Lib Magazine 6(9). Retrieved July 26, 2001, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september00/dunn/09dunn.html
8. Enser, P. G. B. (1995). Progress in documentation: Pictorial information retrieval. Journal of Documentation 51(2): 126-170.
9. Eversmann, P. K., Krill, R. T., Michael, E., Twiss-Garrity, B. A., and Beck, T. R. (1997). Material culture as text: Review and reform of the literacy model for interpretation. In A. S. Martin and J. R. Garrison (eds.), American material culture: The shape of the field (pp. 135-167). Winterthur, DE: Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum.
10. Frost, C. O., Taylor, B., Noakes, A., Markel, S., Torres, D., and Drabenstott, K. M. (2000). Browse and search patterns in a digital image database. Information Retrieval 1: 287-313.
11. The Getty Center for Education in the Arts and The J. Paul Getty Museum (1991). Insights: Museums, visitors, attitudes, expectations. A focus group experiment. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts, The J. Paul Getty Museum.
12. Getty Standards and Digital Resource Management Program, J. Paul Getty Trust. Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA). Available from http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/cdwa/
13. Gilchrest, A. (2003). Factors affecting controlled vocabulary usage in art museum information systems. Art Documentation 22(1): 13-20.
14. Gilliland-Swetland, A., and White, L. (2004). Museum information professionals as providers and users of online resources. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 30(5): 23-26.
15. Gordon, C. (1996). Patterns of user queries in an ICONCLASS database. Visual Resources 12(2): 177-186.
16. Hourihane, C. (1996). The Van Eyck Project, information exchange, and European art libraries. VRA Bulletin, 23(2), 57-60.
17. Housen, A. (1983). The eye of the beholder: Measuring aesthetic development. Ed.D. dissertation. Harvard University.
18. Housen, A. (1987). Three methods for understanding museum audiences. Museum Studies Journal 2(4): 41-49.
19. st-century learner: Common understandings and common strategies. Discussion paper from meeting convened by IMLS, Washington, DC, March 22-23, 1999.
20. Janney, K., and Sledge, J. (1995). A user model for CIMI Z39.50 application profile. Consortium for the Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI). Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://www.cimi.org/public_docs/Z3950_app_profile_0995.html.
21. Jörgensen, C. (2003). Image retrieval: Theory and practice. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
22. Leinhardt, G., Tittle, C., and Knutson, K. (2002). Talking to oneself: Diaries of museum visits. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 103-133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Lisus, N. A., and Ericson, R. V. (1999). Authorizing art: The effect of multimedia formats on the museum experience. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 36(2): 199-216.
24. Lockett, C. (1991). Ten years of exhibit evaluation at the Royal Ontario Museum (1980-1990). ILVS Review: A Journal of Visitor Behavior 2(1): 19-47.
25. Mann, C. G. (ed.). (1993). The visitor's voice: Visitor studies in the Renaissance-Baroque galleries of the Cleveland Museum of Art 1990-1993. Cleveland, OH: The Cleveland Museum of Art.
26. Markey, K. (1983). Computer-assisted construction of a thematic catalog of primary and secondary subject matter. Visual Resources 3: 16-49.
27. Markey, K. (1986). Subject access to visual resource collections: A model for computer construction of thematic catalogs. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
28. McDermott-Lewis, M., et al. (1990). The Denver Art Museum Interpretive Project. Denver: Denver Art Museum.
29. McManus, P. M. (1989). Oh, yes, they do: How museum visitors read labels and interact with exhibit texts. Curator 32(3): 174-189.
30. The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2005). Image cataloguing test. December 7, 2004. Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.steve.museum/reference/MMAImageCatalogingTest12-7-04.pdf.
31. Panofsky, E. (1955). Iconography and iconology: An introduction to the study of Renaissance art. In Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the visual arts (pp. 26-54). New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
32. Seren, T., Donohue, D., and Underwood, L. A. (2001). Integrated art documentation: The Guggenheim perspective. Art Documentation 20(1): 31-35.
33. Shatford, S. (1986). Analyzing the subject of a picture: A theoretical approach. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 6(3): 39-62.
34. Smith, M. K. (2006). Art information use and needs of non-specialists: Evidence in art museum visitor studies. PhD dissertation. University of Washington.
35. Smithsonian Institution, Office of Policy and Analysis (2004). The return of the Buddha: Two studies of visitor responses to the exhibition. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.si.edu/opanda/Reports.htm.
36. Smithsonian Institution, Office of Policy and Analysis (2005). Asia in America: Views of Chinese art from the Indianapolis Museum of Art. Two studies of visitor responses to the exhibition. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.si.edu/opanda/Reports.htm.
37. Stainton, C. (2002). Voices and images: Making connections between identity and art. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 213-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Trant, J. (2006). Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 12(1): 83-105.
39. Trant, J., and Wyman, B. (2006). Investigating social tagging and folksonomy in art museums with steve.museum. Paper presented at WWW 2006 Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop, 22 May 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from www.rawsugar.com/www2006/taggingworkshopschedule.html.
40. White, L. (2002). Interpretation and representation: The who, why, what, and how of subject access in museums. Art Documentation 21(1): 21-22.
41. Worts, D. (1995). Extending the frame: Forging a new partnership with the public. In S. Pearce (ed.), Art in museums (pp. 164-191). New Research in Museum Studies No. 5. London: Athlone.
42. Zorich, D. (1997). Beyond bitslag: Integrating museum resources on the Internet. In K. Jones-Garmil (ed.), The wired museum: Emerging technology and changing paradigms (pp. 171-201). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.