Dear AMICO User Committee:

I'm forwarding part of an exchange that I had recently with Charles Rhyne of Reed College. He has just published an article in Visual Resources, entitled "Student Evaluation of the Usefulness of Computer Images in Art History". [A full citation is on the newly revampped web page for the User Committee].

Please take a look at Charles' message - he articulates a number of concerns common in the user community. What do you think AMICO can do to assist with his needs?

jennifer and David

NOTE: those lines preceeded with > are Charles Rhyne, others are J. Trant.

Dear Charles,

>I can imagine that you are swamped with AMICO etc.  I discussed this with Max
>Anderson when I was in Toronto in September.  Of course I'm impressed that he
>and you are able to get such diverse museums to work together (bravo!).  But
>are there any end users (esp. art history faculty) involved in designing what
>images will be made available and how?  If not, you are loosing a great
>opportunity to make the images more useful and therefore actually used in
>teaching.  Current AMICO descriptions contain impressive language about the
>priority of educational use, but, as far as I have been able to determine, this
>will be discovered only during the trial period, after the images are chosen,
>standards set., etc.  I fear that AMICO will be very disappointed in the low
>level of eventual use if end users are not involved in determining and
>designing what will be tested.  You run the risk of another artificial
>experiment.  Why not go for an experiment that will inform you what educators
>actually need and would therefore use when they are niot involved in an
>experiment? 

The data content standards that we are using - the Categories for the Description of Works of Art - are based on extensive consultation with art history faculty and others regarding the information they would like to see recorded about works of art, so from a data content point of view [micro-content?] I think we are on very firm ground. AMICO will provide full fielded text records. When the data is available, these will be suplemented by rich multimedia, including textual essays, conservation reports, images showing works under alternative light sources, multimedia and sound files. This access to 'curatorial files' is unprecidented as a research resource.

From a macro-content perspective, of what content is selected, you are pointing to the major questions of the university testbed project: "What is Critical Mass?" and "Who needs What, For What?" Added to this is "What Tools to they need to DO what they Do"?

The harsh reality is that museums cannot digitize their collections based on the conflicting priorities of educational users. In the agregate they add up to 'digitize everything'. It is also a grim reality that there is very limited outside funding available for thematic digitization projects in museums. That said, there are now significant bodies of material being created in museums for other purposes - new acquisitions, exhibition and research projects, reinstallations, publications and the like are producing content, that in its aggregate begins to add up to a substantial amount: 20,000 works in the testbed and a commitment by each member to add another 500 annually. These can be used by educators in a very constructive manner.

To answer the 'What educators really need' question on a systematic level requires a content analysis of the slide libraries of major institutions, or at least the slide lists of professors. To make this valid, it has to begin with an analysis of curriculum and an identification of those courses that are taught in the highest percentage of schools. Then we could identify the kinds of images that are most likely used, compare this to the AMICO Library, identify areas where there is significant content missing and begin to either create them or acquire them for the library in other ways. This would then only tell us about a very small range of requirements for a limited group of users. (We're very interested in seeing the AMICO Library as an institutional rather than a departmental resource, and encouraging non-traditional uses of image data as well. For example, in the expressions of interest we have received, creative/studio arts programs, computer science programs, cultural history programs and communications programs, to name a few, have all expressed interest in the library.)

While we might be able to pursue such a strategy over the longer term as we design collections development plans, it is the kind of up-front analysis that woud stop the project from getting off the ground. We're just as interested in seeing what we have inthe hands of faculty so that they can begin to make the transition to working with digital materials, and in designing feedback mechanisms that enable them to assist us in its development and enhancement. We're in a time of transition. We've opted for some use, across the board rather than a project tailored to the detailed desires of a few.

As for 'how', the images will be made available through existing distribution chanells. We are in discussions with RLG about being the distributor for the testbed and expect over time that other distributors will also deliver the Library to different sectors - public Libraries and K-12 education are subsequent user groups that AMICO wishes to reach. However, these require a different kind of packaging and different tools, and so will be the subject of testbed projects running in subsequent years.

>
>You may not know that I have just retired, which means that I have time for my
>own projects instead of all Reed College.  Result is that I have three Dec. 15
>deadlines breathing down my throat.  Also just heard last week that I have an
>additional $8000 from the Mellon Foundation to continue developing high quality
>images for student research - not much but it keeps the wheels turning.

Congratulations to you on your retirement, and on the grant from the Mellon. Can I ask what your definition of "high quality images' is? Please keep us up to date on your project.

Best,

jennifer [and David]