Skip to content
1981

oa Critical Digital Art History: An Introduction

image of Critical Digital Art History: An Introduction
file format pdf download PDF

Art images are regularly used in computer vision research and generative AI applications. Each art dataset presents a particular point of view that both defines and delimits what art is, and this point of view often happens to closely align with the traditional western canon of art. In this chapter, I define art data in the context of machine learning and then analyze the history and make-up of one popular online art image collection-turned-dataset, WikiArt. I then turn to a discussion of an implied dataset of the popular text-to-image generator DALL-E 2. I argue that art datasets reanimate the western concept of style by instrumentalizing it in such a manner. This zombie canon of art is then deployed in the world in ways that may go unnoticed, infecting not only how we see art but how it is defined and reproduced.

Keywords: AI-generated images ; art collections ; artificial intelligence ; canon ; DALL-E ; datafication ; dataset ; decolonizing ; digital resources ; digital tools ; digitization ; FlickrCommons ; generative AI ; information infrastructure ; photography ; picture archives ; platformization ; Preus museum ; Swedish Heritage Board ; visualization ; western art ; WikiArt

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/9781789389760/9781789389746-c01.html?itemId=/content/books/9781789389760.c01&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adorno, T. (1974), ‘Commitment’, New Left Review, (I/87–88), pp. 75–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, A. (2014), Art After the Internet, Hyperallergic, http://hyperallergic.com/111638/art-after-the-internet/. Accessed 28 November 2022 .
  3. Allington, D. , Brouillette, S. and Golumbia, D. (2016), ‘Neoliberal tools (and archives): A political history of digital humanities’, Los Angeles Review of Books, 1 May, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities/. Accessed 23 January 2022 .
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alpers, S. (1987), ‘Style is what you make it: The visual arts once again’, in B. Lang (ed.), The Concept of Style, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 137–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Assonitis, A. (2020), ‘The expanding role of digitized collections: The Medici Archive’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 266–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Audry, S. (2021), Art in the Age of Machine Learning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Azar, M. , Cox, G. and Impett, L. (2021), ‘Introduction: Ways of machine seeing’, AI & Society, 36:4, pp. 1093–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baca, M. and Helmreich, A. (eds) (2013a), ‘Digital art history’, Visual Resources, 29, pp. 1–2.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baca, M. and Helmreich, A. (2013b), ‘Introduction’, Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Baca, M. , Helmreich, A. and Gill, M. (2019), ‘Digital art history’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ballard, H.D. (2019), ‘Queer criticalities: Instagram, and the ethics of museum display’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 4, pp. 3.03–3.09.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bareither, C. , Macdonald, S. , Greifeneder, E. , Geis, K. , Ullrich, S. and Hillebrand, V. (2021), ‘Curating digital images: Ethnographic perspectives on the affordances of digital images in museum and heritage contexts’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 8, pp. 82–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartosch, C. , Mulloli, N. , Burckhardt, D. , Döhring, M. , Ahmad, W. and Rosenberg, R. (2020), ‘The database of modern exhibitions (DoME): European paintings and drawings 1905–1915’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 423–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bell, P. , Schlecht, J. and Ommer, B. (2013), ‘Nonverbal communication in medieval illustrations revisited by computer vision and art history’, Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 26–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bender, K. (2015), ‘Distant viewing in art history. A case study of artistic productivity’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 99–110.15
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bentkowska-Kafel, A. (2015), ‘Debating digital art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 50–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Berry, D.M. (2022), ‘Critical digital humanities’, in J. O'Sullivan (ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook to the Digital Humanities, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 125–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bishop, C. (2018), ‘Against digital art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 3, pp. 122–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bönisch, D. (2020), ‘The curator's machine: Clustering of museum collection data through annotation of hidden connection patterns between artworks’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 5, pp. 5.20–5.35.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brandhorst, H. (2013), ‘Aby Warburg's wildest dreams come true?’ Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 72–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Brosens, K. , Aerts, J. , Beerens, R.J. , Cardaso, B. , De Prekel, I. , Ivanova, A. , Lamqaddam, H. , Molenberghs, G. , Slegten, A. , Truyen, F. , Van der Stighelen, K. and Verbert, K. (2019), ‘Slow digital art history in action: Project Cornelia's computational approach to seventeenth-century Flemish Creative Communities’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 105–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Brown, K. (ed.) (2020), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Bruzelius, C. and Vitolo, P. (2019), ‘The medieval kingdom of sicily image database’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 74–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bryson, N. (ed.) (1988), Calligram: Essays in New Art History from France, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cardinali, M. (2019), ‘Digital tools and technical views: The intersection of digital art history and technical art history in a digital archive on the painting technique of Caravaggio and his followers’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 52–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cohen, M. (2022), ‘Visualizing the unknown in the digital era of art history’, The Art Bulletin, 104:2, pp. 6–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cornell, L. and Droitcour, B. (2013), ‘Technical difficulties’, Artforum International, 51:5, p. 36.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cornell, L. and Halter, E. (2015), Mass Effect: Art and the Internet in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cramer, F. (2015), ‘What Is “post-digital”?’ in D.M. Berry and M. Dieter (eds), Postdigital Aesthetics: Art, Computation and Design, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 12–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cranston, J. (2020), ‘Mapping paintings, or how to breathe life into provenance’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 109–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Da, N.Z. (2019), ‘The computational case against computational literary studies’, Critical Inquiry, 45:3, pp. 601–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dahlgren, A. (2018), Travelling Images, 1st ed., Manchester: Manchester University Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7s37. Accessed 16 December 2020 .
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Debatty, R. (2008), ‘Interview with Marisa Olson’, We Make Money Not Art, 28 March, http://we-make-money-not-art.com/how_does_one_become_marisa/. Accessed 23 June 2016 .16
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Dekker, A. (2018), Collecting and Conserving Net Art: Moving beyond Conventional Methods, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dobson, J.E. (2019), Critical Digital Humanities: The Search for a Methodology, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Drucker, J. (2013), ‘Is there a “digital” art history?’ Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 5–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Drucker, J. (2019), ‘The museum opens’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 4, pp. 2.1–2.15.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Drucker, J. (2020), Visualization and Interpretation: Humanistic Approaches to Display, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Elgammal, A. , Kang, Y. and Leeuw, M.D. (2018), ‘Picasso, matisse, or a fake? Automated analysis of drawings at the stroke level for attribution and authentication’, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 32:1, pp. 42–50, https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/11313. Accessed 26 March 2021 .
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ellis, M.H. and Johnson, C.R. (2019), ‘Computational connoisseurship: Enhanced examination using automated image analysis’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 125–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fisher, M.M. and Swartz, A. (2014), ‘Why digital art history?’ Visual Resources, 30:2, pp. 125–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Fraser, N. (1985), ‘What's critical about critical theory? The case of Habermas and gender’, New German Critique, 35, pp. 97–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fraser, P. and Rothman, R. (eds) (2017), Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory, Practice, and Instruction, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Frenzel, A. , Muench, J. , Bruckner, M. and Veit, D. (2021), ‘Digitization or digitalization? – Toward an understanding of defifinitions, use and application in IS research’, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) Proceedings 18, https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2021/adv_info_systems_general_track/adv_info_systems_general_track/18. Accessed 16 January 2024 .
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Grau, O. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in O. Grau (ed.), MediaArtHistories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Grau, O. (ed.) (2017), Museum and Archive on the Move: Changing Cultural Institutions in the Digital Era, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Grau, O. , Hoth, J. and Wandl-Vogt, E. (eds) (2019), Digital Art through the Looking Glass: New Strategies for Archiving, Collecting and Preserving in Digital Humanities, Donau: Edition Donau-Universität.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Greenwald, D.S. (2021), Painting by Numbers: Data-Driven Histories of Nineteenth-Century Art, Painting by Numbers, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hansson, K. and Näslund Dahlgren, A. (2022), ‘Choice, negotiation, and pluralism: A conceptual framework for participatory technologies in museum collections’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 31:4, pp. 603–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Harris, J. (2007), The New Art History: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hatchwell, S. , Insh, F. and Leaper, H. (2019), ‘Born digital: Early career researchers shaping digital art history’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 171–79.17
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Horkheimer, M. (1972), ‘Traditional and critical theory’, in Critical Theory: Selected Essays (trans. M.J. O'Connell), New York: Continuum, pp. 188–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hristova, S. (2016), ‘Images as data: Cultural analytics and Aby Warburg's mnemosyne’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 2, pp. 116–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Jaskot, P.B. (2019), ‘Digital art history as the social history of art: Towards the disciplinary relevance of digital methods’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 21–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Kamposiori, C. , Mahony, S. and Warwick, C. (2019), ‘The impact of digitization and digital resource design on the scholarly workflow in art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 4, pp. 3.11–3.27.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Kholeif, O. (ed.) (2014), You Are Here: Art after the Internet, Manchester: Cornerhouse Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Klinke, H. (2016), ‘Big image data within the big picture of art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 2, pp. 14–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Klinke, H. and Surkemper, L. (2015), ‘Editorial’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 6–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Krauss, R.E. (1993), The Optical Unconscious, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Langmead, A. , Nygren, C.J. , Rodriguez, P. and Craig, A. (2021), ‘Leonardo, Morelli, and the computational mirror’, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 15:1, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/15/1/000540/000540.html. Accessed 25 March 2023 .
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Langner, M. , Böttger, L. and Zeckey, A. (2021), ‘Schemata – 3D classification methods and archaeological identification criteria: An interdisciplinary collaboration using the example of ancient terracotta statuettes’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 8, pp. 22–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee, B. , Seo, M.K. , Kim, D. , Shin, I. , Schich, M. , Jeong, H. and Han, S.K. (2020), ‘Dissecting landscape art history with information theory’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117:43, pp. 26580–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Manovich, L. (2012), ‘How to compare one million images?’ in D.M. Berry (ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 249–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Manovich, L. (2015), ‘Data science and digital art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 12–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Manovich, L. (2020), Cultural Analytics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Näslund Dahlgren, A. (2022), ‘Image metadata. From information management to interpretative practice’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 6, pp. 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Näslund Dahlgren, A. and Hansson, K. (2020), ‘The diversity paradox. Alignment and plurality in the visual heritage’, Journal of Digital Culture and Society, 6:2, pp. 239–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Näslund Dahlgren, A. and Wasielewski, A. (2021a), ‘Cultures of digitization: A historiographic perspective on digital art history’, Visual Resources, 36:4, pp. 339–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Näslund Dahlgren, A. and Wasielewski, A. (2021b), ‘The digital U-turn in art history’, Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 90:4, pp. 249–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Paul, C. (2003), Digital Art, New York: Thames & Hudson.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Paul, C. (2020), ‘Digital art now: Histories of (im)materialities’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 5, pp. 2.2–2.11, https://doi.org/10.11588/dah.2020.5.75504.18
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Petersson, S. and Dahlgren, A. (2022), ‘Seeing images: Metadata and mediation in the digital archive’, Culture Unbound, 13:2, pp. 104–32, https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.3562.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Prince, A. and Messina, C.M. (2022), ‘Black digital humanities for the rising generation’, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 16:3, https://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/3/000645/000645.htm. Accessed 4 April 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Prokop, E. , Han, X.Y. , Papyan, V. , Donoho, D.L. and Johnson, C.R. (2021), ‘AI and the digitized photoarchive: Promoting access and discoverability’, Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 40:1, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Reshetnikov, A. , Marinescu, M.-C. and Lopez, J.M. (2022), ‘DEArt: Dataset of European art’, in European Conference on Computer Vision, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 218–33, October, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.01226.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Riley, J. (2017), Understanding Metadata. What Is Metadata and What Is It For? Baltimore: National Information Standards Organization (NISO), https://www.niso.org/publications/understanding-metadata-2017. Accessed 2 April 2023 .
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Risam, R. and Baker Josephs, K. (eds) (2021), The Digital Black Atlantic, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Robinson, W. (2014), ‘Flipping and the rise of zombie formalism’, ArtSpace, 3 April, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/contributors/see_here/the_rise_of_zombie_formalism-52184. Accessed 23 September 2023 .
  79. Rosa, J. de la and Suárez, J.-L. (2015), ‘A quantitative approach to beauty. Perceived attractiveness of human faces in world painting’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 112–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Rother, L. , Koss, M. and Mariani, F. (2022), ‘Taking care of history: Toward a politics of provenance linked open data in museums’, in E.L. Fry and E. Canning (eds), Perspectives on Data, Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, https://doi.org/10.53269/9780865593152/06.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Saleh, B. and Elgammal, A. (2016), ‘Large-scale classification of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 2, pp. 70–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sanchez, M. (2013), ‘2011: Art and transmission’, Artforum, 51:10, Summer, p. 297.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Steinberg, L. (1972), ‘The flatbed picture plane’, in Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth-Century Art, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Stork, D.G. (2006), ‘Computer vision, image analysis, and master art: Part 1’, IEEE MultiMedia, 13:3, pp. 16–20, https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2006.50.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Tyson, L. (1999), Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, New York: Garland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Vierkant, A. (2010), ‘The image object post-internet’, Jstchillin, http://jstchillin.org/artie/pdf/The_Image_Object_Post-Internet_a4.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2024 .
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Wang, J.Z. , Kandemir, B. and Li, J. (2020), ‘Computerized analysis of paintings’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 299–312.19
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Wasielewski, A. (2021), ‘The growing pains of digital art history: Issues for the study of art using computational methods’, in S. Petersson (ed.), Digital Human Sciences: New Objects – New Approaches, Stockholm: Stockholm University Press, pp. 127–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wasielewski, A. (2022), ‘The museum in quarantine: Architecture, experience and the virtual museum’, Journal of Curatorial Studies, 11:1, pp. 4–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wasielewski, A. (2023), Computational Formalism: Art History and Machine Learning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Westerby, G. and Keegan, K. (2019), ‘Digital art history and the museum: The online scholarly collection catalogues at the Art Institute of Chicago’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 141–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Whiteman, S.H. (2021), ‘Beyond the perspectival paradigm: Early modern pictorial space and digital challenges to the field’, The Art Bulletin, 103:2, pp. 8–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2021.1847575.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Yarlagadda, P. , Monroy, A. , Carqué, B. and Ommer, B. (2013), ‘Towards a computer-based understanding of medieval images’, in H.G. Bock , W. Jäger and M.J. Winckler (eds), Scientific Computing and Cultural Heritage, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (Contributions in Mathematical and Computational Sciences), pp. 89–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Zou, Z. , Shi, Z. , Guo, Y. and Ye, J. (2019), ‘Object detection in 20 years: A survey’, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1905.05055.
  95. Zylinska, J. (2020), AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams, London: Open Humanities Press.20
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Adorno, T. (1974), ‘Commitment’, New Left Review, (I/87–88), pp. 75–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, A. (2014), Art After the Internet, Hyperallergic, http://hyperallergic.com/111638/art-after-the-internet/. Accessed 28 November 2022 .
  3. Allington, D. , Brouillette, S. and Golumbia, D. (2016), ‘Neoliberal tools (and archives): A political history of digital humanities’, Los Angeles Review of Books, 1 May, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities/. Accessed 23 January 2022 .
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alpers, S. (1987), ‘Style is what you make it: The visual arts once again’, in B. Lang (ed.), The Concept of Style, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 137–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Assonitis, A. (2020), ‘The expanding role of digitized collections: The Medici Archive’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 266–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Audry, S. (2021), Art in the Age of Machine Learning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Azar, M. , Cox, G. and Impett, L. (2021), ‘Introduction: Ways of machine seeing’, AI & Society, 36:4, pp. 1093–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baca, M. and Helmreich, A. (eds) (2013a), ‘Digital art history’, Visual Resources, 29, pp. 1–2.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baca, M. and Helmreich, A. (2013b), ‘Introduction’, Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Baca, M. , Helmreich, A. and Gill, M. (2019), ‘Digital art history’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ballard, H.D. (2019), ‘Queer criticalities: Instagram, and the ethics of museum display’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 4, pp. 3.03–3.09.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bareither, C. , Macdonald, S. , Greifeneder, E. , Geis, K. , Ullrich, S. and Hillebrand, V. (2021), ‘Curating digital images: Ethnographic perspectives on the affordances of digital images in museum and heritage contexts’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 8, pp. 82–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartosch, C. , Mulloli, N. , Burckhardt, D. , Döhring, M. , Ahmad, W. and Rosenberg, R. (2020), ‘The database of modern exhibitions (DoME): European paintings and drawings 1905–1915’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 423–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bell, P. , Schlecht, J. and Ommer, B. (2013), ‘Nonverbal communication in medieval illustrations revisited by computer vision and art history’, Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 26–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bender, K. (2015), ‘Distant viewing in art history. A case study of artistic productivity’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 99–110.15
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bentkowska-Kafel, A. (2015), ‘Debating digital art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 50–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Berry, D.M. (2022), ‘Critical digital humanities’, in J. O'Sullivan (ed.), The Bloomsbury Handbook to the Digital Humanities, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 125–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bishop, C. (2018), ‘Against digital art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 3, pp. 122–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bönisch, D. (2020), ‘The curator's machine: Clustering of museum collection data through annotation of hidden connection patterns between artworks’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 5, pp. 5.20–5.35.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brandhorst, H. (2013), ‘Aby Warburg's wildest dreams come true?’ Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 72–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Brosens, K. , Aerts, J. , Beerens, R.J. , Cardaso, B. , De Prekel, I. , Ivanova, A. , Lamqaddam, H. , Molenberghs, G. , Slegten, A. , Truyen, F. , Van der Stighelen, K. and Verbert, K. (2019), ‘Slow digital art history in action: Project Cornelia's computational approach to seventeenth-century Flemish Creative Communities’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 105–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Brown, K. (ed.) (2020), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Bruzelius, C. and Vitolo, P. (2019), ‘The medieval kingdom of sicily image database’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 74–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bryson, N. (ed.) (1988), Calligram: Essays in New Art History from France, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cardinali, M. (2019), ‘Digital tools and technical views: The intersection of digital art history and technical art history in a digital archive on the painting technique of Caravaggio and his followers’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 52–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cohen, M. (2022), ‘Visualizing the unknown in the digital era of art history’, The Art Bulletin, 104:2, pp. 6–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cornell, L. and Droitcour, B. (2013), ‘Technical difficulties’, Artforum International, 51:5, p. 36.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cornell, L. and Halter, E. (2015), Mass Effect: Art and the Internet in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cramer, F. (2015), ‘What Is “post-digital”?’ in D.M. Berry and M. Dieter (eds), Postdigital Aesthetics: Art, Computation and Design, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 12–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cranston, J. (2020), ‘Mapping paintings, or how to breathe life into provenance’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 109–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Da, N.Z. (2019), ‘The computational case against computational literary studies’, Critical Inquiry, 45:3, pp. 601–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dahlgren, A. (2018), Travelling Images, 1st ed., Manchester: Manchester University Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7s37. Accessed 16 December 2020 .
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Debatty, R. (2008), ‘Interview with Marisa Olson’, We Make Money Not Art, 28 March, http://we-make-money-not-art.com/how_does_one_become_marisa/. Accessed 23 June 2016 .16
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Dekker, A. (2018), Collecting and Conserving Net Art: Moving beyond Conventional Methods, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dobson, J.E. (2019), Critical Digital Humanities: The Search for a Methodology, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Drucker, J. (2013), ‘Is there a “digital” art history?’ Visual Resources, 29:1–2, pp. 5–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Drucker, J. (2019), ‘The museum opens’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 4, pp. 2.1–2.15.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Drucker, J. (2020), Visualization and Interpretation: Humanistic Approaches to Display, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Elgammal, A. , Kang, Y. and Leeuw, M.D. (2018), ‘Picasso, matisse, or a fake? Automated analysis of drawings at the stroke level for attribution and authentication’, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 32:1, pp. 42–50, https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/11313. Accessed 26 March 2021 .
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ellis, M.H. and Johnson, C.R. (2019), ‘Computational connoisseurship: Enhanced examination using automated image analysis’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 125–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fisher, M.M. and Swartz, A. (2014), ‘Why digital art history?’ Visual Resources, 30:2, pp. 125–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Fraser, N. (1985), ‘What's critical about critical theory? The case of Habermas and gender’, New German Critique, 35, pp. 97–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fraser, P. and Rothman, R. (eds) (2017), Beyond Critique: Contemporary Art in Theory, Practice, and Instruction, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Frenzel, A. , Muench, J. , Bruckner, M. and Veit, D. (2021), ‘Digitization or digitalization? – Toward an understanding of defifinitions, use and application in IS research’, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) Proceedings 18, https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2021/adv_info_systems_general_track/adv_info_systems_general_track/18. Accessed 16 January 2024 .
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Grau, O. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in O. Grau (ed.), MediaArtHistories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Grau, O. (ed.) (2017), Museum and Archive on the Move: Changing Cultural Institutions in the Digital Era, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Grau, O. , Hoth, J. and Wandl-Vogt, E. (eds) (2019), Digital Art through the Looking Glass: New Strategies for Archiving, Collecting and Preserving in Digital Humanities, Donau: Edition Donau-Universität.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Greenwald, D.S. (2021), Painting by Numbers: Data-Driven Histories of Nineteenth-Century Art, Painting by Numbers, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hansson, K. and Näslund Dahlgren, A. (2022), ‘Choice, negotiation, and pluralism: A conceptual framework for participatory technologies in museum collections’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 31:4, pp. 603–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Harris, J. (2007), The New Art History: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hatchwell, S. , Insh, F. and Leaper, H. (2019), ‘Born digital: Early career researchers shaping digital art history’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 171–79.17
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Horkheimer, M. (1972), ‘Traditional and critical theory’, in Critical Theory: Selected Essays (trans. M.J. O'Connell), New York: Continuum, pp. 188–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hristova, S. (2016), ‘Images as data: Cultural analytics and Aby Warburg's mnemosyne’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 2, pp. 116–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Jaskot, P.B. (2019), ‘Digital art history as the social history of art: Towards the disciplinary relevance of digital methods’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 21–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Kamposiori, C. , Mahony, S. and Warwick, C. (2019), ‘The impact of digitization and digital resource design on the scholarly workflow in art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 4, pp. 3.11–3.27.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Kholeif, O. (ed.) (2014), You Are Here: Art after the Internet, Manchester: Cornerhouse Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Klinke, H. (2016), ‘Big image data within the big picture of art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 2, pp. 14–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Klinke, H. and Surkemper, L. (2015), ‘Editorial’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 6–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Krauss, R.E. (1993), The Optical Unconscious, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Langmead, A. , Nygren, C.J. , Rodriguez, P. and Craig, A. (2021), ‘Leonardo, Morelli, and the computational mirror’, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 15:1, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/15/1/000540/000540.html. Accessed 25 March 2023 .
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Langner, M. , Böttger, L. and Zeckey, A. (2021), ‘Schemata – 3D classification methods and archaeological identification criteria: An interdisciplinary collaboration using the example of ancient terracotta statuettes’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 8, pp. 22–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee, B. , Seo, M.K. , Kim, D. , Shin, I. , Schich, M. , Jeong, H. and Han, S.K. (2020), ‘Dissecting landscape art history with information theory’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117:43, pp. 26580–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Manovich, L. (2012), ‘How to compare one million images?’ in D.M. Berry (ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 249–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Manovich, L. (2015), ‘Data science and digital art history’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 12–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Manovich, L. (2020), Cultural Analytics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Näslund Dahlgren, A. (2022), ‘Image metadata. From information management to interpretative practice’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 6, pp. 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Näslund Dahlgren, A. and Hansson, K. (2020), ‘The diversity paradox. Alignment and plurality in the visual heritage’, Journal of Digital Culture and Society, 6:2, pp. 239–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Näslund Dahlgren, A. and Wasielewski, A. (2021a), ‘Cultures of digitization: A historiographic perspective on digital art history’, Visual Resources, 36:4, pp. 339–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Näslund Dahlgren, A. and Wasielewski, A. (2021b), ‘The digital U-turn in art history’, Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 90:4, pp. 249–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Paul, C. (2003), Digital Art, New York: Thames & Hudson.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Paul, C. (2020), ‘Digital art now: Histories of (im)materialities’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 5, pp. 2.2–2.11, https://doi.org/10.11588/dah.2020.5.75504.18
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Petersson, S. and Dahlgren, A. (2022), ‘Seeing images: Metadata and mediation in the digital archive’, Culture Unbound, 13:2, pp. 104–32, https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.3562.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Prince, A. and Messina, C.M. (2022), ‘Black digital humanities for the rising generation’, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 16:3, https://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/3/000645/000645.htm. Accessed 4 April 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Prokop, E. , Han, X.Y. , Papyan, V. , Donoho, D.L. and Johnson, C.R. (2021), ‘AI and the digitized photoarchive: Promoting access and discoverability’, Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 40:1, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Reshetnikov, A. , Marinescu, M.-C. and Lopez, J.M. (2022), ‘DEArt: Dataset of European art’, in European Conference on Computer Vision, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 218–33, October, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.01226.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Riley, J. (2017), Understanding Metadata. What Is Metadata and What Is It For? Baltimore: National Information Standards Organization (NISO), https://www.niso.org/publications/understanding-metadata-2017. Accessed 2 April 2023 .
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Risam, R. and Baker Josephs, K. (eds) (2021), The Digital Black Atlantic, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Robinson, W. (2014), ‘Flipping and the rise of zombie formalism’, ArtSpace, 3 April, https://www.artspace.com/magazine/contributors/see_here/the_rise_of_zombie_formalism-52184. Accessed 23 September 2023 .
  79. Rosa, J. de la and Suárez, J.-L. (2015), ‘A quantitative approach to beauty. Perceived attractiveness of human faces in world painting’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 1, pp. 112–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Rother, L. , Koss, M. and Mariani, F. (2022), ‘Taking care of history: Toward a politics of provenance linked open data in museums’, in E.L. Fry and E. Canning (eds), Perspectives on Data, Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, https://doi.org/10.53269/9780865593152/06.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Saleh, B. and Elgammal, A. (2016), ‘Large-scale classification of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature’, International Journal for Digital Art History, 2, pp. 70–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sanchez, M. (2013), ‘2011: Art and transmission’, Artforum, 51:10, Summer, p. 297.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Steinberg, L. (1972), ‘The flatbed picture plane’, in Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth-Century Art, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Stork, D.G. (2006), ‘Computer vision, image analysis, and master art: Part 1’, IEEE MultiMedia, 13:3, pp. 16–20, https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2006.50.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Tyson, L. (1999), Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, New York: Garland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Vierkant, A. (2010), ‘The image object post-internet’, Jstchillin, http://jstchillin.org/artie/pdf/The_Image_Object_Post-Internet_a4.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2024 .
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Wang, J.Z. , Kandemir, B. and Li, J. (2020), ‘Computerized analysis of paintings’, in K. Brown (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History, New York: Routledge, pp. 299–312.19
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Wasielewski, A. (2021), ‘The growing pains of digital art history: Issues for the study of art using computational methods’, in S. Petersson (ed.), Digital Human Sciences: New Objects – New Approaches, Stockholm: Stockholm University Press, pp. 127–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wasielewski, A. (2022), ‘The museum in quarantine: Architecture, experience and the virtual museum’, Journal of Curatorial Studies, 11:1, pp. 4–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wasielewski, A. (2023), Computational Formalism: Art History and Machine Learning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Westerby, G. and Keegan, K. (2019), ‘Digital art history and the museum: The online scholarly collection catalogues at the Art Institute of Chicago’, Visual Resources, 35:1–2, pp. 141–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Whiteman, S.H. (2021), ‘Beyond the perspectival paradigm: Early modern pictorial space and digital challenges to the field’, The Art Bulletin, 103:2, pp. 8–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2021.1847575.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Yarlagadda, P. , Monroy, A. , Carqué, B. and Ommer, B. (2013), ‘Towards a computer-based understanding of medieval images’, in H.G. Bock , W. Jäger and M.J. Winckler (eds), Scientific Computing and Cultural Heritage, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (Contributions in Mathematical and Computational Sciences), pp. 89–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Zou, Z. , Shi, Z. , Guo, Y. and Ye, J. (2019), ‘Object detection in 20 years: A survey’, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1905.05055.
  95. Zylinska, J. (2020), AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams, London: Open Humanities Press.20
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9781789389760.c01
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
/content/books/9781789389760.c01
dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9781789389760
Book
false
en
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test