• About
  • Connect
RSS  Subscribe:  RSS feed
museum geek
exploring museums, technology, and ideas

Interview: Matthew Israel on The Art Genome Project

Posted on September 21, 2012

6


How different might museum catalogues be if they had been designed for public consumption from the start? A couple of weeks ago, Mia Ridge mused on this question via Twitter. Her timing was impeccable, for even as she asked I was setting up a chat with Matthew Israel, Director of The Art Genome Project at Art.sy which could be a good starting place for those interested in an answer.

Here, I speak to Matthew about the project. (Fair warning – this is a long post, but an interesting read.)

Matthew Israel

[S] Hi Matthew. Can you tell me a little more about The Art Genome Project, how it started and how it all works? What exactly do you mean when speaking of “genes” in an art context? How do they differ from traditional classifications?

[M] Hi Suse. Thanks so much for your interest in the project and for including the project and Art.sy on museumgeek. Before I begin I should say that the best way to learn about how Art.sy and The Art Genome Project work is to go to the website and if you’re interested in learning more of the specifics of The Art Genome Project, we have set up a tumblr.

In short, The Art Genome Project is sophisticated, nuanced metadata that informs and enables related art search. Genes are our names for this kind of metadata (you can also think about them as the possible characteristics that one might apply to art). Examples include art-historical movements, time periods, techniques, concepts, content, geographical regions and even aspects of an artwork’s appearance. There are currently over 500 “core” genes in the project and another 400+ which capture influences on artists of both other artists and art-historical movements.

It’s important to note that the genes we have created are not by any means just invented by us. Fortunately we are the beneficiaries of hundreds of years of art-historical scholarship; we source from discussions in books, periodicals and on the web surrounding contemporary art; and most importantly, we have established consistent communication with all of our partners (i.e. the galleries, museums, foundations, collections and estates that feature their work on Art.sy) in order to understand their thoughts on the genome and the genoming process.

What’s also really significant to explain is that every artist and artwork has their own genome in order to show how different, for example, Pablo Picasso’s oeuvre (his collected works) is in comparison to individual works he created and how greatly individual works can differ from each other. For example, in the case of Picasso, this enables us to explain to users the differences between Blue and Rose period works or between papier-collé works done in 1912 and his almost surrealist works of the 1930s.

Additionally, genes are not tags — though we have many tags on the site — because tags are binary (something is either tagged “dog” or not). Genes, in contrast, can range from 0-100, thus capturing how strongly a gene applies to a specific artist or artwork. While the specific numbers are not important, this enables us to explain to users that Warhol is highly related to the term Pop Art, while an artist who might have been associated with Pop at points during their career–say Ray Johnson–can be represented as less associated to Pop.

[S] I’ve been following The Art Genome Project Tumblr for a little while now. Many of the posts are about the evolution of the genes; about how and why particular genes come into being. For instance, on this post on “Double Genes” Holly Shen discusses how, in early work, you sometimes “combined two separate but related characteristics into one gene, knowing that eventually the time would come when each characteristic would gather enough artworks and artists on its own”, whilst this post speaks of the evolution of economics-related genes. What prompts an evolution in the ‘genetic code’? Were any genes initially created that you’ve since discarded?

[M] It’s really so great for us to hear you’ve been following the tumblr. Please feel free to comment on any of our posts! Your question is a good one. It gets to the crux of how a new format for organizing knowledge evolves (and must evolve) over time. I think at base, since this is the first time anyone has tried to systematize the vocabulary for art history in this particular way, and as with any significant research project, initial ideas always need to be re-evaluated. People say writing is 10% writing and 90% editing and I would say the same of the genome project. That’s the fascinating part. It’s like more traditional art-historical work. You’re given a set of objects, you create sets according to certain similarities and then see how they hold up to scholarly inquiry and then you re-evaluate and re-evaluate again, etc.

A basic example of how we have split up a gene is a gene we created for Light. We initially thought having works by Impressionists in which light is a central aspect of the image would be interesting to see next to contemporary works which use Light as a medium. However as time went on, we realized more and more that this was confusing for users and these were really satisfying as their own categories. And there were enough objects in each category to split them apart.

[S] How do you ensure consistency across the different genetic coders or mappers, particularly with a system that is still evolving?

[M] Consistency is a huge priority, maybe one of the top priorities of The Art Genome Project. Historically, the kind of data entry we are doing and the production of a shared set of knowledge for how to use a system such as ours has been undervalued or unsystematized because the set of users is a set of specialists working in disassociated institutions or contexts. Hopefully our focus on the public and emphasis on the fact that this vocabulary is an educational tool will bring more exposure to and appreciation for this type of work. Though we can improve on consistency at Art.sy, we are doing various types of things to establish standards, such as our establishment of an Art Genome Wiki (a kind of knowledge base for genoming); weekly Genome Team meetings; and our use of programs like Basecamp, Trello, Pivotal Tracker and teamwide chat to keep revisions and discussions as transparent as possible. In this way, we have realized maintaining consistency is not just about top-down review and establishing rules, but it’s also about constant dialogue.

[S] When you and I recently spoke about the Project, you mentioned a desire to document aspects of art that are more integral to an artist’s practice or concerns than might be included in traditional classifications. What genes have emerged in response to this idea?

[M] Good questions. Regarding other criteria for art, traditional art object classification systems (and I generalize here, because there are various exceptions) really have focused on the specific details of objects (dimensions, medium, provenance) and one subject heading, however The Art Genome Project–while we capture all of these more specific details–is focused much more on what is going on in the work and in an artist’s practice. It’s more like what one would lecture about to educate someone about an artist or artwork.

Regarding “new” genes, yes, we represent the well-known aspects of an artist’s works but also try to show additional aspects that maybe most users don’t know about in order to give voice to the diversity of ways to understand and interpret artists and works of art but also to the complexity of works of art in a way maybe traditional avenues have not had the ability to do. What’s also interesting is we have the advantage of not having to be held within the boundaries of a book or its formatting. This is definitely a liberation for art-historical thinking I think, yet at the same time it is something entirely different to create what such an educational experience looks like, feels like and translates to the user.

[S] Something else that resonated when we spoke was your expressed desire to create ‘valuable educational metadata’. There are a couple of things that I want to explore about this idea. The first is the implication that you are rethinking art classification with a public end user in mind; and more specifically, a public learner. What impact do you think this has had on the planning and execution of the Project?

[M] I would say this has been the major priority of the project. We see The Art Genome Project as the structure for a new pedagogical experience. Many of those involved in the project are educators or come from an educational background and I think this experience informs so much of what we do. One major example is the fact that we define our genes on the site, so that in the process of searching and clicking on things you like or gravitate towards or find interesting, you are being given educational texts that explain specifically why you might enjoy these connections. We also have made a real effort to create text on all parts of the site (but primarily in our artist biographies and gene definitions) that is very clear to the user but not “dumbed down.” I don’t think this kind of content is that available to the mass audience.

[S] You’ve written about mapping serendipity with the Project. Do you think that the Project could actually challenge or disrupt art education, by drawing equivalencies and parallels between works of art that might be “genetically” related, but not historically? In a Time Magazine article (behind paywall), the equivalencies drawn by The Art Genome Project are problematised thusly:

Another problem Art.sy faces is its classification system, which rubs some artists the wrong way. “I don’t think what I am doing has anything to do with Cindy Sherman,” says British artist Jonathan Smith after being told the site links his work to hers via a staged-photography gene. “That sounds like something a programmer would think of.”

Given that classification has played such a major role in the history of art, do you think drawing new equivalencies between historical works of art, or between historical and contemporary works, could have a disruptive effect? As an art historian, how do you feel about this?

[M] Honestly, while the term “disrupt” is often used with new websites to describe how they deal with a particular historical space, I don’t think about The Art Genome Project as disruptive. In truth, the job of art historians, and furthermore, art critics, curators, etc. is to draw new equivalences anyways and we are just doing the same thing in a different way. Yes, here there is the term “gene” or as you say “genetically related” but it’s not really all that different from an historian exploring new relationships between artworks. I also should say that our genoming is based on historical information so it would by no means contradict historical connections. I should also say that we have gotten some of our best feedback from art historians, which we have used to improve the site.

[S] Of course, the Art Genome Project isn’t being done with strictly educational outcomes in mind; it also has commercial ones. Do you think the overlapping interests of the Project could compromise its educational value?

[M] It’s funny, I don’t often get asked that. To be completely honest, there are really very few (if any) commercial constraints on The Art Genome Project. As I am sure you realize, this situation is extremely important as we have many non-profits involved (museums, foundations, estates). Art.sy’s goal is to make all the world’s art accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and that’s really been the focus of our efforts over these past few years.

[S] Finally, I am curious about the maintenance and scaling of such a labour-intensive approach to classification. Is the Project, and therefore Art.sy, limited in how big it can get? Do you have curators in the same way a museum does; making decisions about what is included in the Project?

[M] We’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. We do have a review process, of which I have already spoken, but we are definitely looking at how much we can scale without losing any of the quality we demand out of our genoming. What’s amazing about being here is that Art.sy is half engineers and half art professionals so we are not tackling this question alone (with the tools of art historians), but with significant input from our engineers. I’m honestly consistently amazed at how helpful those involved in tech (which again, is half of Art.sy) are in helping us deal with our problems, particularly regarding more efficient processes and workflow.  One thing we are looking at is how much of the process we can automate so that an input we are needing to make is processed in the optimal manner. We also accomplished a lot this summer in a collaboration between members of the genome team and an engineer on our appearance genes. The eventual goal was to use our data to train a program to understand more specific recognition of the visual characteristics of artworks and we’re currently in the process of evaluating some of our conclusions. You can read more about this on our most recent blog post.

[S] Ok, now it’s your turn. What haven’t I asked about that excites you with the Project? What else should the museum community know about it?

[M] Great way to end. Hmmm. What excites me? I hope you don’t mind that I made a list…

  1. Creating a classification system that retains the nuances and mysteries within art and allows anyone with an Internet connection the opportunity to learn about art and art history.
  2. Open sourcing our research on our tumblr.
  3. Working on a truly collaborative project, with those from the arts but also with computer scientists, engineers and mathematicians.
  4. Research we have undertaken on The Art Genome’s roots, specifically the history of art classification systems.
  5. Giving people (who have wanted to learn about art but didn’t know where to start) a place to start.
  6. Trying to capture “happy accidents” in the classroom, i.e. mapping the serendipitous connections that happen when you teach, to help educate.
  7. Trying to create an educational experience that is active, exploratory, and self-motivated.
  8. The possibility of educators using Art.sy as a teaching tool, to explore the history of a movement or to see how a term’s interpretation has changed over time, such as Collage or Documentary Photography.
  9. Getting other people (like you) excited and involved in what we are doing!

[S] Thanks so much, Matthew! There is much to think about here.

Matthew Israel is an art historian (PhD, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University) and is currently the Director of The Art Genome Project at Art.sy. His book on American artists’ political engagement during the Vietnam War, Kill for Peace: American Artists Against the Vietnam War, is forthcoming in Spring 2013 from University of Texas Press. Matthew has taught modern and contemporary art history as well as critical reading and writing at New York University; Parsons, The New School for Design; and The Museum of Modern Art, New York. He has also written articles for Art in America, Artforum, Frieze and ARTnews and contributed to books and catalogues for The College Art Association, The Whitney Museum of American Art, the New Museum, Gagosian Gallery, Cheim & Read Gallery, and Marianne Boesky Gallery. Additionally, Matthew has worked as the Administrator at the Peter Hujar Archive, the Director of Operations at The Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation and as a research or press consultant for the New Museum, the Art Spaces Archives Project, Matthew Marks Gallery and Gagosian Gallery.

 

What do YOU think? Does this kind of tech-enabled and public-focussed classification have implications for museums? Could you imagine a similar idea working in a non-art context?

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Tagged: art education, Art.sy, classification, educational metadata, Guest post, interview, Matthew Israel, metadata, museum catalogues, museum classification, research, The Art Genome Project
Posted in: Guest post, Museums, Technology
← Crowdfunding, hype & the Goddamn Tesla Museum
A Museum Genome Project? →
6 Responses “Interview: Matthew Israel on The Art Genome Project” →

  1. Marie Gilbert

    September 21, 2012

    This post was so interesting. Thank you for sharing:)

    Reply

  2. mcarnall

    September 21, 2012

    Nice article and if you don’t mind I’m going to completely sidestep what was actually discussed and compare the art genome to the other genome projects.

    An interesting contrast with the art genome and the other genome projects is that (uncharacteristically) the Art genome seems to be intelligible and accessible whereas the genome work in biology has become a very popular black box. Short-hand for the advancement of science and the road biology will take in the future but the idea of the genome is regularly misused and admittedly confusing.

    I think the hype in the public conscience for genomes is over, after all we’ve already done the one organism we’re so selfishly interested in (us!) but every now and then a new genome is sequenced and hacks with calculators struggle to interpret what that actually means to anyone (at the moment not a lot).

    So, uh good work and /rant over.

    Reply

  3. Suse Cairns

    October 11, 2012

    For those interested in this project, the NYTimes has posted an interesting article on the public launch of Art.sy.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/arts/design/artsy-is-mapping-the-world-of-art-on-the-web.html

    Reply
3 Trackbacks For This Post
  1. A Museum Genome Project? « museum geek →
    September 23rd, 2012 → 9:16 pm

    […] museums, too, need a classification system more attenuated to nuance, like The Art Genome Project. Could we have a Museum Genome Project; in which all our institutions were assessed according to […]

  2. writing about talking + talking about writing « museum geek →
    October 8th, 2012 → 10:27 pm

    […] up in person with some of my favourite museumgeek guest bloggers like Janet Carding, Liz Neely and Matthew Israel. I’m feeling inspired […]

  3. » art.sy and the art genome project →
    October 14th, 2012 → 2:32 pm

    […] Given the importance of aesthetics and pliability in bringing these landscapes to life, the idea also extends to “from and within the data itself.” What really struck me about art.sy was their approach of classifying and relating the works to one another : genes, rather than tags, were used to describe and link the works together. The director of the project, Matthew Israel, argues that metadata that describes art and art history should not only be descriptive, but nuanced. Genes not only both consider the iconography and the context of the works, but also the way the works relate to artists, other artists and historical movements. More importantly, they also describe the degree that a work is related to that particular concept, rather than the more common binary relation exhibited by tags. For example, under the ‘tagging’ approach, one could only argue that a work is or isn’t surreal : the choice is cold, absolute and binary. However, the genetic approach entails a much broader range of interpretations : the work can be somewhat surreal, or have elements of surrealism. In essence, genes are weighted tags, and you can learn more about them on the Art Genome Project Tumblr blog. Their nuances provide a richer canvas for the expression of art history, but also increases the complexity of the issues surrounding their curatorship and expression : Matthew Israel provides excellent coverage of these issues in this post by Suse Cairns. […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Side Projects

Museopunks is the podcast for the progressive museum. Museopunks is presented by the American Alliance of Museums.

Humanizing the Digital: Unproceedings from the MCN 2018 Conference is a collaborative response to the MCN 2018 conference, filled with 17 conference-inspired responses to the state of museum technology in 2018, including essays, reflections, case studies, conversations, and an experimental in-book zine.

CODE│WORDS was an effort to gather and harness the discourse occurring among the museum technology community.

The 2nd experiment in the CODE | WORDS series was called A Series of Epistolary Romances. It consisted of exchanges between authors on topics of import.

Recent Posts

  • Reflections on teaching museum digital practice in 2019
  • Because they are hard… Reflections on #MCN2019
  • VOX POPS: Crowdsourcing Museum Definition perspectives for Museopunks
  • Teaching a new course on museum ethics
  • a new punk.

Popular Posts

  • A throwdown about the term 'curator'
  • #drinkingaboutmuseums Baltimore
  • mining the museumgeek – meta-museology in the art show
  • Should museums still treat the physical space as the most important one? If so, why?
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Blogroll

  • Archives Next
  • fresh + new(er)
  • Koven J. Smith
  • Museum 2.0
  • Open Objects
  • The Museum of the Future
  • Thinking about Exhibits

Archives

Website Powered by WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • museum geek
    • Join 1,370 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • museum geek
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: