Comments on: “Call for Art Historical Knowledge” http://blog.sfmoma.org/2009/06/call-for-art-historical-knowledge/ ....................................................................."That bottle keeps its blink on its side red from horizon." Clark Coolidge...................................... Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:51:13 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Julian Myers http://blog.sfmoma.org/2009/06/call-for-art-historical-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-13149 Julian Myers Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 +0000 http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=3360#comment-13149 Hi Lucas, I agree, its design isn't reader-friendly. Comments boxes, contextualizing remarks or summary, allowing users to tag articles they see as worth reading - all great ideas. JSTOR enables its users to download PDFs which reproduce their original publication layout and pictures, which helps a lot when navigating the essays in class. Not least do they include (somewhat) better and more numerous images - utterly necessary for the forms of visual analysis that are fundamental to the history of art. Of course, it's early days still and everything may change and develop. Hi Lucas, I agree, its design isn’t reader-friendly. Comments boxes, contextualizing remarks or summary, allowing users to tag articles they see as worth reading – all great ideas.

JSTOR enables its users to download PDFs which reproduce their original publication layout and pictures, which helps a lot when navigating the essays in class. Not least do they include (somewhat) better and more numerous images – utterly necessary for the forms of visual analysis that are fundamental to the history of art.

Of course, it’s early days still and everything may change and develop.

]]> By: Lucas http://blog.sfmoma.org/2009/06/call-for-art-historical-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-13118 Lucas Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:40:55 +0000 http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=3360#comment-13118 As you point out above, the obscurity of the systems of evaluation and selection going on behind the scenes is a concern. In practice, this top-down approach is in opposition to the very nature of the web. It's a shame, because the web presents the opportunity for a more distributed and open system for evaluation and accreditation. Further, I had a look at the "papers" page on the site - http://www.artandeducation.net/papers/view/1 There is an essay by William Kaizen which might well be fascinating, but it's visual layout makes it unreadable on the screen. Further, there is no box at the bottom of the essay for comments and discussion. This is something of an oversight in this new publishing environment, don't you think? What I would suggest is the addition of some contextualising remarks from the art and education committee, before and/or after the long essays being published. These would help us to decide whether the essays are worth reading, why they were chosen for publication and through what process. It might help to shape discussion which could take place in the comments section - further adding layers of meaning to the original published paper. As you point out above, the obscurity of the systems of evaluation and selection going on behind the scenes is a concern. In practice, this top-down approach is in opposition to the very nature of the web. It’s a shame, because the web presents the opportunity for a more distributed and open system for evaluation and accreditation.

Further, I had a look at the “papers” page on the site – http://www.artandeducation.net/papers/view/1

There is an essay by William Kaizen which might well be fascinating, but it’s visual layout makes it unreadable on the screen.

Further, there is no box at the bottom of the essay for comments and discussion. This is something of an oversight in this new publishing environment, don’t you think?

What I would suggest is the addition of some contextualising remarks from the art and education committee, before and/or after the long essays being published. These would help us to decide whether the essays are worth reading, why they were chosen for publication and through what process. It might help to shape discussion which could take place in the comments section – further adding layers of meaning to the original published paper.

]]> By: Anuradha http://blog.sfmoma.org/2009/06/call-for-art-historical-knowledge/comment-page-1/#comment-12893 Anuradha Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:51:43 +0000 http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=3360#comment-12893 This conundrum is endemic to the academy. Scholars are expected to answer to a higher calling than base compensation, and that standard is strategically employed to deny us an adequate living. A for-profit entity engaged in an academic review process needs to be 100% transparent to avoid exploiting the content providers. This conundrum is endemic to the academy. Scholars are expected to answer to a higher calling than base compensation, and that standard is strategically employed to deny us an adequate living. A for-profit entity engaged in an academic review process needs to be 100% transparent to avoid exploiting the content providers.

]]>