Barbara Galletly
Museum INTERVENTIONS.
Issues in representation and translation…
Museum functions and the records they produce have grown apart as separate departments since
the age of the wunderkammer1, and a program undertaken and funded by the Getty Institute, the
Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative (OSCI), has recently demonstrated shortcomings and
limitations of such fractured systems. But by requiring coordination of internal efforts for
publication, the initiative offers a new solution for tracking and sharing publicly museum
holdings and records. The OSCI is helping to knit museum work back together: to help
museums represent, and publicly share their collections and the scholarly work they facilitate in
a published and preserve-able context. Here I will explore the OSCI as a record and as a form of
intervention: not just yielding a (debatably preserve-able) publication, but serving as a means to
demonstrate value to visitors and scholars, to elicit deeper engagement by more visitors at more
levels, and to represent museum structure and contents in a more substantial way.
To this end it will help to look closely at an early twentieth century museum’s successful
operations, as discussed in insightful detail by sociologists Susan Leigh Star and James R.
Griesemer. Application of their concepts of translation and the boundary object as well as Mieke
Bal’s concepts of museum noise and interference, and a discussion of problematics of
cataloguing itself as identified in the field of information science, along with archival theory, will
inform my discussion of implications of a selection of interventions in work performed in and by
museums today: two instantiations of the OSCI as well as the Machine Project artist residency at
the Hammer Museum. I will conclude (as the Machine Project Hammer Report does) with
suggestions regarding museum record-keeping and record sharing: we must move towards
acknowledging that is no longer necessary or desirable for the static publication to represent a
1
A wunderkammer’s contents and structure were often represented visually and textually in catalogues - books we
still have today. (Hedstrom and King, p. 3)
museum collection, but rather for the published archive to reflect a kaleidoscopic catalogue of a
museum’s collections as well as its inner workings.
Museum as ecology.
In their article “Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and
Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39,” sociologists Susan Leigh
Star and James R. Griesemer explore museum work in the context of the Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. They identify that administrators, scholars,
volunteers, students and general patrons necessarily have vastly different motivations and
interests in the museum, and thereby formulate a very helpful and broadly applicable lens
through which to examine the museum as a heterogeneous and highly negotiated environment:
…the important questions concern the flow of objects and concepts through the network of
participating allies and social worlds. The ecological viewpoint is anti-reductionist in that the unit
of analysis is the whole enterprise, not simply the point of view of the university administration
or of the professional scientist. It does, however, entail understanding the processes of
management across worlds: crafting, diplomacy, the choice of clientele and personnel. (389-90)
The paper speaks helpfully to James Cuno’s discussion of the key activity of mission statementcrafting as the “enrichment of common understanding of our purpose.”2 It also reflects the
complexity and subsequent strategic need for self-promotion described by Blanton director
Simone Wicha. Negotiation of diverse perspectives is integral to effective management of work.
For the founding director, Joseph Grinnell, the museum was to be a center of authority as
a complete, well-documented, and accurate collection that would reflect the biological and
ecological diversity of the American West. For Annie Alexander, the largely autonomous
philanthropist who funded and administered the nascent museum, it “was a way of preserving a
vanishing nature, of making a record of that which was disappearing under the advance of
2
In his essay “Defining the Definition of the Academic Art Museum” Cuno cites Harvard University President Keohane.
Museum leader Cuno is, since 2011, the President and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, which among other tasks (the
philanthropic and cultural institution is also responsible for several museums) sponsors the OSCI.
2
civilization” (401). To amateur collectors who contributed their discoveries, it was a sentiment
shared with the director and primary patron/administrator that the “intrinsic beauty of nature
should be shared and protected” (401). And then, trappers and university bureaucrats alike had to
be convinced with monetary contributions of the significance of “specimens” they saw as pelts.
Boundary Objects.
A museum’s holdings and related work are boundary objects: what it contains, its artifacts and
their context within and outside of the museum; its objectively and subjectively perceived or
utilized contents. The authors are more specific: four types of boundary objects include
repositories (museums and libraries), idealized representations (atlases and catalogues), actual
zones or regions that can mean many things to different people (like the state of California),
which they call coincident boundaries, and standardized forms that would encompass deed of
accession and conservator evaluations.
In natural history work, boundary objects are produced when sponsors, theorists and amateurs
collaborate to produce representations of nature. Among these objects are specimens, field notes,
museums and maps of particular territories. Their boundary nature is reflected by the fact that
they are simultaneously concrete and abstract, specific and general, conventionalized and
customized. (408)
Translation.
Star and Griesemer discuss translation as a means to negotiate meaning: “To meet the scientific
goals of the museum,” the authors explain, “the trick of translation required two things: first,
developing, teaching, and enforcing a clear set of methods to ‘discipline’ the information
obtained by collectors, trappers, and other non-scientists; and generating a series of boundary
objects which would maximize both the autonomy and communication between worlds” (404).
Grinnell, to be sure, was responsible for positioning and coordinating the many other
actors around him, deploying them and guiding the specific form their motivations took in order
to be able to put them to the best use for his needs. In “The Museum Conscience,” he wrote:
3
The scientific museum… is a storehouse of facts, arranged accessibly and supported by the
written records and labeled specimens to which they pertain. The purpose of a scientific museum
is realized whenever some group of its contained facts is drawn upon for studies leading to
publication. The investment of human energy in the formation and maintenance of a research
museum is justified only in proportion to the amount of real knowledge which is derived from its
materials and given to the world. (107, my emphasis)
The work done in science and art museum models is relatable. Connections are evident in
similarities amongst parties involved and in the value and ephemerality, and correlating needs for
study and preservation, of collections and the objects that comprise them. In a cheeky aside, Star
and Griesemer suggest: “(‘Without a label,’ says one zoologist friend, ‘a specimen is just dead
meat’)” (401)... Or it’s just any old Brillo box, I imagine Arthur Danto would rejoin.
Conceptualization of the museum as a shared and diversely meaningful or significant
network of objects that are translated amongst a disparate set of actors, which operates according
to and negotiates engagement from its supporters, also explains a certain amount of ambiguity
implicit in Museum Studies: a single explanation of how even a discrete collection works is
virtually impossible. The question persists: how do they demonstrate this complexity?
Noise + Interference.
A major aspect of the museum is its public interface, which extends well beyond its contents to
their support and presentation. And yet this aspect may be treated as invisible. Mieke Bal asserts
the need to be explicit about the museum's presence in exhibition spaces, to acknowledge its
“noise” especially if it is white (“Exposing the Public,” 525).
Bal does just so - in revealing “neutral” characteristics as neutralizing rather than
unbiased in themselves - by challenging assumptions, the ways we tend to reify the museum. But
first, she expands on this concept of noise in the museum-viewer relationship: To begin, the act
of addressing viewers turns the exhibition into dialogue with them. This she called “second
personhood,” and asks whether the public is unified or fractured - whether the second person is
addressed by or receives the exhibition as an individual or as a member of her viewing group.
4
Second is the institutional problem of framing for the viewer as potentially productive - framing
defined by unavoidable “givens” she arrives or is provided with, including historicity, biography,
aesthetic implications of the hanging or placements and ambiance of gallery space, and
exhibition (or collection) thematics.3 But progress might come when the museum or curator
agrees to “do away with unity,” (533) to exemplify the decentralization of knowledge by
displaying art in an unexpected, difficult way.
James Cuno suggests another way to think about destabilization, arguing that the
enactment of de-centering is an essential aspect of all art museums:
Art museums are, or should be, instruments for slowing us down and encouraging our skeptical
inquiry into simplistic notions of cultural identities... they do do good in our society, even if the
good that they do cannot be known, demonstrated, measured, or justified in terms of particular
social benefits. (“Why Art Museums are Essential,” 54-55)
Cuno cites Simone Weil’s description of the effect of great art: “at the moment we see something
beautiful, we (in her words) ‘give up our imaginary position at the center... A transformation
then takes place at the very root of our sensibility, in our immediate reception of sense
impressions and psychological impressions’” (54). However Bal argues further - that art cannot
necessarily overcome the naturalizing and neutralizing framing and “givens” on its own, and she
is eager to encourage museums to unsettle the viewing experience they have flattened too
extremely.
This brings us to her third point: Bal sees exhibitions as a form of translation, hearkening
back to Star and Griesemer, but she describes her concept as the "status of the visual beyond
visualism" (526). For her, translation “in the sense of transference” means “to conduct through,
beyond, to the other side of a division or difference” (526). And she divides this further into
three ways translation works and can be exploited. First she discusses translation, generally
3
Bal, p. 532.
5
conceived as impoverished in comparison to the original, as perhaps instead - or more
importantly - enriched by dissipation. Even entropy and loss can contribute (positively), help to
build a new understanding or provide new insight into what the original is, how it works.
Second, translation bridges an irreducible span between source- and target-objects. The
unbridge-able difference remains, as scar that yield add complexity, significance, value. And
translation has metaphorical properties that facilitate a plurality of meanings and potential
significance. There are no limits to what an audience - individually or as a group, though the
possibilities are particularly vast in the case of the former - can and will perceive or interpret.
Translation + Information.
On the other hand, information scientist Elaine Svenonius discusses perceived non-translatability
of visual media into textual representation thereof through subject access terms, the standard
method by which art is represented in database catalogues. Ultimately she calls for more research
into alternative access points that will function more effectively. Megan Winget responds with an
analysis of models for representation that account for its unstable meaning and subjectivity. For
accurately cataloguing art in its diversity, the subject field itself is simply unsatisfactory, she
argues. Amongst other substantial flaws, its singularity denies the potential for multiple
meanings – the subject field is simply “tasked with too many jobs.”4
The limited subject access field, which is the primary and required field, suggests a very
reductive model of scholarship. What is needed is nothing short of an overhaul of our model for
representation in cataloguing visual resources to reflect the depth and complexity of art as well
as scholarship. Winget calls on Professor David Summers, from whom she takes the idea that
effective representation systems demand a prioritization of “real space” (22)5 occupied by a
4
“Describing Art: An Alternative Approach to Subject Access and Interpretation,” 11.
5
Real Spaces: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism.
6
given object, and inclusion of a diverse set of (literal and symbolic) cultural “values” – citation
status, structural, content and contextual information.
Successful representation fundamentally implies a social construct: an object cannot possess
meaning unless its viewers accept the denotative qualities of that image or object…Given this
cultural focus, the job of the surrogate representation, whether that is a scholarly manuscript or
catalog entry, the becomes to re-place that artifact in the context of its creation. (21)
Digitization improves our ability to incorporate both visual and textual representations into
catalogues, to amend entries with information about provenance as well as subsequent use
through citation records. It allows and encourages us to acknowledge the (“inherently
morphological”) nature of scholarship as well as that of art and cultural artifacts themselves.
Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative (OSCI).
“Digital publishing is the future for museums.”6
Sponsored by the Getty and launched in 2008, the Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative (OSCI)
has evolved over the last four years in a variety of directions, especially as the nine participating
museums have continued to tailor their projects according to their materials, needs, and available
resources.7 The initiative drew me to the concept of the catalogue as an intervention in terms of
museum self-representation, work, ecology; how it conceives of itself…
Beyond the White Cube: Catalogue as intervention.
As the OSCI has been implemented in a number of different ways, a variety of models and
published catalogues have come of it. But I would like to ground further discussions of the Art
Institute of Chicago and the Tate’s work in the context of the OSCI’s January 2012 interim
report, Moving Museum Catalogues Online.
6
Moving Museum Catalogues Online, An Interim Report from the Getty Foundation, “Opportunities.” Last accessed
May 11, 2012: http://www.getty.edu/foundation/pdfs/osci_interimreport_2012.pdf. p. 8.
7
The nine include the Art Institute of Chicago; the Arthur M. Sackler and Freer Gallery of Art; the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art; the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D. C.; the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; the Seattle
Art Museum; Tate Gallery; the Walker Art Center; and of course the J. Paul Getty Museum.
7
The cataloguing initiative aims to address what the Getty describes as the lack of
successful transition to online collection catalogues, which is part and parcel of the observation
that "going digital requires a profound rethinking of the ways in which art historical content can
be interactively organized, maintained, updated, and ultimately, used."8 The newly enhanced
catalogue should be able to incorporate up-to-date scholarly writing and information, especially
new discoveries, and to link to local information like the museum's home page and potentially
even other organizations, collaborators, artists, other digital catalogues.
“To publish online successfully, museums need to create, store, retrieve, transform,
combine, and disseminate data” (18).9 This demands up-to-date internal records of holdings work represented in real time has to be recorded that way. And these records, participating
institutions seem to have come to see in the course of implementing the project, actually should
reflect those aspects of artifacts for which Summers and Winget advocate inclusion in more
comprehensive and relevant cataloguing of visual representations discussed above. Digital
representations and descriptions of the “real space” of objects in their original or digitized forms
are some of the most compelling offerings of the OSCI report to date.10
Best practices for digital representation in web design are incorporated in the idea records
must also be as “clean” as possible: Nick Honeysett of the Getty Museum explains:
The best approach is the separation of data, its transformation, and its presentation. This modular
approach is fundamental to how [museums] are going to survive and be productive . . . as the
platforms that we disseminate to are constantly evolving and changing. (18)11
8
The Getty Foundation, Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative. Last accessed May 11, 2012:
http://www.getty.edu/foundation/funding/access/current/online_cataloging.html.
9
Ibid (“Lesson 3: Understand Your Content.”)
10
See for example the video of conservator drawings and X-ray images at the AIC. “Interpretive Resource,” last
accessed May 13, 2012: http://www.artic.edu/aic/resources/resource/1980
11
The Getty Foundation, Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative.
8
Catalogue formatting is important to catalogue reading or readings, and it must be flexible. This
re-conceptualization of the catalogue also echoes Grinnell’s advocacy for the publication:
The publication of scholarly catalogues has long been a critical part of a museum’s mission. Based
on meticulous research, they make available detailed information about the individual works in a
museum’s collection, forming the building blocks for a museum’s public activities and ensuring the
contents a place in art history.12
And Grinnell’s assertion is especially interesting in light of the College Art Association's rather
recent announcement that it now recommends "colleges and universities consider the following
forms of publication (whether in print or electronic format) equivalent to single-authored books
as vehicles of scholarly productivity... essays and substantial entries in museum collections or
exhibition catalogues."13 Scholarship and publication continue to evolve with the museum,
evidence that reciprocal relationships are valuable, likely mutually beneficial.
Art Institute of Chicago: Monet + Renoir.
The Art Institute of Chicago actually has a substantial history of publishing collection catalogues
in print, so its OSCI mission began as one of simply learning how to digitize the traditional
process as well as the publication. The AIC ultimately aimed to incorporate the process
established by this project, in terms of methodology and workflow, into its standard best
cataloguing practices:
... to develop a digital authoring and publishing environment that will have enough flexibility to
facilitate the production of this volume as well as future catalogues of other groupings from the
museum's collection.14
It became clear almost immediately that this was not just a matter of defining parameters of the
online catalogue and distributing work it would take to achieve. Implications for workflow,
12
Moving Museum Catalogues Online, An Interim Report from the Getty Foundation, “Introduction.” Last accessed
May 11, 2012: http://www.getty.edu/foundation/pdfs/osci_interimreport_2012.pdf.
http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/tenure.
Neely and Quigley. “Online Scholarly Catalogues at the Art Institute of Chicago: From Planning to Implementation.”
13 “STANDARDS FOR RETENTION AND TENURE OF ART HISTORIANS.” Last accessed May 11, 2012:
14
Museums and the Web 2011. Philadelphia, PA: April 5-9, 2011. Last accessed May 13, 2012:
http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/online_scholarly_catalogues_at_the_art_institu
9
internal communication, record-making and record-keeping, and self-representation trickled
from challenges to the traditional organizational structure of the museum into highly technical
choices, interactions with and between records and content management systems. Ultimately,
what it means to provide a “360-degree view” of a Monet has challenged the museum to look
more closely at itself as an institution.
The Tate: Defining Digital Canon.
The Tate was from the start interested in expanding the notion of the catalogue itself, from that
of a highly curated publication to a public online portal into the national museum’s collection.
How does the museum represent itself digitally? Or incorporate its online visitors' needs? The
Tate faced the question of how to digitize and share its canonical collection with visitors in a
way that respected and took advantage of decentralization of authority allowed by the Internet.
In doing so it sought out and experimented with ways to foreground interference of the
interface, and the representational qualities of the digital copies of its holdings. Indexing and
cataloging, methods of representing the original artwork were all really integral to the museum's
technologists' vision and efforts: how or what to try to convey, to translate the aura, that “real
space” and context of the work. “We concluded there was significant, fruitful space between a
reproduction and the real thing, and strove to imagine it and build it.” James Davis, the Tate’s
web developer, continues:
So, a flexible, rich and powerful system, as described by De Caro et al (2010), but based on
different ways of looking. Content prioritised by the visitor, and a shift in authorship control
away from the institution, shared more with the artist and the visitor. 15
Theoretically, success at expanding the ecology beyond the museum's walls might look like The
Tate Online: in cataloging and indexing, sharing these terms and this structure, but also in
15
Davis, James. Museums and the Web 2011. Art & Artists. Philadelphia, PA: April 5-9, 2011. Last accessed May 11,
2012: http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/art_artists.
10
allowing visitors to rearrange and "author" their own collections. Essentially, “The very role of
the museum was clearly beginning to change, from keeper to sharer.”16
Intervention and documentation: Hammer Museum // Machine Project
It may be helpful, from these abstracted discussions of museum space and collection catalogues
and records, to return to the real space itself, as Bal challenges it. Though she has implemented
museum interference herself, as described in “Exposing the Public,” her concepts were enacted
in a large-scale intervention at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles, which was planned and
performed between June 2009 and December 2010 by Machine Project, a local storefront gallery
and art collective led by director and artist Mark Allen. The Hammer had just received a million
dollar grant from the James Irvine Foundation, which was intended to fund an initiative "to
create a new model for visitor engagement, conceived and driven by artists."17
Machine Project was invited to be the first Public Engagement Artist in Residence
(A.I.R.) and ambitious plans were laid. These culminated in the execution of 26 projects, some of
which occurred only once and others that were ongoing, and involved upwards of 300 artists.18
The projects themselves were extremely diverse in nature and in implementation. The “Dream
In,” for example, was a one-time project described in the Machine Project’s final report as:
Museum-wide
May 1–2 (overnight), 2010
A total of 170 people signed up to spend the night in the Hammer courtyard and collect any
dreams that occurred during their stay. The evening, organized by artist Adam Overton and
facilitated by a group of 25 local artist-psychonauts, was offered in conjunction with the
Hammer’s special exhibition of Carl Jung’s Red Book...19
16
Ibid.
“A.I.R. Machine Project Artist in Residence: About the Residency.” Last accessed May 13, 2012:
http://hammer.ucla.edu/residencies/detail/residency_id/14.
18 Machine Project Public Engagement Artist in Residency Report, “Getting Started: Public Engagement A.I.R. at the
17
Hammer,” by Allison Agsten. p. 8. Last accessed May 10, 2012:
http://machineproject.com/files/pdf/Machine_Project_Public_Engagement_Artist_in_Residence_Report_compressed.pd
f
19
Machine Project Public Engagement Artist in Residency Report, “Project Descriptions,” pp.18-19. Last accessed May
10, 2012:
11
The participants were awoken and asked whether they remembered their dreams by the artists,
who recorded video footage of the sleepy dreamers’ responses. The video was edited and
projected in the museum’s lobby the next day. This and other projects were complemented by
acoustic, social, and physical interventions in the ways patrons and administrators conceived of,
used and navigated the space of the museum, and how they experience it.
As the intervention’s mission was, above all, to challenge and change the way the
museum saw (and treated) visitors, an important and rich aspect of this intervention for Machine
and the Hammer was experimentation with potentially democratized, or artistic or imaginative
forms of documentation, suggestions for future memory. The final records, documented in and
beyond the report (in addition to summary descriptions like the above), involved transcriptions of
interviews and videos recorded and edited during the interventions. Each organization continues
to maintain a website that offers more information about projects in the forms of videos and
commentary. This curated, published archive frames the way we see the intervention, and
memories and patterns established then are part of the “givens” according to which the Hammer
and Machine enter and build new framing mechanisms.
Conclusion.
The Machine Report, in the end, extends into a discussion of museum archives. In advocating for
active record-making, they hope to “underscore the politics of memory by illustrating how
communities’ practices of self-documentation constitute interventions into the field of cultural
and collective memory. To create records from the space of the self is to create ‘evidence of me,’
to become a speaking subject in the Archive.”20 The facture of these records cannot be
http://machineproject.com/files/pdf/Machine_Project_Public_Engagement_Artist_in_Residence_Report_compressed.pd
f
20
Machine Project Public Engagement Artist in Residency Report, “The Experiential Record, or How to Do Things with
Representation,” by Andrew J. Lau. p. 187. Last accessed May 10, 2012:
12
predetermined or set in stone, but should evolve. Even the International Council of Museums
suggests implicitly: “The definition of a museum has evolved in line with developments in
society.”21 It cannot be teased from its social, cultural context.
At a moment of disjuncture or disturbance, when a foreign force is introduced into the
museum, its spaces, collections, and work can come into clearer focus. Cases of intervention help
us to better understand their dynamic, negotiated, and multi-faceted nature because they require a
coordinated position and response on the part of the museum. In order to instantiate themselves
digitally, to activate or enrich their online presences, museums have to look more closely at their
objects, processes, and services, how they share them, in order to translate themselves into a new
space. Translation has the potential to explode our notions of what the museum contains, its
work, and our experiences of it. The de-centering as conceived of central to art itself has begun
to bleed into its context, demonstrating the gaining traction of concepts fueling New Museology:
this not just in the museum itself, but in scholarly and general public resources the museum
produces.
Final Project.
I am unconvinced that my conclusions here mean anything at all. While I think there is some
interesting and valid application of Mieke Bal’s and, particularly, Susan Leigh Star’s work (on
translations as well as classification theories) to the ways museums are being asked to evolve (in
their self-representation and work more broadly), I think I can do better with their suggestions
and my discussion of implications thereof for cataloguing and representing art collections online.
Particularly, I would like to discuss translation in greater depth, drawing both from personal
experience and literary translation theory, as a means to understand the connection of the
http://machineproject.com/files/pdf/Machine_Project_Public_Engagement_Artist_in_Residence_Report_compressed.pd
f
21
13
physical and represented spaces. I would also like to introduce the flaneur/wanderer figure, as
soon as I can develop who this figure should be (myself?), and discuss how this figure’s
appearance (proliferation?) might inform the museum space and/or representations thereof. A
summer 2012 talk on wanderers past and present, given at The Observatory in Brooklyn, NY, by
Randolph and writer Maud Casey (whose book Flaneur is a work in progress) will doubtless also
inform my work this semester.
14
Works Cited.
Allen, et al. Machine Project Public Engagement Artist in Residency Report. Last accessed May 10,
2012:
http://machineproject.com/files/pdf/Machine_Project_Public_Engagement_Artist_in_Residence_Report_
compressed.pdf.
Bal, Mieke. “Exposing the Public.” In Macdonald, Sharon (ed.), A Companion to Museum Studies.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2011. p. 525-542.
College Art Association, “STANDARDS FOR RETENTION AND TENURE OF ART HISTORIANS.”
(“Adopted by the CAA Board of
Directors on February 21, 1996; revised in October 2002 and May 2005 and on October 25, 2009, and
May 2, 2010.” ) Last accessed May 11, 2012: http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/tenure.
Cuno, James. “Defining the Definition of the Academic Art Museum,” from Occasional Papers from the
Director’s Office of the Harvard University Art Museums, 1994.
Cuno, James. “Why Art Museums are Essential,” Museum News (June/July 2004), 28-55.
Davis, James. “Art & Artists.” Museums and the Web 2011. Philadelphia, PA: April 5-9, 2011. Last
accessed May 11, 2012: http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/art_artists.
The Getty Foundation, Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative. Last accessed May 11, 2012:
http://www.getty.edu/foundation/funding/access/current/online_cataloging.html.
“A.I.R. Machine Project Artist in Residence: About the Residency.” Hammer Museum. Last accessed
May 13, 2012: http://hammer.ucla.edu/residencies/detail/residency_id/14.
Joseph Grinnell’s Philosophy of Nature: Selected Writings of Nature. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1943.
“About the Residency: Machine Project Artist in Residence.” Hammer: Artist Residencies. Last accessed
May 11, 2012: http://hammer.ucla.edu/residencies/detail/residency_id/14.
Hedstrom, M., & King, J. L. Epistemic Infrastructure in the Rise of the Knowledge Economy. In B. Kahin
& D. Foray (Eds.), Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2006.
Machine Project Public Engagement Artist in Residency Report. Last accessed May 10, 2012:
http://machineproject.com/files/pdf/Machine_Project_Public_Engagement_Artist_in_Residence_Report_
compressed.pdf
“Museum Definition.” ICOM: The World Museum Community. Last accessed May 13, 2012:
http://icom.museum/who-we-are/the-vision/museum-definition.html.
Neely, Elizabeth and Sam Quigley. “Online Scholarly Catalogues at the Art Institute of Chicago: From
Planning to Implementation.” Museums and the Web 2011. Philadelphia, PA: April 5-9, 2011. Last
accessed May 13, 2012:
http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/online_scholarly_catalogues_at_the_art_institu
15
“Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative.” The Getty Foundation. Last accessed May 13, 2012:
http://www.getty.edu/foundation/funding/access/current/online_cataloging.html
Moving Museum Catalogues Online, An Interim Report from the Getty Foundation. Last accessed May
11, 2012: http://www.getty.edu/foundation/pdfs/osci_interimreport_2012.pdf.
Star, Susan Leigh and James R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects:
Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” from Social Studies
of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), p. 387-420.
Svenonius, Ellen. “Access to nonbook materials: the limits of subject indexing for visual and aural
languages” from Journal of the American Society for Information, Volume 45 Issue 8, Sept. 1994.
Winget, Megan. "Describing art: an alternative approach to subject access and interpretation," Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 65 Issue: 6, p. 958 – 976, 2009.
16