search

linked-art / linked.art

Development of a specification for linked data in museums, using existing ontologies and frameworks to build usable, understandable APIs
https://linked.art/
Other
90 stars 13 forks source link

Consider performance art #272

Open azaroth42 opened 4 years ago

azaroth42 commented 4 years ago

Some examples:

Noted that CRM does not have Audio- or AudioVisualItem, to parallel VisualItem. Could be challenging, but is needed.

Tagged defer and use-cases as a reminder to collect more examples and expertise, such that we can hit the ground running when we get to this. Consensus from F2F2 was that this should be considered after Exhibitions.

beaudet commented 6 months ago

should discuss replace defer as a label on this issue now?

rpiening commented 3 months ago

Is this issue still deferred? The RKD is currently working on adding performance art to her database. This will require some reworking of our internal data structure and we'd like to anticipate the translation to linked (art) data in parallel.

It's the (concept of the) performance itself our art historians want to describe, not the registration (video/photo/otherwise) of it. We'd prefer to stick as closely as possible to the pattern used for other artworks, but "HumanMadeObject" is perhaps a bit of a stretch. Does Linked Art have a stance on this yet? Would also love to discuss this further within this group.

As for examples, I haven't seen any performance art modeled in cidoc-crm yet? There is however a Dutch effort to model 'stage arts' in RDA which is very interesting.

PS the same question goes for conceptual art

azaroth42 commented 3 months ago

Happy to discuss here in the comments, or on the calls once we have 1.0 finalized (or no issues left to discuss for it).

My opinion on modeling:

I believe this would scale to other types of performance as well, such as theatre, opera, dance or similar.

In this way you can have different performers carrying out the same performance art piece at different times and places. My favorite one is the when the performer is in the guise of a security guard in a regular gallery but dances and does other non-security-guard like things :)

beaudet commented 3 months ago

for compare / contrast / discussion, would an example of a photographic print created from a negative provide a physical parallel to the conceptual object in the performance realm so the JSON modeling of each can be seen together?

azaroth42 commented 3 months ago

The negative is still physical though, if you can positively identify it as an individual object. For that case we have a documented pattern: https://linked.art/model/object/production/#reproduction-from-an-identifiable-source

beaudet commented 3 months ago

So it sounds correct to say that the main difference between modeling performance art vs. art hanging on walls is the conceptual vs. physical difference and the associated CDOC classes that address these entities differently?

azaroth42 commented 3 months ago

Yep -- the core philosophical difference is that a painting is completely present at any given point in time, whereas at a mathematically precise point in time performance art can only be said to be in progress or not -- an endurant versus a perdurant. Performance art instances have a beginning time and end time, and each then instantiates some abstract set of stage directions or concept (depending on how convoluted it is, and how much is up to the performer), whereas physical art objects can be created and destroyed, but otherwise are (modulo conservation or vandalism) static things.

Which is why we've deferred discussion of them, as they're quite separate from physical art, and more akin to the (much easier to discuss) exhibitions and other events.

rpiening commented 3 months ago

Interesting points. Good to know in advance that per LA, performance art falls into an entirely different pattern than physical artworks. To confirm my understanding, the abstract work of the performance would be a propositional object, as per the base model?