Please mind the gap(s)!

Chances and challenges resulting from a scientific consideration of art as data

Abstract

Objective — The article examines challenges in the academic consideration of “art as data”. From the perspective of the library of an art academy, the compatibility of the systems of a) academia on the one hand and b) the arts on the other hand is examined. First case studies help to specify the data management requirements of the arts. Since even carefully managed data is not per se discoverable, publication types and classifications are examined in a second step. They play a central role in FAIR scholarly communication and are thus finally explored as basic carriers.

Methods — A comparative analysis relates the cataloging requirements of selected collections to established data management cycles. Cataloging effectiveness is then derived from a comparison of these requirements (Part 1) and existing work typologies and classifications (Part 2). The models and systems compared derive from literature and Internet research, a survey of the study programs (at the institute level) offered by the art academies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland and a review of the vocabularies or funding categories used by research funders in the countries under consideration.

Results — Incompatibilities and gaps in reference are particularly noticeable in the metadata coverage of artistic and creative work forms (typologies) and classification schemes. While missing work types affect the citability of artistic and creative works, gaps in classification make it difficult to (automatically) find the works even where they are available as data, and addressable e.g. via OAI-PMH interfaces. This lack of accessibility not only affects the quality of the information supply at art libraries. It can become detrimental when funding and/or subsidies are distributed on an impact basis and impact measurement is automated.

Conclusions — Although work typologies and classifications can be adapted and the citability of published works might be improved by means of persistent identifiers (Handle, DOI) and standardized data (GND, ORCID, VIAF, Wikidata ID). However, the impetus for this must come from the art academies (management level). Here, the systems and procedures that turn artistic and creative works into FAIR scientific sources, for example via research repositories, are only partially accepted. The primary target groups, the community of university members and researchers, do not perceive themselves as being taken seriously or well represented by the existing systems. They prefer publishing their data on their own term and/or channels they consider appropriate. Thus, records and indices from publication servers and repositories are patchy. If data produced at universities and/or cultural goods, that were offered but rejected, migrate to supposedly social (media) and/or commercial platforms, they become inaccessible for future research, teaching, and society.