Comments for jim ridolfo http://rid.olfo.org rhetoric, technology, practice Fri, 13 May 2011 17:43:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Yale and mass-digitization: Creating open access policies sans cultural stakeholders? by ridolfo http://rid.olfo.org/2011/05/huh-cultural-permission-to-digitize/comment-page-1/#comment-2233 ridolfo Fri, 13 May 2011 17:43:16 +0000 http://rid.olfo.org/?p=422#comment-2233 Hi Alyssa, Many thanks for your thoughtful and most informative response. I'm happy to learn about these internal efforts to make Yale's holdings more accessible for particular stakeholder groups. I wonder though just how many different cultural stakeholder groups are impacted by this kind of mass-digitization effort. Some of my work looks at the circulation of staged protest images (image events) over an extended period of time (five years), and the eventual negative appropriation of those images several years later (I'd be happy to send a chapter). I do fully expect that this project will have immediate, tangible benefits for interested scholars and some cultural stakeholder communities. There may even be a renewed focus, interest, and raised awareness about particular collections (This was the case for our Samaritan project, and one of reasons our cultural and scholarly stakeholders were interested in the project moving forward); however, I'm still skeptical about the long term consequences of combining a blanket CC BY-3.0 license with open access and mass digitization. I do hope that my skepticism turns out to be unnecessary. Regards, Jim Hi Alyssa,

Many thanks for your thoughtful and most informative response. I’m happy to learn about these internal efforts to make Yale’s holdings more accessible for particular stakeholder groups. I wonder though just how many different cultural stakeholder groups are impacted by this kind of mass-digitization effort. Some of my work looks at the circulation of staged protest images (image events) over an extended period of time (five years), and the eventual negative appropriation of those images several years later (I’d be happy to send a chapter). I do fully expect that this project will have immediate, tangible benefits for interested scholars and some cultural stakeholder communities. There may even be a renewed focus, interest, and raised awareness about particular collections (This was the case for our Samaritan project, and one of reasons our cultural and scholarly stakeholders were interested in the project moving forward); however, I’m still skeptical about the long term consequences of combining a blanket CC BY-3.0 license with open access and mass digitization. I do hope that my skepticism turns out to be unnecessary.

Regards,

Jim

]]> Comment on Yale and mass-digitization: Creating open access policies sans cultural stakeholders? by Alyssa Mt. Pleasant http://rid.olfo.org/2011/05/huh-cultural-permission-to-digitize/comment-page-1/#comment-2229 Alyssa Mt. Pleasant Fri, 13 May 2011 01:25:07 +0000 http://rid.olfo.org/?p=422#comment-2229 Hi, I thought that I would comment briefly on your statement "Right now, I see Yale tailoring its efforts to the needs of scholars and publishers. I don’t see Yale making an overt effort to tailor the digitization of its collections to cultural stakeholders." It's understandable to me that you wouldn't see these types of efforts taking place because the University doesn't necessarily issue press releases when projects tailored to meet the needs of tribal communities are realized. That said, there is an important on-going digitization project, the Yale Indian Papers Project (http://www.library.yale.edu/yipp/index.html), that you might enjoy perusing. I also happen to know of two recent cases where a curator at the Beinecke Library went out of his way to work with members of Native communities to share digital images, and did so in a way that met the distinct needs of those communities. During this academic year, I can think of three additional visits by prominent Native people (scholars, activists, and community members), where curators extended themselves and facilitated access to collections of particular interest to these individuals. While it's true that these efforts are not part of an organized program to facilitate digital access, they do speak to a significant commitment to welcome Native people into the archives should they become aware of the collections and make their way to New Haven. In addition to supporting occasional visits, curators and archivists, as well as staff members in the instructional technology group, have worked with me to develop the beta version of an American Indian Studies Resources portal (http://aisresources.commons.yale.edu) that is intended to facilitate awareness of and access to collections. This particular project benefits from professional staff members' commitment to supporting the research efforts of students and scholars, many of whom are themselves Native people who have a very real stake in this work. Can Yale do more? Certainly. Will the institution do more in the future? I hope so. Respectfully, Alyssa Mt. Pleasant (Tuscarora) Assistant Professor of American Studies and History Yale University Hi,

I thought that I would comment briefly on your statement “Right now, I see Yale tailoring its efforts to the needs of scholars and publishers. I don’t see Yale making an overt effort to tailor the digitization of its collections to cultural stakeholders.”

It’s understandable to me that you wouldn’t see these types of efforts taking place because the University doesn’t necessarily issue press releases when projects tailored to meet the needs of tribal communities are realized. That said, there is an important on-going digitization project, the Yale Indian Papers Project (http://www.library.yale.edu/yipp/index.html), that you might enjoy perusing.

I also happen to know of two recent cases where a curator at the Beinecke Library went out of his way to work with members of Native communities to share digital images, and did so in a way that met the distinct needs of those communities. During this academic year, I can think of three additional visits by prominent Native people (scholars, activists, and community members), where curators extended themselves and facilitated access to collections of particular interest to these individuals. While it’s true that these efforts are not part of an organized program to facilitate digital access, they do speak to a significant commitment to welcome Native people into the archives should they become aware of the collections and make their way to New Haven.

In addition to supporting occasional visits, curators and archivists, as well as staff members in the instructional technology group, have worked with me to develop the beta version of an American Indian Studies Resources portal (http://aisresources.commons.yale.edu) that is intended to facilitate awareness of and access to collections. This particular project benefits from professional staff members’ commitment to supporting the research efforts of students and scholars, many of whom are themselves Native people who have a very real stake in this work.

Can Yale do more? Certainly. Will the institution do more in the future? I hope so.

Respectfully,
Alyssa Mt. Pleasant (Tuscarora)
Assistant Professor of American Studies and History
Yale University

]]> Comment on Yale and mass-digitization: Creating open access policies sans cultural stakeholders? by Jim Ridolfo http://rid.olfo.org/2011/05/huh-cultural-permission-to-digitize/comment-page-1/#comment-2228 Jim Ridolfo Thu, 12 May 2011 19:57:04 +0000 http://rid.olfo.org/?p=422#comment-2228 Hi Angela, First, thank you for your wonderful insights. I completely agree with most of what you describe, and particularly that "open access to archival and museum materials means that indigenous people (and others) who do not have the scholarly credentials required to access these items may be able to have the same sort of access that we academics have long enjoyed." However, I know of no technical reason why this kind of digital access for cultural stakeholders may also be provided through a limited access archive (for example http://www.rrnpilot.org). Why open access for all collections? Is this simply an issue of expediency? This won't be universal by any means, but based on my work with the Samaritans I think that building digital archives to meet the needs of scholarly stakeholders is an opportunity for institutions to build relationships through collections. Furthermore, it's an opportunity for communities to learn what institutions have, and to do UX/UCD design with those communities around digitization. It's also an opportunity to explore a particular communities values around digitization. While a lot of good may inadvertently come out of digitizing <em>everything</em> in Yale's collection and providing open access to collections, I don't agree that open access automatically means the right for anyone to remix or redistribute. I primarily see a major problem (though nice intentions) with the blanket <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" rel="nofollow">CC-BY 3.0</A> license (the story appears to have been wrong about the CC-BY-NC-SA). Re: <em>Would it be better for museums and other repositories to categorically return items of cultural patrimony without engaging in lengthy debates and discussions about preservation and shared heritage?Probably. </em> I think it's important to ask these questions, sure. I also think that it's useful for the institution to ask the cultural stakeholders what would be useful for them, re: digitization. How can such efforts be tailored to meet <em>their needs.</em> Right now, I see Yale tailoring its efforts to the needs of scholars and publishers. I don't see Yale making an overt effort to tailor the digitization of its collections to cultural stakeholders. The conversation needs to change. Hi Angela,

First, thank you for your wonderful insights. I completely agree with most of what you describe, and particularly that “open access to archival and museum materials means that indigenous people (and others) who do not have the scholarly credentials required to access these items may be able to have the same sort of access that we academics have long enjoyed.”

However, I know of no technical reason why this kind of digital access for cultural stakeholders may also be provided through a limited access archive (for example http://www.rrnpilot.org). Why open access for all collections? Is this simply an issue of expediency?

This won’t be universal by any means, but based on my work with the Samaritans I think that building digital archives to meet the needs of scholarly stakeholders is an opportunity for institutions to build relationships through collections. Furthermore, it’s an opportunity for communities to learn what institutions have, and to do UX/UCD design with those communities around digitization. It’s also an opportunity to explore a particular communities values around digitization.

While a lot of good may inadvertently come out of digitizing everything in Yale’s collection and providing open access to collections, I don’t agree that open access automatically means the right for anyone to remix or redistribute. I primarily see a major problem (though nice intentions) with the blanket CC-BY 3.0 license (the story appears to have been wrong about the CC-BY-NC-SA).

Re: Would it be better for museums and other repositories to categorically return items of cultural patrimony without engaging in lengthy debates and discussions about preservation and shared heritage?Probably.

I think it’s important to ask these questions, sure. I also think that it’s useful for the institution to ask the cultural stakeholders what would be useful for them, re: digitization. How can such efforts be tailored to meet their needs. Right now, I see Yale tailoring its efforts to the needs of scholars and publishers. I don’t see Yale making an overt effort to tailor the digitization of its collections to cultural stakeholders. The conversation needs to change.

]]> Comment on Yale and mass-digitization: Creating open access policies sans cultural stakeholders? by Angela Pulley Hudson http://rid.olfo.org/2011/05/huh-cultural-permission-to-digitize/comment-page-1/#comment-2226 Angela Pulley Hudson Thu, 12 May 2011 14:26:42 +0000 http://rid.olfo.org/?p=422#comment-2226 Hi there- I was directed to your blog in a post by Qwo-Li Driskill. I read with interest your reaction to the Yale initiative. I certainly agree with your concerns regarding the absence of consent on the part of cultural stakeholders. But let me suggest another way to look at this. As you know, current federal legislation requires that federally-funded institutions (like universities and their associated collections) identify items in their holdings that are eligible for repatriation and make the appropriate tribal communities aware of these materials so that they can initiate the process of repatriation should they choose to do so (and many tribal communities choose not to). However, since many of the items (particularly artistic and archival materials but also including some more traditional museum objects) being digitized as part of this initiative are not covered under existing legislation regarding repatriation, their very existence or at least their location is likely unknown to the general public, including the tribal communities whose histories/cultures are reflected. Even if these communities and individuals knew of the existence, location, and status of these materials, their access to them has historically been anything but open or democratic. Instead, obtaining access to these collections generally requires a) the money to travel to the various repositories where they are housed and b) appropriate academic credentials that would permit one to view and/or interact with the materials. In other words, museums, archives, and libraries have traditionally reinforced limited access to items of cultural patrimony (broadly conceived) to only a very privileged few. Thus, providing open access to these materials may begin to facilitate a process of discovery by which tribal communities (and other non-academic individuals and communities) can become aware of the existence and location of objects, documents, artworks, etc. that pertain to them. This, in turn, may facilitate broader discussions about what kinds of materials should and should not be in museums, libraries, and similar repositories, the responsbilities of such institutions to the communities represented by these items, and the appropriateness of pursuing repatriation for some of these items (whether or not they are covered by existing legislation). There are some amazing American Indian studies scholars at Yale, including both academic faculty and professional staff at the various collections, and they have been working very hard over the past few years to initiate and sustain these very conversations, even when they are deemed unwelcome by their colleagues and/or supervisors. Is it wrong for items such as Red Cloud's war bonnet (note: there are several of these floating around and provenance is not undisputed) to live at the Peabody museum instead of a Lakota community? Probably. Would it be better for museums and other repositories to categorically return items of cultural patrimony without engaging in lengthy debates and discussions about preservation and shared heritage? Probably. But these possbilities are far-off yet. In the meantime, open access to archival and museum materials means that indigenous people (and others) who do not have the scholarly credentials required to access these items may be able to have the same sort of access that we academics have long enjoyed. Despite the important issues you raise, issues which will undoubtedly be discussed more not less after the opening of these online collections, I believe the initiative is a valuable one. Respectfully, Angela Pulley Hudson Texas A&M, History p.s. In the interests of full disclosure, I completed my PhD at Yale and remain closely tied with faculty and staff there in AIS and other fields. Hi there-
I was directed to your blog in a post by Qwo-Li Driskill. I read with interest your reaction to the Yale initiative. I certainly agree with your concerns regarding the absence of consent on the part of cultural stakeholders. But let me suggest another way to look at this.
As you know, current federal legislation requires that federally-funded institutions (like universities and their associated collections) identify items in their holdings that are eligible for repatriation and make the appropriate tribal communities aware of these materials so that they can initiate the process of repatriation should they choose to do so (and many tribal communities choose not to). However, since many of the items (particularly artistic and archival materials but also including some more traditional museum objects) being digitized as part of this initiative are not covered under existing legislation regarding repatriation, their very existence or at least their location is likely unknown to the general public, including the tribal communities whose histories/cultures are reflected. Even if these communities and individuals knew of the existence, location, and status of these materials, their access to them has historically been anything but open or democratic. Instead, obtaining access to these collections generally requires a) the money to travel to the various repositories where they are housed and b) appropriate academic credentials that would permit one to view and/or interact with the materials. In other words, museums, archives, and libraries have traditionally reinforced limited access to items of cultural patrimony (broadly conceived) to only a very privileged few. Thus, providing open access to these materials may begin to facilitate a process of discovery by which tribal communities (and other non-academic individuals and communities) can become aware of the existence and location of objects, documents, artworks, etc. that pertain to them. This, in turn, may facilitate broader discussions about what kinds of materials should and should not be in museums, libraries, and similar repositories, the responsbilities of such institutions to the communities represented by these items, and the appropriateness of pursuing repatriation for some of these items (whether or not they are covered by existing legislation). There are some amazing American Indian studies scholars at Yale, including both academic faculty and professional staff at the various collections, and they have been working very hard over the past few years to initiate and sustain these very conversations, even when they are deemed unwelcome by their colleagues and/or supervisors. Is it wrong for items such as Red Cloud’s war bonnet (note: there are several of these floating around and provenance is not undisputed) to live at the Peabody museum instead of a Lakota community? Probably. Would it be better for museums and other repositories to categorically return items of cultural patrimony without engaging in lengthy debates and discussions about preservation and shared heritage? Probably. But these possbilities are far-off yet. In the meantime, open access to archival and museum materials means that indigenous people (and others) who do not have the scholarly credentials required to access these items may be able to have the same sort of access that we academics have long enjoyed. Despite the important issues you raise, issues which will undoubtedly be discussed more not less after the opening of these online collections, I believe the initiative is a valuable one.
Respectfully,
Angela Pulley Hudson
Texas A&M, History
p.s. In the interests of full disclosure, I completed my PhD at Yale and remain closely tied with faculty and staff there in AIS and other fields.

]]> Comment on Response to H.23 Remixing Delivery: Circulating Rhetorics and Rhetorical Circulations by Alex Red http://rid.olfo.org/2010/03/response-to-b-10-rhetoric-in-circulation-tracing-the-paths-of-discourse-in-the-public-sphere/comment-page-1/#comment-247 Alex Red Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:48:47 +0000 http://rid.olfo.org/?p=395#comment-247 This is a productive response to the panel Jim. Like Laurie, I see the value in getting more participant data, in the name of an ANT-like methodology or something similar. No doubt nonlinearity is not a new condition, though it seems that digital media has cast it in new relief for us. Arguably nonlinearity is the condition from which linearity might be captured. Of course data is always partial and reason is perhaps inescapably a process of abstraction, of moving away from the singularity of data toward the particular, the example, and the general. Moving in the other direction, I think about Latour's plasma as his version of the Deleuzian virtual, which connects back to the concepts of time Laurie was exploring in her presentation and Gage's use of DeLanda's meshworks. So I wonder if the call for new data you describe in your example and that Laurie seeks is a call for more points in the establishment of chronology, to be able to draw an arc that will resolve these questions. And in even further, in establishing chronology, is there a desire to describe the possible for future communications? Of course. To be clear, I am interested in such work and look forward to what you both uncover. At the same time, I suppose my own work tends toward the other pole, that which cannot be chronological. I am looking forward to productive intersections with what you are both up to. This is a productive response to the panel Jim. Like Laurie, I see the value in getting more participant data, in the name of an ANT-like methodology or something similar. No doubt nonlinearity is not a new condition, though it seems that digital media has cast it in new relief for us. Arguably nonlinearity is the condition from which linearity might be captured.

Of course data is always partial and reason is perhaps inescapably a process of abstraction, of moving away from the singularity of data toward the particular, the example, and the general. Moving in the other direction, I think about Latour’s plasma as his version of the Deleuzian virtual, which connects back to the concepts of time Laurie was exploring in her presentation and Gage’s use of DeLanda’s meshworks.

So I wonder if the call for new data you describe in your example and that Laurie seeks is a call for more points in the establishment of chronology, to be able to draw an arc that will resolve these questions. And in even further, in establishing chronology, is there a desire to describe the possible for future communications? Of course.

To be clear, I am interested in such work and look forward to what you both uncover. At the same time, I suppose my own work tends toward the other pole, that which cannot be chronological. I am looking forward to productive intersections with what you are both up to.

]]> Comment on Response to H.23 Remixing Delivery: Circulating Rhetorics and Rhetorical Circulations by Laurie Gries http://rid.olfo.org/2010/03/response-to-b-10-rhetoric-in-circulation-tracing-the-paths-of-discourse-in-the-public-sphere/comment-page-1/#comment-243 Laurie Gries Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:58:33 +0000 http://rid.olfo.org/?p=395#comment-243 Hi Jim. Thanks so much for posting this response. I am so sorry we ran out of time, preventing you from being able to deliver this response in full. I think we can learn a lot about practitioner knowledge about delivery from street artists such as Shepard Fairey for which distribution and circulation are key concerns. In terms of the Obama image I have been tracking, Fairey credits "viral circulation" for the Obama Hope image's iconic status. This explanation, however, as you mentioned in the panel to day is not very useful in helping us understand how this image circulated nor why it became so widely recognized. By enacting iconographic tracking, I have been able to unpack how it is that the Obama image went "viral." What I have found is that the unintended consequences emerging from the image's encounters with other people (and things) accelerated (and in some cases decelerated) the circulation of the image. Yet Fairey and Yosi Sargent, with whom Fairey worked closely, also employed extremely smart and deliberate guerilla marketing strategies to distribute the image in various genres and forms and locations. I have been trying to get in touch with both Fairey and Sargent to speak with them directly about these strategies and their relationships with the Obama Hope image, but haven't been able to speak with them yet. Iconographic tracking though can provide some of that story because tracking the consequences of this image makes visible some of the common tactics that were used. These tactics reveal that Fairey and Sargant were quite delivery-savvy. Talking to practitioners is one way to learn about their relationships with delivered artifacts, but we can also learn a lot from the artifacts themselves. By tracking them during circulation, we can make visible the relations they have/had with various people who contribute to their delivery. What I am advocating here is to think about artifacts as rhetoricians, who can reveal their relations with people to us. In making visible their stories of circulation, we can learn from them about the intricacies of delivery, distribution, and circulation. Anyway, thanks so much again for being part of our panel. I look forward to continuing this conversation... Hi Jim. Thanks so much for posting this response. I am so sorry we ran out of time, preventing you from being able to deliver this response in full.

I think we can learn a lot about practitioner knowledge about delivery from street artists such as Shepard Fairey for which distribution and circulation are key concerns. In terms of the Obama image I have been tracking, Fairey credits “viral circulation” for the Obama Hope image’s iconic status. This explanation, however, as you mentioned in the panel to day is not very useful in helping us understand how this image circulated nor why it became so widely recognized. By enacting iconographic tracking, I have been able to unpack how it is that the Obama image went “viral.” What I have found is that the unintended consequences emerging from the image’s encounters with other people (and things) accelerated (and in some cases decelerated) the circulation of the image. Yet Fairey and Yosi Sargent, with whom Fairey worked closely, also employed extremely smart and deliberate guerilla marketing strategies to distribute the image in various genres and forms and locations. I have been trying to get in touch with both Fairey and Sargent to speak with them directly about these strategies and their relationships with the Obama Hope image, but haven’t been able to speak with them yet. Iconographic tracking though can provide some of that story because tracking the consequences of this image makes visible some of the common tactics that were used. These tactics reveal that Fairey and Sargant were quite delivery-savvy.

Talking to practitioners is one way to learn about their relationships with delivered artifacts, but we can also learn a lot from the artifacts themselves. By tracking them during circulation, we can make visible the relations they have/had with various people who contribute to their delivery. What I am advocating here is to think about artifacts as rhetoricians, who can reveal their relations with people to us. In making visible their stories of circulation, we can learn from them about the intricacies of delivery, distribution, and circulation.

Anyway, thanks so much again for being part of our panel. I look forward to continuing this conversation…

]]>