Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:53:45.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Curators and their use of digital images

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Caroline McBride
Caroline McBride*
Affiliation:
E. H. McCormick Research Library, Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki, Cnr Wellesley and Kitchener Sts, PO Box 5449, Auckland, New Zealand
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

New Zealanders like to think of themselves as high users of the latest technology. Does this extend to digital imagery in the workplace? Curators at the Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki were surveyed regarding digital image sources, their use and the problems and opportunities they presented. They were found to be keen, adept users, satisfied with their technical and retrieval capabilities, and aware of issues relating to copyright and image storage. Happy with thumbnails in many instances, they employed the skills of the Gallery’s professional photographers when higher quality images were required. Looking at the move from analogue to digital, slide use was found to be negligible but reproductions in books and journals were still a favoured source. Disadvantages were downplayed and the positive impact of digital imagery was stressed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , 2006 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

1. See article by McBride, Caroline, ‘Curators and the art museum library: are we satisfying their particular information needs?’ ARLIS/ANZ journal, no. 58 (December 2004): 42–52.Google Scholar
2. The Auckland Art Gallery’s main building is soon to be redeveloped and will reopen in 2009.Google Scholar
3. Note re figures 1-3. The responses for each use, source and popular image website were added and weighted from 1 to 5 based on how often they took place or were consulted, so that a use, score or website could ‘score’ a minimum of 5 if each curator responded ‘never’ (i.e. 5x1) through to a maximum of 25 if all curators indicated daily involvement (i.e. 5 x 5).Google Scholar

Further reading

Brasher, Jennifer, ‘Queensland transition: providing relevant visual content,’ ARLIS/ANZ journal, no. 58 (2004): 60–67.Google Scholar
Elkins, James, ‘What are we seeing exactly?’ Art bulletin 79, no. 2 (1997): 191–198.Google Scholar
Graham, Margaret E. and Bailey, Christopher, ‘Digital images and art historians - Compare and contrast revisited,’ Art libraries journal 31, no. 3 (2006): 21–24.Google Scholar
Hershberger, Andrew E., ‘Art’s digital database(s): on flexibility and other potential benefits,’ CAA news 29, no. 5 (2004): 14–15.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, Corinne and Jorgensen, Peter, ‘Image querying by image professionals, ‘Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56, no. 12 (2005): 1346.Google Scholar
Sundt, Christine L., ‘The image user and the search for images,’ in Introduction to art image access: issues, tools, standards, strategies, ed. Baca, Murtha, 67-85 (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2005).Google Scholar
Sundt, Christine L., ‘The case for digital images,’ CAA news 29, no. 5 (2004): 1, 38–39.Google Scholar