Conservation and Preservation in the Digital Arts Age; Thoughts. WIth museum curators and conservators still struggling with how to preserve the works of Damien Hirst and Joseph Bueys, it seems that few have even begun to have the resources to begin considering how to deal with electronic / digital art. While there are many similarities, there are just as many differences. Below I will outline the current efforts on the part of conservators to address the preservation of digital art, review some thoughts of individuals in the field of creating digital art, and propose a few modest thoughts as to how we might move forward outside of the current efforts. The format of this document may feel a bit low-fi, and this is intentional. I have no interest in bringing my preconceptions to this dialogue. To start, I feel that it is important to give a short background on the current state of things. The best way do accomplish this is to outline the 5 major current strategies for preserving digital artwork: Documentation Documentation of new media art must not be a mere illustration, but an interpretation, an attitude. And to reflect this attitude, the documentation must be based on a structure similar to that of its subject's. The challenge of documentation with respect to a network-structured piece, made up of hyperlinks, non-linear in nature, would lie in attempting to propose a map, an interface to make it possible to explore the work, rather than in trying to capture the work or contain it. Storage The most conservative collecting strategyÑthe default strategy for most museumsÑis to store the work physically, whether that means mothballing dedicated equipment or archiving digital files on disk. Storing one of Flavin's fluorescent light installations simply means buying a supply of the out-of-production bulbs and putting them in a crate. The major disadvantage of storing obsolescent materials is that the artwork will expire once these ephemeral materials cease to function. Emulation To emulate a work is to devise a way of imitating the original look of the piece by completely different means. Emulating a Flavin fluorescent light installation would require custom-building fluorescent bulbs that produce the same light as and resemble the physical appearance of the original bulbs. Possible disadvantages of emulation include prohibitive expensive and inconsistency with the artist's intent. For example, Flavin deliberately chose to use ordinary off-the-shelf components rather than esoteric materials or techniques. Migration To migrate an artwork involves upgrading equipment and source material. The obsolete fluorescent bulbs of Flavin's light installation could be upgraded to fluorescent or halogen lights of comparable hue and brightness. The major disadvantage of migration is the original appearance of the artwork will probably change in its new medium. Even if state-of-the-art fixtures cast similar light to Flavin's originals, the actual fixtures are likely to look different. Reinterpretation The most radical preservation strategy is to reinterpret the work each time it is re-created. To reinterpret a Flavin light installation would mean to ask what contemporary medium would have the metaphoric value of fluorescent light in the 1960s. Reinterpretation is a dangerous technique when not warranted by the artist, but it may be the only way to re-create performance, installation, or networked art designed to vary with context. Thoughts of the Pros (In Progress) " Fundamental to Tate's approach to the conservation of contemporary art is the notion that the artist's intent should guide our practice. Since most of the artists represented by this part of the collection are living, it is possible to interview them about the details of the installation, attitudes to changing technology, parameters of acceptable change and their views about what aspects of the installation are essential to preserve. This is a collaborative exercise that is predicated on the idea that a collector has the responsibility for the conservation of the work." " For much of contemporary art, meaning has shifted away from the unique and precious object and conservation practice has to reflect this and recognise different types of complexity and different types of vulnerability. As Bill Viola has said: 'As instruments of time, the materials of video, and by extension the moving image, has as part of their nature this fragility of temporal existence. Images are born, they are created, they exist and, in the flick of a switch they die." " Reflecting the move in contemporary art away from the material object, the conservator's role has changed to encompass a broader notion of what constitutes the preservation and care of an artwork. Conservation is no longer focused on intervening to repair the art object but has become concerned with documentation and determining what change is acceptable and managing those changes. In order to accurately install works in the future it is necessary to broaden our focus to include elements of an installation that affect the viewer's experience. This might mean documenting the space, the acoustics, the balance of the different channels of sound, the light levels and the way one enters and leaves the installation. These are as important as the more tangible or material elements in the conservation of the work." " Success is the ability to continue to display these works in accordance with the artist's intent. A conservator also has a responsibility to preserve the historical quality or character of the work both in relation to the history of contemporary art and the development of an artist's work throughout their lifetime. Although the conservation strategies employed may look very different from traditional conservation practice, their rationale has its roots in established notions of collections care and management." " This is a new area of conservation and as a profession our understanding and knowledge will deepen with time. All of these strategies work together to help to limit the risk of not being able to accurately install these works in the future. Deciding what can be changed and how to best care for any element of an installation will depend on its meaning and role. For both contemporary and traditional objects such decisions are documented by conservators and although the focus of the conservator may have moved away from the material object, the approach is still rooted in traditional notions of collection care." - Pip Laurenson / Tate London Richard Rinehart proposes a " System of Formal Notation for Scoring Works of Digital and Variable Media Art. This is a new approach to conceptualizing digital and media art forms. In these practices, higher-level meanings are manifested at lower levels of argument, symbolization, or concretization so that they can be manipulated and engaged, resulting in a new understanding of a theory or the formulation of new higher-level meaning. This practice is inherently interactive and cyclical." " The approach presented and explored here is intended to inform a better understanding of media art forms and to provide the lower level 'hooks' that support the creation, use and preservation of media art. In order to accomplish both of those goals, media art works will not be treated here as isolated and idealized entities, but rather as entities in the complex environment of the real world where they encounter various agents, life-cycle events, and practical concerns." - Richard Rinehart / UC Berkeley Why is a science-fiction writer cited here? Well, he gave an interesting presentation/lecture at the Guggenhiem Museum. He touched on some concepts of preservation such as storage, duplication, and emulation. Of course his style of presentation is a bit more poetic and rhetorical than most conservators' style. And he does not render up many ideas on how to solve these issues at hand. The one thing that he does touch on more than most is the decaying nature of pure data and of hardware. - Bruce Sterling / Dead Media Project Artist Thoughts (IN PROGRESS) - (Goldberg) Rinehart model - artists fill out detailed survey about what is important to preserve in their work when the medium evolves - (Napier) (on medium) I work in software. I consider Java and OpenGL to be my medium. The final presentation of the work (whether as a projection, or on a flat panel, or on the web) are different framings of the work. The artwork itself is actually the algorithm, the logical structure that generates the aesthetic experience. That's what I make, that's the "intellectual property" of the artwork. (on support) I haven't addressed this formally. I choose to support my work and keep it running but I don't have a written agreement with collectors. My work is deliberately simple, with minimal hardware that is easily replaced (ie. a standard laptop, a flat panel, no custom hardware), because I don't want to get into repairing customized hardware. (on technical difficulties) All technology has technological difficulties. It's just part of the process. There's no such thing as a "simple" program. Programming. software, computers are by their nature intensely complex systems. I did work with a video motion detection system in one piece and discovered that the ceiling of the room was too low for the camera to get a full field of view, and that daylight would reflect off the floor and change the cameras view of the area. I used a wider lens to (partially) correct the low ceiling, and adjusted the software settings to account for the daylight glare, but in the end I realized that this type of artwork requires very controlled environment. I decided to pursue interactive software instead, where I have more control and the hardware/software is much more tested and stable. With the work I make now I find the interface is the biggest challenge. The artwork has to communicate clearly and simply. The viewer has to be able to intuitively understand how to engage in the work (at least to how to begin engaging). I worked with motion detection briefly and considered other forms of sensors and detectors before I decided that the mouse was the best interface element because everybody already knows what a mouse is and how it works. It is a ubiquitous device that has become a recognizable standard. When people see a mouse they know that they are expected to interact with a piece and they already have some idea of how they might do that (ie. click, click and drag, double-click). And since a mouse is so common, the viewer does not focus on the mouse. They focus on what they can do within the artwork. (on background) I went to art school for a BFA in painting. I worked as a programmer when I got out of school (self taught). I make money by developing web-based database systems, mostly for the financial industry. I started making artwork for the web in 1995. (on longevity) Concerned may not be the right word. I'm intrigued by the desire for permanence. Art is supposed to be permanent. Many people believe software is by nature not permanent. Both beliefs are flawed. Many of my artworks explore this idea of permanence, and I look at the preservation of software as one aesthetic element of the work. Also, as an artist and a craftsman I want to be able to choose how long an artwork will last. Some are meant to be ephemeral while others are meant to last, and I look for ways to control that aspect of the work. Software is tricky, but with effort can potentially live far longer than material work (as a musical score can be faithfully performed centuries after the composer dies). I am concerned that ignorant people make broad and incorrect assumptions about the durability of software. And I'm frustrated by the scale of the task. I have a LOT of code that I'd like to archive, just as part of my own house-cleaning. (on preservation responsibility) Ideally someone else does this. The artist should be making art. In reality though it's up to the artist. I have not yet found (or heard of) an arts organization that has an even a rudimentary ability to archive digital artwork. It's a huge topic, and very daunting for arts institutions to even consider at this point. (on own thoughts) One reason paintings have propagated so widely in our culture is that painting is such a simple and standard technology. Anybody can install and understand a painting, at least on the physical level. At this time in history, digital art is growing rapidly and is in a very experimental stage. There are few standards. As much as artists dislike standards, art flourishes when the ground rules are very simple and accessible (ie. oil on canvas, brush and pigment, the plain white surface of the canvas -- all these are very simple forms). It's easy to begin painting, but it may take a lifetime to master. Eventually standards will arise in software and hardware, and that will change the landscape of digital art, both in terms of how it is made, and how it is preserved. - (Nairmark) (on approach) ItÕs always concept first. But with that said, the concepts I find most compelling usually deal with possibilities and implications of new technologies. (on support) Kick me, but I almost always need additional technical help Êfor my projects. So the way I address it is by making sure I have a good and honest relationship with my technical collaborators. (on technical difficulties) I work very hard to make sure my work is as bullet proof as possible. IÕd rather be conservative but working rather than risky and broken. (Not everyone agrees with this.) To me, itÕs about Òcalculated risk.Ó See [ http://tinyurl.com/9yq72 ] (on how you arrived at current skills) always researching and often making things. (on longevity of work) IÕve had the good fortune to have worked with Exploratorium people on some of my installations, where they helped make them exhibit-worthy. It was clear that experience counts here. I learned a lot but also learned to respect them. (on responsibility) Good question. I hadnÕt thought much about it until this past spring, when i had my first retrospective show, including works from the late 1970s. [ http://www.williamsongallery.net/naimark/ ] . I donÕt think an artist has the responsibility but it certainly helps if the artist gives it some thought. Modest Personal Thoughts My personal interest in this subject is as an artist working in the digital realm. I first became attracted to the subject when I was working on some artifacts and needed to install a light generating component to the piece. the other issue that spurred out of the posting below is: how involved are digital artists when it comes to preservation? and would a conservator need to be a computer scientist or engineer in order to have a dialogue with them? documentation, recreation and emulation all make logical sense. however the bigger issue that i can't find anyone addressing is: what background should digital art conservators have? do they need to be computer scientists or engineers? so that they can better work with artist.