For those of you who don’t know who she is (for shame!!!), Livia was the wife of Caesar Augustus, and the glue that held the Julio-Claudians together. She was suspected and accused of murder. She was declared a goddess. She was fantastic.

It took me a while to find an inkling of an idea that I could get behind and get excited about. But what I have pretty much decided to do is to see if I can prove a theory of mine regarding Livia’s portraiture using some kind of graph based on the numbers of portraits remaining of each of her portrait types. Simply put, I want to see if my theory regarding her usage as a part of Augustus’ visual propaganda can be seen from the visible remains and not from a formalist point of view.

Any suggestions or ways that I can diversify?

Copyright

I can understand wanting everything to be open source and without out copyright so that everything is all super easy to use. But, I also, very much understand wanting to protect, and in some instances profit from, the use of one’s “creation” whatever it may be. In my opinion, both sides have valid arguments.

Geri said that she wonders why scholars aren’t fighting to have their work open to the public. I agree that they really probably should fight for it. But I have to wonder myself if some of them don’t see “publishing” (in a book journal or whatever) as public as they want to get. I can also imagine many believing that open access is the equivalent of anarchy; that it will lead to a world with no citations where your ideas are stolen!

Project

Most of my energy has been focused on this digital research project. When trying to come up with a solid data mining idea and going through plain text files so that I can put them through wordle or something, my biggest problem has been finding giant portions of  OCR’ed text that look like this:

dpyvpov /iCTaXXa, Koi prjao^ iprj/io^ ov iieyaXrf IlaTpoKXov  KaXov/iem) • T€l)(^o<; yap (OKoSo/njaaTO iv avr^ /cat ^dpaKa  ifiaXeTo IIaT/ooKXo5>’”os rpnjpeo’LP iireirkei vavap\o<; Alyv  TTTtat?, a? IlroXc/xato? 6 IlToXc/xatoi; tov Adyov Ti^fKopeiv   10 ccrrctXc^

THAT doesn’t help me very much and this right now is the biggest complaint I have trying to perform this kind of “research” from a digital medium. I guess I see it as a short cut, and one that is just full of errors, problems, issues and something that can altogether be avoided by …uh…you know reading. Maybe I’m missing the point.

The problem, I think stems from an inability of SOME of the sources (like the ones we worked on previously in the semester) to connect to actual scholarship. Perseus, an online database of classical texts, is completely hostile to any kind of data-mining activity. Individual “chapters,” usually a paragraph, are separated and found on different pages. XML files are made available but even then, it’s the opposite of the previous problem: one had too much subdivision, the other has almost none.

I suppose you can say that I’m still having difficulty working this kind of methodology into a useful art historical analysis.

The Assorted Websites

Feltron Reports- I expected not to like the Feltron reports. I’d heard of it before and thought to myself, “serrriously?!” But then as I perused them, I realized that Nick Felton was simply scientifically doing what I, somewhat obsessively compulsively, do myself. Now, I’m not so extreme as to count the beverages I drink or methods of transportation used how many times, but I do count, somewhat obsessively, the number of books I’ve read, movies I’ve watched and many other things that I do on a semi-regular basis. In fact, as I was exploring his reports and his other website that he’s launched allowing individuals to perform similar data tracking duties, I was struck by kind of fascinatingly weird it is. I mean…I don’t want to do it myself, I could see it turning into too much of an intrusion on…living. But, it was really awesome to see different things that you could record and turn into statistics even if at points it seemed convoluted (like the unreadable maps in…2008, I think).

On the other hand, one thing that the something like the Feltron Reports and Gross National Happiness kept bringing to mind was exactly how that can be used in the future. We might be able to argue that its still a limited sampling of individuals, its still pretty unique…but considering the concerns that Sarah mentions…how accurate is it when referencing a “whole”? How can we honestly use it and how effective would it really be?

Many Eyes- It took me a while to figure out, mainly because their “About” section simply said, “This belongs to IBM.” It seems like a useful tool that I will have to explore more in depth as my ideas for my project develop further.

History Wired- Ugh. I don’t get why it has to be so complicated! I get frustrated when things are not easily explained and I don’t see the purpose of it clearly.  I feel like something could be done to make it clearer, prettier and more effective.

Project Ideas

I have honestly had a very difficult time constructing an idea and a way to utilize this digital research in a constructive way for ancient art history. I think the way that I am going to go is do some kind of wordle comparison of ancient historians’ texts on the early imperial period in Rome and see if that reflects different themes in Augustus’ visual propaganda. I might change this all tomorrow.

The integration of the GIS analysis and tools to their overall report was tacked on to the end of the paragraphs (in the same method as their sources, which caused me to completely miss them at first), in a maze of un-navigable tables, charts, graphs, and maps, in what seems to be an effort to hide their research or at least as an afterthought.  I know that can’t be the case, so I am frustrated with their apparent (to me anyway) lack of effort to incorporate it in a more cohesive way with their text.

That being said, once I explored a bit further I was finally able to extrapolate exactly what was happening in their research. I really appreciate the GIS referencing and analysis; the combination of the GIS with historical data adds another layer to our approach.  However, I can’t really claim any great opinion on whether or not they accomplished and proved their thesis, which honestly did not seem to revolutionary to me (like Sarah), but it does show how this type of data can be used for a close analysis and substantiation of a larger theory.

The other sites (Hypercites, PhilaPlace, and the Euclid Corridor) that were part of this week’s list showed a few other options for geographical tools of analysis. I have to say I can see why many archaeologists would be (and have been) excited to use (and have used) this kind of method for geographical analysis and presentation.

I cannot accept Moretti’s claims to reject “reading” and use his methods exclusively, and correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see that as his main argument. He was providing new methods of abstract analysis, which I found completely intriguing. I see it more as adding another layer. I appreciated the visual nature of his book, putting graphs, maps and trees into use could be helpful. BUT to acquire a lot of the information he wants to use, especially in his maps and trees section, you still need to, you know, read the book.

I still must say I find some of his suppositions and arguments a bit scary, and some of that might be because of his overabundant use of the word quantitative, which is a word that I abhor( I do not like numbers, I do not like math.)I feel in a lot of ways that this kind of study removes the humanity from the humanities and that concerns me. I understand and appreciate the push for it, and I can accept it as another layer of analysis. If you choose to deal with quantitative data, you set certain parameters and THOSE parameters are forever subjective.

So, for the moment at any rate, I remain torn on Moretti’s ideas.

As a bibliophile, I have been worried about the future of my little paper bound babies for a while now; both the scholarly ones and the ones for fun. However, my opinions have changed, perhaps significantly but not drastically, since I started graduate school. I admit some of it is entirely selfish. Books are heavy and the back of lot K is FAR.

Bell brings up a lot of points that I’m sure have been of great concern for those of us in the scholastic world, especially when he mentions the adage “publish or perish.” Eventually, the scholastic community will have to adopt or we will kill ourselves from the inside. Fortunately I think there are tools and gadgets that will make the transition easier (not to be a commercial for apple, I’m sure there will be other tablets that work too…eventually). For me, he really drives home a point that I’ve considered; I just don’t focus as well when I’m at a screen (more so the computer than my iPad). However my biggest complaint about onscreen reading has been remedied by the iPad; I can upload .pdfs and then highlight, notate, underline and scribble to my hearts desire. But I have to wonder how many of my mannerisms of reading books (for example I play with the pages) are linked to my concentration?

Its obvious that this digitization of sources makes life infinitely easier; yet once again we’re reminded we have to do this correctly.

The starting moments of any research project can be fraught with many difficulties, the main one usually being the overwhelming task of figuring out where to start. The internet offers many easy answers and solutions to that problem; information easily available at the click of the mouse or the tap of the finger depending on what device one is using. Geographical Classical Bibliographies ((I really need a better name)) aims to provide students, scholars, and teachers with a unique resource and potential community. Bibliographies, both standard and advanced, will be compiled in a wiki-like fashion. The main innovation in this project lies in its attention to print resources; current online bibliographies in the field of Classical Studies primarily focus on digital sources, which while helpful, is by no means exhaustive. Further, the site will primarily arrange its sources geographically and have more developed thematic subcategories to set it apart even further. GCB will focus on both digital and print; providing links to online sources  and rendering links to print sources when they become available online. Of secondary importance, this site can serve as a social network and think-tank of sorts for Classical Historians.

First, I think I was getting too bogged down in actuality. For all intents and purposes, this is a theoretical project, right?

I think I’ve finally had a good idea that successfully combines some of my earlier ideas into something a little more feasible, original and useful. From the beginning I have been interested in site-specific information, be it historical, photographic, sculptural, architectural, or textual. Tall order, non? I struggled with pinpointing my audience; did I want it to be a general audience or more specialized? Would I have varying levels of users or an audience that needed to be segregated?

Here is my idea that I can actually see myself going with, with a few caveats and issues that I need to work out: I would like to create an online bibliography of sorts, based on specific sites (Olympia, Ostia, Athens-Stoa, Athens-Acropolis, Pompeii, etc so on and so on) possibly cross-references with thematic categories (Imperial cult, representation of women, etc). The specific goal would not necessarily be to point to other online resources; the other “bibliographies” I’ve found have done just that. I don’t think that is really a bad thing but that severely limits the amount of information available to a researcher.

What I intend to do is to bridge the gap between analog and digital (if digital ever comes for some things) for students of various ages. I envision having two grades of membership, one for educators and scholars and the other for students of lower levels such as high school students and perhaps undergrads who are not specialists. (Like the poor guy who did a presentation on Olympia in one of my classes, never had a classics course and talked for five minutes on how this one pool was used for swimming competitions…..) The membership for educators and scholars would include the ability to add references to any topic. Both memberships would be allowed to upload pictures to a sites photo album, provided they owned the images. And of course if there is a digital link that too can be included, but it won’t only be web resources. As things become available links can be added, so it doesn’t go the way of the dodo.

Its kind of like a Wikipedia to point you in the right direction through a more specified topic instead of just giving you a summary. As far as marketing, I could possibly try and get professional associations like the Archaeological Institute of America and American Classical League, maybe.

Criticism? Ideas?

But what if we’re ART historians? *

My brain would not stop going in a million different directions while completing this week’s readings.  Forgive me if this is disjointed.

Nuts & Bolts

The technical and how-to subject of this weeks readings really helped clarify things in my poor non-technical brain. There was a lot of information with which I was familiar but now I have clarified. The Williams & Tollett book was helpful but I would have found it more helpful if I had access to the various software they used in their demonstrations so that I could play with it myself.

I did fiddle around with Mozilla Composer (or KompoZer, is how they spell it in some universes apparently) just to see an example of how it actually worked. In a lot of ways it just brought up more questions and doubts about the project.

The Project

I spent some time this week looking at some (by no means all) of the “best” sites for Classical Studies and Classical Art. We’re kind of shamefully behind. The best site in my humble opinion was the website for the Beazley Archive, a database for Classical art of varying medium. Other frequently used websites such as Perseus and Lacus Curtius (Lacus Curtius hurts my eyes )  desperately need some redesign. I got really excited about the Aquae Urbis Romae website, only to find that the timeline itself it did not work on my computer, I’m thinking maybe it has issues against Macs? I spent more time than I’d care to admit trying to figure it out. Let me know if it works for any of you who care to try…I want to check it out! The rest of the sites seemed to be aimed at a very general, younger audience, not that that focus is a bad thing.

Earlier I spoken of doing some kind of website that integrated old photographs of archaeological digs into some kind of  map overlay. While I think this is interesting and useful, I’m not sure there really is that kind of photographic evidence to support my entire project.  I do think it would be interesting to include it when available though.

Like I said before, it seems like the vast amount of material is for a younger or more general audience. For example, if you perform a Google search for Olympia you get a bout one bajillion (yes, that’s the scientific number) sites on travel and then another bajillion tell you that yes, the ancient Greek athletes competed in the buff.  Occasionally you’ll find a sites that has some kind of interactive feature, (these two features (1, 2) come from the same website) but the noises drive me nuts, and the info is still very general. And I can still find things I don’t like about it. The images are awful.

General websites are okay! But I feel there’s a need for those of us who want to go beyond the ‘general” and its kind of insulting that we don’t think that the “general” public might not be interested in anything else besides the state of undress of the athletes.  However, I am willing to bet you all the sites on Olympia receive a considerably higher volume of traffic in even number years.  I am not sure exactly how to work in a feature for users who are interested in a deeper knowledge. I need to work on “segregating” my audience and doing so efficiently.

*I get that it was in reference to designing digitally with history in mind and not to make the website convoluted because of an overblown artistic design. I just had to be snarky.