Blog Entry #1: Digital Image Resources

"It can be expected that when iconographical research collections are transformed from manual, card-based files to online databases, users will have to become familiar with many different online retrieval system interfaces and access techniques, especially in view of the proliferation of separate, specialized databases" (Markey, 1988, p. 173). Such was the prediction of Karen Markey when she wrote in 1988 about the idiosyncrasies of iconographical research collections, as she referred to them, and the challenges that arose with any attempt to standardize information about their holdings across institutions. As she intuited, new and unforeseen challenges would present themselves when these image resource databases went digital.

The term "digital image resources" may seem obvious and unnecessary to define, but it is worth noting a distinction made on the website of the Visual Resources Association. When users search for digital image resources, they are looking for "high quality images with accurate colors and trustworthy metadata" (Schoen, 2013). The users in question are students, professors, information professionals, and any other parties whose work would depend on digital surrogates of an object represented as accurately as possible. These are not tourists' vacation snapshots of a famous painting, but photography of the highest possible caliber, with thorough metadata to match.

So what do these digital image resources look like? In 2011, an article by Teresa Slobuski appeared in Art Documentation that gave a brief background of the resources that began to appear in the late 1990s, when cultural heritage organizations systematically began to digitize their collections and put them online. As Slobuski noted, the impetus was financial for both subscription databases that had already been around in the days that Markey was writing, and for new subscription databases that were founded in the digital days (Slobuski, 2011, p. 49). In response to commercial databases, libraries and museums followed, determined to make their collections available to the world with the best possible metadata and organization. Slobuski focused on two commercial databases that are major resources for art history students in universities, Bridgeman Art Library and ARTstor. Bridgeman is an offshoot of an earlier, pre-digital program, but ARTstor has existed since the switch. Both work with universities and art collections to provide the accurate, high-quality images and metadata that the VRA recommends.

Interestingly, Slobuski reports on collection access and maintenance issues that probably would not have surprised Markey at all. Her study shows that the interfaces for these two databases are not always easy to use and do not help researchers return the greatest number of accurate results possible. Additionally, as in the pre-digital days, students in particular do not know how to use the best search terms that the databases require for accurate results. The most troubling issue she raises, however, is that commercial databases use incomplete or ambiguous metadata in ways that information professionals would never do (p. 55). Slobubski notes that cataloging needs to be done comprehensively and in standard fashion, which is something the VRA has already worked on intensively, even before 2011. Maintenance will be difficult, however, in creating better metadata and access terms for images that are already online, especially if they are protected by commercial rather than educational interests. Art librarians and other information professionals must be vigilant, and ready to contribute and collaborate.

Where can these digital image resources be found? While there are certainly a plethora of paid subscription databases, including the two already mentioned, there are also many effective open access resources. Two very recent and prominent ones are the Google Art Project and the Digital Public Library of America. Beyond the massive organizations and companies, it is also worth noting the digital resources provided by art museums. The Rijksmuseum is a supreme example, having digitized over 300,000 images of works from its collections. Its collections website is also notable for its unique interface and many ways of searching.

This list of resources from the University of Michigan Visual Resources Collections, used on the VRA website, gives a much more thorough list of digital image resources, with descriptions and active links.

Bibliography:

Green, H. E., & Courtney, A. (2015). Beyond the Scanned Image: A Needs Assessment of Scholarly Users of Digital Collections. College & Research Libraries, 76(5), 690–707. http://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.5.690

Markey, K. (1988). Access to Iconographical Research Collections. Library Trends, 37(2), 154–74. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7597/librarytrendsv37i2f_opt.pdf?sequence=1

Schoen, M. (2013, August 31). Digital Image Resources. Retrieved 26 September 2015, from http://vraweb.org/digital-image-resources/

Slobuski, T. (2011). Digital Image Databases: A Study from the Undergraduate Point of View. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 30(2), 49–55.