jonathan kemp

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Closely following on from Fuller and Haque's interrogation of architecture http://uvs.propositions.org.uk/ 

1] "What lessons, if any, can architecture learn from software development, and more specifically, from the Free, Libre, and Open Source Software movement?" http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html 

2] the intention of this paper is to similarly create a Versioning System, in this case for Objects, to contribute to a new museology that radically challenges the conventional ways in which museums are constructed.

The Free Software Definition states that free software contains the following freedoms articulated as an ethical instruction set. Since they are a set of contractual terms, they are set out as such:


   The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    

   The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). 
   Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    

   The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2).
    

   The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). 
   Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


Attempts have been made to transfer FLOSS principles to the making of objects in general. Often this has been done, as Fuller and Haque note in the case of architecture, on the basis of plans, recipes, diagrams and what they call other 'genotypic' information. Paraphrasing them, the key question here is if and how such strategies apply or can be modified to apply to the care of cultural heritage in museums.

I have argued [[http://xxn.org.uk/doku.php?id=writing:practical_ethics_v.2.0|elsewhere]] that the material components of objects, along with their art historical and conservation documentation, combined with prevailing codes of ethics effected for museums, can be considered as an 'instruction manual' which might, in my current thinking here, be described in some sense as a "source code".

Free software is engaged in a continuous process of production, implementation, usage and re-purposing processes. Cultural production can equally be opened out rather than continuously implemented in a closed manner. Such an approach changes the epistemic nature of museology to one being focussed on the production of open knowledge through its constant reprocessing, versioning and archiving..

I propose a speculative hacked out museology in the form of an Object Versioning System.

===Questions===

1] will online interactions support inquiry and learning for various user communities

2] will online interactions support inquiry learning and change within the Museum - what is the impact on museum practice

a] eg. does open documentation allow for more rigour; are all decision processes made open? [see 5] below]

3] is there a legal and social imperative to represent an institution's intellectual holdings? how do legal concepts such as accountability/personal privacy and intellectual/copyright affect such initiatives?

re. Freedom of Info. Act 2000 [effective 2005]

4] how do institutions balance the needs of staff and community in making an open knowledge strategy? - workload on staff to integrate as part of normal practice; link through tech. means of distribution.

Version Control:

5] is the revelation of how and why objects are displayed as they are is the fufillment of revealing what the production processes of the Museum are? 




//resource// 

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconclass 

http://iconclass.info/

http://www.iconclass.org/browse/

http://www.data-browser.net/03/
http://blog.okfn.org/2007/11/07/give-us-the-data-raw-and-give-it-to-us-now/
jonathan kemp

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
