While some important uses for Twitter have developed globally—especially around politics and sports—and many cultural institutions and art folks use it in interesting ways, Twitter still seems like an insider’s club.  Said another way, if you’re not using Twitter, you probably don’t have a use for it; in fact I think those that don’t use it generally get tired of hearing about it, and all the jargon that goes along with it.  After all, who could actually like the word “tweet” or want to work out a suitable past tense for that word.

But after more than two years, I think I’ve finally found a reason for folks interested in art conservation to use Twitter without, well, actually using Twitter.  Using the web-based application Paper.li, I’ve created Art Conservation Daily to summarize all the tweets about art conservation from the past 24 hours.  This online newspaper is auto-generated from my list of about 150 people that regularly tweet about art conservation.

So you can have a fresh copy of Art Conservation Daily delivered to your virtual doorstep every morning (e-mail inbox) by simply clicking on the “subscribe” button in the upper right.  Best of all you never have to so much as sniff a “tweet”.  While I don’t understand how the paper chooses the headlines or sections, overall it seems to do a good job of creating a timely and relevant newspaper. Take for example this weekend, when the Egyptian political system began crumbling, and museums became endangered; the best way to get the most current information about this situation was through Twitter.  Not surprisingly, the front page of Art Conservation Daily had a story about the situation.
As far as I can tell, there is no other place that you can get a daily summary of art conservation news on this scale. I really only have one market competitor: e-conservation daily, which is similar but its Twitter list is less than ½ the size and the content appears to be geared more generally to the cultural heritage field.  There are a few professional associations that operate general news blogs about art conservation (AIC and IIC, for example), and a few other conservators that write about conservation issues on their blogs, but none that give such a clear and timely snapshot of art conservation current events.

Although it seems unlikely that it will be putting the likes of The Art Newspaper or Art Daily out of business any time soon, Art Conservation Daily seems to be growing in popularity.  According to the counter at the top of the paper, it has had just under 2,500 viewers and a modest list of subscribers.

Also, there are some interesting features of this application: you can embed it in your own web page using the code at the top of the paper, you can see a streaming list of folks tweeting about art conservation inside the paper, and there’s a built-in archive so you can catch up on past editions.  Of course it’s paperless. The drawbacks? There aren’t many; it’s free, easy to use and maintain, but there are ads.  But what paper doesn’t have ads?  My only complaint is that I don’t get any of the ad revenue.

I’m always looking for interesting folks to add to my list to make the paper better, so if you know of any users that consistently talk about conservation or collections care, please let me know and I’ll add them. Who knows, they might make it in the paper.

The journey from concept to completion of the catalog for the American collection began more than two years ago with a compilation of the material that would be necessary to begin the project. Nothing could begin without a complete list of the American collection. For this project the list took the form of a printout which contained each piece in the American collection organized by its accession number, the order in which it came into the collection. For example 2008.352 was the 352nd piece to come into the collection in 2008. It was then necessary to ascertain from this list the works to be included in the web catalog. The remarkable aspect of a web catalog is that once this decision is made there will always be the opportunity to create more entries in the future.

Each work in the American collection was examined by the curator. A list of the works that would be included in the web project was made. This list included but was not limited to every work from the American collection that has been on display at the IMA. While working on this project a list was made of works that had come into the collection during the early period of the museum’s existence that are not deemed museum quality and should be considered for deaccession (sale). When these lists were completed, the files on each of these pieces, known as the works’ “historical files,” had to be examined. It was hoped that these files would provide detailed information on the work and its history. In some cases they did and in others very little information could be gleaned from these files. It was also necessary to pull together every label produced for the art work, which would be a starting point for the art work’s catalog entry. Since biographies on the artists were not available in the museum’s historical files, this research was also required. All these tasks would have been difficult for one curator to do without devoting every working moment to these tasks. Fortunately, the American Art department was given an endowment to create a fellowship by Joan D. Weisenberger, a museum patron, which provided an assistant for this project. One of the tasks the Fellow was responsible for was compiling the pertinent information from the historical files.

Once we had all the available information, we had to devise a format for each entry in the American Collection web catalog. It was decided that each work would have a label that included its accession number, artist, title, medium, size and credit line, followed by a section called “Learn More” containing the artist’s biography and a discussion of the work in the collection. The last section called “Reference,” includes a source where the reader can find more information.

Compiling the information took about a year. It was now time to start writing. The curator wrote the entries and the Weisenberger Fellow created the checklists that would be used to transfer the material to the web and worked with the web team so these lists met their criteria. Periodic meetings where held with the web team, curator, and Fellow to make certain we were all on the same page. Putting a collection on the web was a new project that had to be worked out so that the final product would be easy to transfer to the museum’s website.

Each work was to contain an image to accompany the text. In most cases this was possible before the launch date, but we decided not to hold up the catalog for those entries without an image and add the image when it became available. Of course, this is another great aspect of a web catalog. Everything we put on the museum’s webpage can be altered, added to or removed if necessary. We can even redesign the whole project, if at a later date it is decided that the catalog needs a new look that would work better. I am constantly reminded of the flexibility of the web, which allows us to launch this catalog without feeling permanently locked into any decisions. So if a reader comes across something that they question, something we missed, or just doesn’t like some aspect of the project, we can address these concerns. We are anxious for input on the American collection catalog on the IMA website. This is the IMA’s first attempt at creating a web collection catalog, and we want you, our audience, to be able to not only learn from it but be motivated to come to visit the museum to see these works of art. It is hoped that with the information this web catalog offers, our visitors can come to the museum and enjoy the work as the artist intended.

OK, not so much a fight, as a discussion. And when I say ‘in public’ I mean on my Facebook wall.

It all started when I retweeted @anarchivist (see below) and then it ended up on my Facebook page too. Anyway, the ‘discussion’ played out like this:

ME: I agree. RT @anarchivist hates the phrase “social media.” all online media is inherently social even if you dont want it to be.

Ben: to be social is to have an understanding or acknowledgment between two or more people. so then simply watching a movie on line would not be considered social but definitely media.
Wed at 2:33pm

ME: but what if you can comment and/or share that video with your friends using FB, Twitter, etc?
Wed at 2:41pm

Ben: that is social. but watching the movie and commenting on it are two separate things. right?
Wed at 2:56pm

ME: but the fact that it exists online DOES mean that. The fact that it has potential to be shared makes it social.
Wed at 3:50pm

The argument ended there. But did I win it?

Let’s take a look at what good old Wikipedia has to say:

Social media is online content created by people using highly accessible and scalable publishing technologies. Social media is a shift in how people discover, read and share news, information and content; it’s a fusion of sociology and technology, transforming monologues (one to many) into dialogues (many to many) and is the democratization of information, transforming people from content readers into publishers.

I agree with Ben that the simple act of watching a video online is not social. But because of the way the web had evolved,  now any media that exists online can be social media, whether it was intended to be used that way or not. An article, picture, or video is posted and you can share it numerous ways (email it, Facebook it, Twitter it, Digg it, etc.)

Or is my friend right? Are they two completely different things? Maybe the real question here is why are we so eager to label everything? The IMA is always on the look out for cutting edge ways to interact with with the public. Call them trends, call them buzzwords, call them The Next Big Thing… we’ve employed just about every ‘social media’ tactic that makes sense (and it’s working!)  So maybe it doesn’t matter and if it works, it works.

I’m not sure why anarchivist’s statement and the resulting debate got me so riled up, but maybe the ‘anythings possible’ sentiment of ‘all online media is social media’ simply gives me the warm-fuzzies.

Please comment below and help me prove my friend wrong, er… help us sort things out so we can look each other in the eye again.

I’ve never been a big fan of MTV.  Let’s face it, it hasn’t been “Music Television” in over a decade.

However, according to the LA Times, MTV is launching a ‘new media’ series, $5 Cover, on multiple platforms (from silver screen to small screen to, er, iPod screen) that will “meld reality TV and indie cinema.” Even though the phrase ‘reality TV’ makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, at least they’re trying, right?

$5 Cover promises to capture the flavor of the local Memphis music scene with real musicians playing themselves, orchestrated by filmmaker Craig Brewer, writer-director of “Hustle & Flow.” Check out the trailer for $5 Cover here (Oh, did I mention there’s roller derby?)

Image from fivedollarcover.com

The LA Times goes on to say…

The show, [which launched May 1]  at midnight on MTV’s cable channel and on its website, fivedollarcover.com, is a fascinating experiment in new media storytelling, combining the unabashed narcissism of reality TV with the raw, rough edges of indie cinema. Until now, Web series have largely been drawn to comedy and thriller storytelling genres.

Image from blog.fivedollarcover.com

MTV seems to be revamping the rest of their programming too, and it’s starting to look, well, a lot like one of my all-time favorite channels, CurrentTV (and it looks like they’ve noticed.) According to The New York Times, in an effort to reach its youthful audience in these times of economic crisis (read: desperate attempt to boost ratings), MTV is taking steps to add more relevant programming:

Meet MTV for the era of Obama. After years of celebrating wealth, celebrity and the vapid excesses of youth, MTV is trying to gloss its escapist entertainment with a veneer of positive social messages.

Less socialites. More substance. We’ll see if it’s enough to make me ‘want my MTV’ again.

As of this month, at the ripe old age of five, it’s ancient in Web 2.0 terms. But for being a senior citizen of the web, Facebook sure has managed to stay fresh and relevant. What started as a social experiment in Mark Zuckerberg’s Harvard dorm room has grown to capture over 150 million users.

icanhascheezburger.com

Here are some ways Facebook has managed to grow and adapt so far…

-  its supernatural ability to help you reconnect with old high school buddies, network  professionally (ahem), plan killer bashes, and showcase your wit via status message

- the ever-growing collection of third-party Facebook applications, integration with Twitter, built-in Instant Messaging, blog importation capability, and more

These all allow users to express themselves in a rather addictive way.

Here at the IMA, we utilize Social Networking to reach a more diverse and (presumably) younger audience.  And, like any institution, we are always looking for ways to stay fresh and relevant.

However, TIME ’s tech writer, Lev Grossman makes a humorous argument as to why Facebook is for ‘Old Fogies.’  After all, Facebook’s fastest-growing demographic are those 30+. Could this be the kiss-of-death?

Illustration by John Cuneo for TIME

Others are predicting Facebook’s demise. Blogger Devin Johnston argues that unless Facebook changes drastically, it will fizzle out in just three years.

Sites like Facebook are doomed unless they radically alter their business and development models to reflect the needs, interests, and capabilities of internet users. There is room for Facebook to move away from providing service and toward assembling the services of others in a single location. Frankly, I think that this is the only way that Facebook will survive the coming revolution in social computing.

That’s a lot to ask of a five year old.

Do YOU think Facebook’s days are numbered? Will it continue to adapt, or be wiped out by something better-faster-stronger?

So how did ArtBabble get to where it is? I’ll let the graphics do the talking. We have posted a handful of interface design mockups which were considered for this project in a Flickr set. What started off a slick techie look (I was way off!) morphed into the hand drawn, yet clean and casual website you see today.

Below is a punch list of essential tools I used to create the ArtBabble design.

1. Bamboo Fun Tablet – I used this to create the header sketches, and various interface elements and icons. Having barely ever used a Tablet before, this was a great tool to learn on, and produce exactly what we desired.

2. Adobe Web Premium – Photoshop for the hand drawn and organic elements, Fireworks for page layout, interface elements, and image optimization, Dreamweaver for HTML & CSS editing, and Flash for the video player.

3. The Internet – The web was a great source for inspiration and more importantly graphic resources such as Photoshop brushes, and the hand written font we are using, Soli.

4. Caffeinated Beverages – I need these to survive in general.

ArtBabble is currently available via invitation and in beta mode, but you can still sign up while we’re polishing things up and adding content.

2008 to me was the year video exploded on the web. After finally taking the plunge and cutting off my cable television lifeline I was forced to consume video over the internet. I must say, video on the web has came a long way. I’m conviced.

But there’s another reason I’m blogging about video on the web. I, along with the apps team, New Media department, and a big cross-departmental collection of individuals have been pouring our blood sweat and tears into a project which will bring high quality art video to you via the web. It seems like it has been a long journey, and we are on the cusp of launching this website in a matter of days. If you want a super sneak peek you can come to The Davis Lab, which will be opening this Saturday. Come check it out!

After watching the video below, you might want to consider abandoning the television set all-together. Btw, is this real?

Since video has become more accessible, new players are emerging beyond youtube. Now it’s a matter of focusing video content so you know where to go to get what you want. Take news websites for instance. Cnn.com and msnbc.com are streaming video like it’s nobody’s business and the quality is superb. Don’t even get me started on digital video delivery on hand-held devices such as the iPhone. All I’m saying is… Hulu/Apple, if you ever need a beta tester hit me up!

It wouldn’t be a post from me unless I dropped a load of links in it so in no particular order, these are some of my favorite video related sites: – Hulu, Youtube (duh!), Ted, Cnn, MSNBC, Vimeo, Viddler, Funny or Die, Adult Swim, FWA Theater, Current TV, and Vidlivery (A blog about video on the web). I know I’ve forgot some other great ones, but there is an inauguration streaming on our Mac so I’ll stop… please forgive me, and feel free to add your favorites via comments.