there was an article in the New York Times this week about social tagging and art that focuses on tagging as a way to bridge the gap between museums as institutions as museum-goers as individuals. when museum professionals talk about introducing people to the collections, their thoughts turn to tours, or slide-shows, or other packaged information products that force visitors' self-identification as a 'beginner". And who wants define themselves as a newbie?

there's no reason that search can't be as accessible as these other modes of interacting with museum collections. but only if we're conscious not to return 'no results found'.

one part of that is to make sure that we're capturing concepts that relate to the general public as well as to the discourse of art history. tagging might help us do that, and to figure out the best ways to deploy tagging in the art museum context we're beginning a year-long data collection exercise at steve.museum. over the course of the next year, our tagger will be altered in a number of different ways, so that we can explore the impact of interface on tagging.

so come by. tag some art. look closer and see what you see in the picture. chances are it's not the same thing as the person who tagged it before you, or the person who will come next. and that diversity adds up to increased accessibility.

/jt

The Times piece is Pamela LiCalzi O’Connell, "One Picture, 1,000 Tags" New York Times. Museums Section, March 28, 2007