New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Techniques vs occupations #1
Comments
This has been implemented in the v1.5 of the TM |
I reopened this issue to review the pattern for the technique(s) used by an Actor for next Target Model version. So currently, we have: This is semantically wrong because the Actor is not a Technique; he uses a technique. Ideally, we would identify the technique in a specific production of an object. However, since we will often have a technique associated with an Actor (e.g. during his life, Jean Paul Riopelle used the technique "painting") we need a more generic pattern. I think this is something we should model with We could also use a What do you think? |
Pour la qualification des artistes par technique, la facette du AAT |
In preparation for the 11th meeting of the Semantics Committee (June 10) Q : Is the technique associated with the objects or actors, or both? | What pattern is best for both options? A : When the technique/role are associated with the objects, the option 1 pattern seem the most appropriate. In our database, the role of the artist is specified in each object record. For the production of object x, the artist/maker played the role of y. The techniques are also associated with the objects. For the techniques, we follow the Info-Muse rule for "Techniques de fabrication". |
The semantic committee reviewed this issue during its last meeting, which was held on 2021/06/10. No decision has been made yet, but here are some items to consider:
|
To illustrate those options, here is an example of the production of the Mona Lisa (La Joconde), with techniques used in the production of the painting (Peinture à l'huile), and some other techniques linked directly to the actor (Peinture à l'huile, Fresque and Sculpture sur marbre)
|
The semantic committee reviewed this issue during its last meeting, which was held on 2021/07/15. It has been decided:
Once implemented in the Target Model 2.2., this issue can be closed. However, a few questions, yet unsolved, must be answered in the future, in other issues:
|
Philippe Michon (2019.06.21):
In AiC, we will find techniques attached to the makers like: "Person A is doing watercolour technique". Heather suggested to transform these techniques in occupations. For instance, "Watercolour" could become "Watercolorist". This is probably not a big deal to manage if the values are clean enough. That said, I'm not sure if it's exactly the same thing. If I did some artworks using watercolour technique, am I necessarily a watercolorist? I'm not sure. Let me know your thoughts.
Also, Stephen, Heather and I think that we should use a type statement on the person for this information e21->p2->e55->e55 (Techniques or Occupations). I was wondering if we should use e39 instead of e21 here. I think a group can also have a technique or an occupation.
Stephen Hart (2019.06.21):
A group can definitely have a technique, as an painters atelier may use different techniques of painting but not others
Heather Dunn (2019.06.21)
In AIC, it seems to be the technique that the artist is known for. And the values are very clean, they come from a short bilingual controlled vocabulary. So it should be possible to transform them to occupations if we decide that's the best approach.
Karine Leonard-Brouillet (2019.06.24):
Regarding the technique to occupation shift, I think this might become very tricky. In the case of makers that use a single technique it can be unproblematic (e.g. paint->painter), but in the case of more esoteric techniques it would introduce occupations that I do not think most artists would identify with. For example, what would Gina Pane be when considered in the context of Unanaestheticized Climb? We could translate Perfmormance->Performer, but then this would obscure the distinction between performance art (artistic performance considered in the context of contemporary art) and the performing arts(theater, dance, etc.).It would be problematic for all productions that are immaterial in part or in nature (would a conceptual artist be an ideator? what about multimedia artists or artists doing online art?). I am thinking of artists such as Richard Long (A Line Made By Walkinghttps://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/long-a-line-made-by-walking-ar00142) or Marina Abramović (The House with the Ocean View https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_art) for example. I am also not sure why it would be more relevant to have the occupation than the medium or technique? Would it be to qualify craftsmanship such (in the case of woodworking for example)? Or is it because we are investigating how to retrieve data for the occupation field?
Philippe Michon (2019.06.28):
I agree with Karine, I would argue that we should stick to the data. I think the technique and the occupation are different and complementary fields. Contemporary art always gives perfect use cases :clin_d'œil:
@stephen Hart to be sure:
Technique would be:
e39->p2->e55->p2->e55(Technique)
However, do we use the same pattern for the occupations with a e55(Occupation)? or we go with something like:
e39->p14i->e7->p2->e55->p2->e55(Occupation)
In other words, the same pattern as flourished dates.
Stephen Hart (2019.06.28):
I would go with the longer event path, as it will follow the same pattern as the profession (and also flourished dates, as you mention). I don’t think it complicated too much the model.
I see the technique field as a list of technique the actor used in his life.
Philippe Michon (2019.06.28)
I'm not sure if I follow you:
Technique: Simple p2 pattern
Occupation: Long path with e7
Flourished dates: Long path with e7
Am I right?
Stephen Hart (2019.06.28):
Yes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: