Curating on the Web: The Evolution of Platforms as Spaces for Producing and Disseminating Web-Based Art

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article makes a meaningful contribution to the field of curatorial studies with its emphasis on the role of the curator in the online environment. It does so via a ‘genealogy’ of practice from 1991 to the present.

In terms of maximising the impact of the article, it is suggested that the author considers the relevance / argument of each section (period) under review and in turn emphasises that argument. This will help to overcome what now appears sometimes as a chronological description that is sometime lacking in analysis (particularly in the first half of the paper.

Moreover, the examples that are discussed might be more beneficial if the author chooses one or two per section and sets them up in more detail. Again, the second half of the paper seems to engage more effectively within the examples than the first half of the paper and perhaps this is due to a lack of detail about the earlier examples. It is also suggested that the author consider integrating a more overt discussion of the images reproduced. Doing so will help to reinforce the argument and illustrate the changing nature of digital curation and web-based art more clearly.

On expression, there are multiple examples where the author has written long and overly complex sentence, with multiple qualifications. Simplifying and shortening these will also increase ht clarity and impact of the argument.

Some more specific comments about detail in the manuscript are below:

Lines 38-44 Consider breaking this up into at least two sentences to better convey your meaning.

38-58 gives a sense of how you arrived at the project but not necessarily why it is significant now. Also, would have liked to have seen some of the ideas of the mentioned theorists unpacked even if ever so slightly. Esp. 47-48

63/64 consider changing to “curating for the web” to enhance the distinction.

70-76 Sentence contains too many short excerpts of quotes making it difficult to read. Think about paraphrasing to maximise clarity.

Introduction needed to set up more clearly the examples to be discussed in the article – the case studies – and the argument of the article. IE: What is “the relevance of this historical trajectory in the field of curatorial studies and the production of web-based and digital art”?

Some of the signposting from the Abstract should be integrated into the Introduction in order to point the reader to the format of the paper.

More of an outline of the argument, or significance of recounting the historical development of web-based curation beyond simply presenting a genealogy, would enhance the paper.

86-88 references needed to substantiate both the flourishing of writing in the 90s and the paucity of it in the 2000s.

89 net.art could probably be defined.

91-92 first half of sentence beginning Moreover… need rewriting – expression is unclear.

101-112 this section is crucial – it is the argument and needs to be foregrounded and emphasised earlier in the paper.

122 f/n 3: There is no page number for the quote – I assume it’s a hard copy source?

130 supress authors name from parenthetical reference.

149-163 start of section 3. A reader may begin to question the emphasis on the curator and the technological platform in this study at this point. What about the agency of the artist? And, moving into the more ‘networked’ space of recent times, what about the agency of the audience? Would be good to see these other components of the exhibition given a little more attention early on.

175 spelling out of BBS needs to be included earlier in the first reference in the text.

198 observation that these early spaces were not spaces mediated by curators surely needs more setting up in the text in terms of the author’s focus on the role of the curator/curation.

199 image Cybercafe would benefit from some explanation within the text. What does it add to the argument?

241 again, not sure what the image adds without any explicit interpretation. Is it showing that there is a move away from text-based interfaces?

245-49 Would like some interrogation of the fact that the Dia Foundation project aimed to provided unmediated access to works of art but was ‘curated’ by Cooke and Tucker. What were their roles in this? Did they write the introductory etc. text? What was the visitor experience and what in turn does this say about the development of web-based curating?

263-65 Again, can you extend the analysis here? Why was it noteworthy that Documenta took the show down? Implicit in this is their refusal to acknowledge the different / possibility of web-based practice to transcend temporal boundaries as well as geographical ones but this is not actually stated. It would be good to ‘get behind’ some of the description and insert more analytical reflections on why these things are important.

295 prosumers warrants a definition and some unpacking.

305 buried in this line is the fact that ‘digital curation’ became the subject of discourse only in the Web 2.0 era. This needs more emphasis and setting up in the introduction.

318 Runme as ‘bridge’ is a good element of signposting that actually illustrates a periodic shift. I wonder if more over signposting, via examples like this in the other sections, might help to draw out the higher level trends associated with each period that the author would like to emphasis. In doing so, it would shift the argument to being primarily about periodic shifts and trends rather than listing numerous examples in a less critical / analytical fashion.

343-349 sentence too long and complicated.

Feel like all of the examples could be set up in a little more detail to give a clearer sense of what they did in addition to the way that the operated within the space of the internet. This would also go some way to explaining and integrating the images / screenshots in a more meaningful way.

363-364 reposting and tagging as ‘curatorial mechanisms’. Again, this is a crucial shift and needs to be foregrounded with greater emphasis.

372 – ‘increasing visual environment of the web’ needs more emphasis as a shift.

376/77 what is the significance of the fact that they also operated in physical spaces?

378-381 this sentence is a crucial aspect of the argument. Needs to be stated at the outset of the paper and then emphasised more at this point as the key development of this era.

411 How did #0000FF achieve this goal of enhancing the ‘aesthetic and conceptual limits of the platform’?

453 a sentence at the end of this paragraph drawing it back to the significance for curatorial practice would be helpful.

510-512 – key argument sentences of this section – need more emphasis.

600-619 this connection was a good one and could have been flagged at the outset by way of framing the discussion within the article.  

Author Response

Please note: the changes I have made are highlighted in yellow in the document.

Point 1) This article makes a meaningful contribution to the field of curatorial studies with its emphasis on the role of the curator in the online environment. It does so via a ‘genealogy’ of practice from 1991 to the present.

- Thanks for opening your review with this. I am very grateful for your generous and accurate comments. They were very helpful. So thank you.

Point 2) In terms of maximising the impact of the article, it is suggested that the author considers the relevance / argument of each section (period) under review and in turn emphasises that argument. This will help to overcome what now appears sometimes as a chronological description that is sometime lacking in analysis (particularly in the first half of the paper.

- I emphasised the argument for each section, particularly for the first half of the paper and tried to avoid the chronological description by connecting the projects more clearly and highlighting their differences in relation to my argument.

Point 3) Moreover, the examples that are discussed might be more beneficial if the author chooses one or two per section and sets them up in more detail. [...] It is also suggested that the author consider integrating a more overt discussion of the images reproduced. Doing so will help to reinforce the argument and illustrate the changing nature of digital curation and web-based art more clearly.

- While I took out only a few examples because I wanted to provide a context that allowed the reader to see the variety of curatorial endeavours online, I discussed more in details the main projects I presented in each section be discussing an artwork presented on them. Specifically, ARTEXT, äda’web­, Gallery 9, Runme, Gallery Online.

Point 4) On expression, there are multiple examples where the author has written long and overly complex sentence, with multiple qualifications. Simplifying and shortening these will also increase ht clarity and impact of the argument.

- I have broken the paragraphs into shorter senteces. The paper will also be checked by a copyeditor for grammatical mistakes.

Point 5) Lines 38-44 Consider breaking this up into at least two sentences to better convey your meaning.

- I did and rephrased.

Point 6) 38-58 gives a sense of how you arrived at the project but not necessarily why it is significant now. Also, would have liked to have seen some of the ideas of the mentioned theorists unpacked even if ever so slightly. Esp. 47-48

- I did and I heavily edited the introduction to explain why I think this study is relevant right now. Specifically see 55-73

Point 7) 63/64 consider changing to “curating for the web” to enhance the distinction.

- This is a good suggestion, but I wanted to keep with the title of the paper. Therefore I rephrased the paragraph. See 92-99

Point 8) 70-76 Sentence contains too many short excerpts of quotes making it difficult to read. Think about paraphrasing to maximise clarity.

- I did.

Point 9) Introduction needed to set up more clearly the examples to be discussed in the article – the case studies – and the argument of the article. IE: What is “the relevance of this historical trajectory in the field of curatorial studies and the production of web-based and digital art”?
Some of the signposting from the Abstract should be integrated into the Introduction in order to point the reader to the format of the paper.
More of an outline of the argument, or significance of recounting the historical development of web-based curation beyond simply presenting a genealogy, would enhance the paper.

- I included this in the introduction.

Point 10) 86-88 references needed to substantiate both the flourishing of writing in the 90s and the paucity of it in the 2000s.

- I rephrased and added a footnote. 133-137, ft 5

Point 11) 89 net.art could probably be defined.

- I added a footnote, ft.6

Point 12) 91-92 first half of sentence beginning Moreover… need rewriting – expression is unclear.

- I rephrased.

Poin 13) 101-112 this section is crucial – it is the argument and needs to be foregrounded and emphasised earlier in the paper.
- I rephrased and also emphasised this in the intro, and expanded it in the  geneaology of curating. See 215-248

Point 14) 122 f/n 3: There is no page number for the quote – I assume it’s a hard copy source?

- Added

Point 15) 130 supress authors name from parenthetical reference.
- Changed.

Point 16) 149-163 start of section 3. A reader may begin to question the emphasis on the curator and the technological platform in this study at this point. What about the agency of the artist? And, moving into the more ‘networked’ space of recent times, what about the agency of the audience? Would be good to see these other components of the exhibition given a little more attention early on.
- I incorporated this in the section. Also I have tried to discuss this in the descriptions of the projects I analyse in the chronological sections.

Point 17) 175 spelling out of BBS needs to be included earlier in the first reference in the text.

- I included this in footnote 4, at the point when I firstly mention it.
 
Point 18) 198 observation that these early spaces were not spaces mediated by curators surely needs more setting up in the text in terms of the author’s focus on the role of the curator/curation.
- I included this at the beginning of this section, see 256-263. And tried to explain it thoughout the section.

Point 19) 199 image Cybercafe would benefit from some explanation within the text. What does it add to the argument?

- I took out the image because it was not adding much and only left ARTEXT.

Point 20) 241 again, not sure what the image adds without any explicit interpretation. Is it showing that there is a move away from text-based interfaces?
I have changed the image, and explain more in-depht the new environment of adaweb. See 343-350

Point 21) 245-49 Would like some interrogation of the fact that the Dia Foundation project aimed to provided unmediated access to works of art but was ‘curated’ by Cooke and Tucker. What were their roles in this? Did they write the introductory etc. text? What was the visitor experience and what in turn does this say about the development of web-based curating?
- Added an explanation, 381-387

Point 22) 263-65 Again, can you extend the analysis here? Why was it noteworthy that Documenta took the show down? Implicit in this is their refusal to acknowledge the different / possibility of web-based practice to transcend temporal boundaries as well as geographical ones but this is not actually stated. It would be good to ‘get behind’ some of the description and insert more analytical reflections on why these things are important.

- Rephrased according to the questions. 394-403
 
Point 23) 295 prosumers warrants a definition and some unpacking.

- Added, 432-439
 
Point 24) 305 buried in this line is the fact that ‘digital curation’ became the subject of discourse only in the Web 2.0 era. This needs more emphasis and setting up in the introduction.

- Yes, I added this in the intro 55-62 and 144-148

Point 25) 318 Runme as ‘bridge’ is a good element of signposting that actually illustrates a periodic shift. I wonder if more over signposting, via examples like this in the other sections, might help to draw out the higher level trends associated with each period that the author would like to emphasis. In doing so, it would shift the argument to being primarily about periodic shifts and trends rather than listing numerous examples in a less critical / analytical fashion.

- I think it is more emphasised now, 440-469
 
Point 26) 343-349 sentence too long and complicated.
- Rephrased.

Point 27) 363-364 reposting and tagging as ‘curatorial mechanisms’. Again, this is a crucial shift and needs to be foregrounded with greater emphasis.

- Stressed in 491 and 495, as well as 503-508
 
Point 28) 372 – ‘increasing visual environment of the web’ needs more emphasis as a shift.
- I stressed this earlier on so that it becomes clearer now.

Point 29) 376/77 what is the significance of the fact that they also operated in physical spaces?

- I explained it more in depht 524-528 and 546-555, and spelled out the distiction between Surf Clubs and VVORK
 
Point 30) 378-381 this sentence is a crucial aspect of the argument. Needs to be stated at the outset of the paper and then emphasised more at this point as the key development of this era.

- I think it is clearer now.

Point 31) 411 How did #0000FF achieve this goal of enhancing the ‘aesthetic and conceptual limits of the platform’?
- I took this out, but emphasised through an example what happens with Gallery Online, 604-615

Point 32) 453 a sentence at the end of this paragraph drawing it back to the significance for curatorial practice would be helpful.

- I rephrased, 647-654
 
Point 33) 510-512 – key argument sentences of this section – need more emphasis.

- I created better connection between the paragraphs and I hope that now it is more emphasised.
 
Point 34) 600-619 this connection was a good one and could have been flagged at the outset by way of framing the discussion within the article.

- I added this in the intro, 64-73. However, I am not sure I have managed to frame it throughout.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this is a well written and interesting piece. While the history of the Internet and curation (as a discipline) are two well established fields of research and work, you have synthesized them into an interesting project. I think that in the context of this journal this piece will present a thought provoking analysis of how curatorial practices can adapt to encompass STS and history of technology disciplines.  

Author Response

Thank you. I appreciate this.

I have made changes to the paper to incorporate the comments I received from the other reviewers. One reviewer sent very helpful comments. So I am sending the document as FYI -- changes are highlighted in yellow.

Please note that the paper still need final copyediting.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Two main critiques:
- I wish more time had been spent discussing the ideas tying together the identified eras/genres of curating (as I don't know that those two concepts align quite as neatly as presented here) rather than the litany of projects. While the latter is useful, the former would be of more significance and better illustrate the claims of the thesis. While those ideas are discussed, they could be better framed as abstractions based on the case studies rather than a collection of ideas that are illustrated by the case studies.
- While I understand the desire to scope this article to an explicitly art domain, I feel that any discussion of the topic of web curation platforms that doesn't discuss platforms aimed at and curated by broader audiences is missing a key point of context. Doing so would better illustrate the ties between the technology of the era and the art-specific curation platforms from each period. By only referencing them in passing, this article is only telling half the story.

Author Response

Please note: the changed I have made are highlighted in yellow in the document.

Point 1) I wish more time had been spent discussing the ideas tying together the identified eras/genres of curating (as I don't know that those two concepts align quite as neatly as presented here) rather than the litany of projects. While the latter is useful, the former would be of more significance and better illustrate the claims of the thesis. While those ideas are discussed, they could be better framed as abstractions based on the case studies rather than a collection of ideas that are illustrated by the case studies.

- I have clarified my argument in the introduction, including my focus, that is to look at curatorial practice in the online environment from within the field of curatorial studies since this is a fragmented history,  esp. 55-73 and 91-123. I have tried to explain the connections between the commercialisation of the web and the development of new curatorial and exhibition models in the next section, esp. 215-248, and woven this in more clearly in the examples provided in the chronology. I reduced the number of projects mentioned in the paper and I focused on analysing the core ones more in-depht by providing examples.

Point 2) While I understand the desire to scope this article to an explicitly art domain, I feel that any discussion of the topic of web curation platforms that doesn't discuss platforms aimed at and curated by broader audiences is missing a key point of context. Doing so would better illustrate the ties between the technology of the era and the art-specific curation platforms from each period. By only referencing them in passing, this article is only telling half the story.

- While I think this is a very good critique, in order to concentrate on the historical trajectory of curating in the online environment from within the curatorial field (119-123), I think I cannot discuss this in depht in the paper. However, I have now included more references to how the popularisation of curating (Web 2.0) has changed curatorial practice in the contemporary art field (in the context of online practices). Specifically, 55-73, 145-148, 226-248. 427-439

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf