From Descriptions to Duplicates to Data

Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


Scholarly use of digital material moves from catalogues (locator services) to digital duplicates intended for human study to digital versions intended for computer analysis. We have been through this entire path for text, the easiest material to digitise, and we are now fairly far along with artistic imagery. More difficult content, such as costume and dance, will move through the same stages in the future. Perhaps the most important question is whether the nature of critical research changes as the tools change. Many early applications of computers were authorship studies, for example. More generally, does research based on computer analysis ask the same kind of questions as other research? Is it done on the same materials? So far, it would appear that the same materials are considered, and the same questions asked, but there are newer tools to apply. Algorithmic research can also study larger quantities of material, perhaps reducing the single-work focus of much cultural study.


Machine Translation Sentiment Analysis Statistical Machine Translation Forgery Detection Digital Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Pollard, A. W., & Redgrave, G. R. (1926). A short-title catalog of books printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of English books printed abroad, 1475–1640. London: The Bibliographical Society.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wing, D. Short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and British America and of English books printed in other countries, 1641–1700, 3 vols. New York: The Index Society, 1945–51.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgman, C. L. (1997). From acting locally to thinking globally: A brief history of library automation. The Library Quarterly, 67(3), 215–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brunner, T. F. (1991). The thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Classics and the computer. Library Hi Tech, 9(1), 61–67.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quay, A. (2012). Google engineer builds automatic ‘page-turning scanner’, uses vacuum cleaner. Taxi, 13. Accessed 28 Jan 2013.
  6. 6.
    Kiernan, K. S. (1991). Digital image processing and the Beowulf manuscript. Literary and Linguist Computing, 6(1), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hind, A. M. (1912). A catalogue of Rembrandt’s etchings. New York: Fred Stokes.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besser, H. (1990). Visual access to visual images: The UC Berkeley image database project. Library Trends, 38(4), 787–798.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ARTstor Blog. About ARTstor. Accessed 28 Jan 2013.
  10. 10.
    Levoy, M., Pulli, K., Curless, B., Rusinkiewicz, S., Koller, D., Pereira, L., Ginzton, M., Anderson, S., Davis, J., Ginsberg, J., Shade, J., & Fulk, D. (2000). The digital Michelangelo project: 3D scanning of large statues.” In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH’00), (pp. 131–144). New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanade, T., Rander, P., Vedula, S., & Saito, H. (1999). Virtualised reality: Digitizing a 3D time-varying event as is and in real time. In Y. Ohta & H. Tamura (Eds.), Mixed reality, merging real and virtual worlds (pp. 41–57). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baker, N. (2001). Double fold: Libraries and the assault on paper. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egan, D. E., Lesk, M. E., Ketchum, R. D., Lochbaum, C. C., Remde, J. R., Littman, M., & Landauer.T. K. Hypertext for the electronic library? CORE sample results. In Proceedings Hypertext ’91 (pp. 299–312). San Antonio, 15–18 December 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, J. iPad and Kindle reading speed. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, 2 July 2010. Accessed 29 Jan 2013.
  15. 15.
    Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris, P. (2012). Reading speed variations on paper vs. computer vs. Kindle. In 6th annual conference, vision performance institute. Pacific University College of Optometry, OR. Accessed 29 Jan 2013.
  17. 17.
    Wacholder, N., Liu, L., & Liu, Y-H. (2006). User behavior during the book selection process. Proceedings American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43:1–16.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, J. (2006). Approaching pre-modern China through the computer: The impact of full-text databases on Sinological research. Private communication.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lesk, M. (1985). Graphical information resources: Maps and beyond. In Proceedings of 8th annual ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’85), (pp. 2–8). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Humphries, T., & Thompson, S. (2012). A Hippocratic Intuition for Balance in Warburg’s Mnemosyne Atlas. Transtechnology Research Reader, Plymouth University. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  21. 21.
    Ester, M. (1990). Image quality and viewer perception. Digital Image Digital Cinema. Supplemental Issue. Leonardo, 1(23), 51–63.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macdonald, L. The limits of resolution. In A. Seal, J. P. Bowen, & K. Ng (Eds.), EVA London 2010 conference proceedings. Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC), British Computer Society, 2010. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  23. 23.
    Ester, M. (1993). Image use in art: Historical practice. Gateways, gatekeepers and roles in the information omniverse, Association of Research Libraries, Washington DC. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  24. 24.
    Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Allen, P. K., Troccoli, A., Smith, B., Stamos, I., & Murray, S. (2003). The Beauvais Cathedral Project. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (p. 10), Madison. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krebs, F., & Brück, E. (2002). Historical buildings in 3D. In EVA London 2002. Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, London. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  27. 27.
    McNamara, M. Destroyed German synagogues reconstructed on web page. The New York Times, 24 September 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lutz, B., & Weintke, M. (1999). Virtual Dunhuang art cave: A cave within a CAVE. Computer Graphics Forum, 18(3):257–264. See also the International Dunhuang Project, Scholar
  29. 29.
    Packard, D. W. (1968). A concordance to Livy (Vol. 4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. (1963). Inference in an authorship problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(302), 275–309.MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morton, A. Q. (1965). The authorship of Greek prose. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 128(2), 169–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wake, W. C. (1957). Sentence length distributions of Greek authors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Milic, L. T. Winged words: Carieties of computer applications to literature. In Proceedings Fall Joint Computer conference (pp. 321–326). New York: ACM, 14–16 November 1967.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sowa, C. A., & Sowa, J. F. (1974). Thought clusters in early Greek oral poetry. Computers and the Humanities, 8, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harris, R. The personal computer as a tool for student literary analysis. VirtualSalt, 30 December 1994. Accessed 29 Jan 2013.
  36. 36.
    Lohr, S. Dickens, Austen and Twain, through a digital lens. The New York Times, p. BU3, 27 January 2013.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Michel, J., Shen, Y., Aiden, A., Veres, A., Gray, M., Pickett, J., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M., & Aiden, E. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitised books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., & Wang, J. Z. (2006). Studying aesthetics in photographic images using a computational approach. In Proceedings of European conference on computer vision, Part III (pp. 288–301), Graz, Austria, May 2006. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3953. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li, J., Yao, L., Hendriks, E., & Wang, J. Z. (2012). Rhythmic brushstrokes distinguish van Gogh from his contemporaries: Findings via automated brushstroke extraction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 34(6), 1159–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Polatkan, G., Jafarpour, S., Brasoveanu, A., Hughes, S., & Daubechies, I. Detection of forgery in paintings using supervised learning. In 16th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP) (pp. 2921–2914), Cairo, 7–10 November 2009. Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li, J., & Wang, J. Z. (2003). Studying digital imagery of ancient paintings by mixtures of stochastic models. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(3), 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Graham, D. J., Hughes, J. M., Leder, H., & Rockmore, D. N. (2012). Statistics, vision and the analysis of artistic style. WIREs Computational Statistics, 4, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shamir, L., & Tarakhovsky, J. (2012). Computer analysis of art. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 5(2), 1–11, article 7.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Crandall, D., & Snavely, N. (2012). Modeling people and places with internet photo collections. ACM Queue, 10(5), 30–44.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Manovich, L. Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. 28 April 2011. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
  46. 46.
    Rodriguez-Echavarria, K., Morris, D., & Arnold, D. (2009). Web based presentation of semantically tagged 3D content for public sculptures and monuments in the UK. In S. N. Spencer (Ed.), Proceedings of 14th international conference on 3D Web technology (Web3D’09) (pp. 119–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Flaherty, J. Harvard’s 3D-printing archaeologists fix ancient artifacts. Wired, 10 December 2012. Accessed 29 Jan 2013.
  48. 48.
    Agarwal, S., Yurukawa, Y., Snavely, N., Simon, I., Curless, B., Seitz, S. M., & Szeliski, R. (2011). Building Rome in a day. Communications of the ACM, 54(10), 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dobrzynksi, J. Honoring art, honoring artists. The New York Times, p. AR1, 6 February 2011.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schilit, B. N., & Kolak, O. (2008). Exploring a digital library through key ideas. In Proceedings of 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’08) (pp. 177–186), Pittsburgh. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rajaraman, A. More data usually beats better algorithms. Datawocky, 24 March 2008. Accessed 4 Apr 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations