Art forms in the digital world

    Which art forms are most amenable to the digital format? Performing arts such as dance and drama had never made the leap to any mechanical reproduction, unlike music. Hence dance and drama can be ruled out at the onset. Some forms are more easily ruled out than others. Sculpture for instance. Handicrafts and embroidery also belong to this category.
    Music is a more complicated form. It depends not only on the digital file but also on the hardware. If some form of music requires the music to come from the listener’s right, left, front, back, top and bottom; then one needs speakers able to produce such an effect. The performative visual aspect of music, like dance and drama, never moved successfully to mechanical reproduction. Hence they too are ruled out.
    Narration of stories, or oral literature transformed itself and created a new form when it moved to the realm of the written text. On the other hand, an audio recording of an oral narration is a form which is amenable to mechanical reproduction. Audio plays are examples of how such a format is used to its fullest potential.
    Written literature is quite amenable to the digital world. Though the handiness and quirks of a physical book (think of Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy) is sometimes lost in a digital book, the digital book comes with its own benefits, such as improved searching and annotating abilities.
    Static, immobile, visual art, such as painting, is not very amenable to the digital realm. The tactile textures of the drawn/ painted medium is usually lost in the digital format. Even a three-dimensional rendering does not fully transfer the features of visual art. Think of Van Gogh’s paintings with its raised surfaces of colour, or Byzantine art with inlaid gold work and their textures. In addition to texture, is the issue of size. A digital rendering never transfers the exact impact of the size of a visual artwork. The visual impact of a Raphael canvas several metres in dimension is never fully expressed in the digital world. Even if one were to use a projector which projects digital images of very large proportions and high clarity and focus, the visual impact of size of the physical art work is still not fully transferred onto the digital rendering.
    Cinema is a form which is perhaps very amenable to being transferred into the digital world.
    Photography is an art form which, if it is to be considered an art form, is the result of manipulation of what one would have seen normally. It is by its very nature a distortion. Hence, it is also well-suited to the digital world, and is in fact enhanced by the digital realm.

The quality of research is strained

    Teachers, paid-researchers, and wannabe teachers and paid-researchers, need pay rises and employment respectively. In order to gauge who deserves a pay rise, or is the best candidate to be employed, several factors are considered. One of the minor ones is of the quality of their research work.
    However, what determines quality? The answers may be one of the two following points.

1. The number of people whom the work has influenced positively.
2. The new leads that the work has given to people who already know quite a bit about such work. This batch of people is, usually, smaller than the number of people mentioned in the previous point.

Now, how does one measure either the number of people mentioned in point 1, or in point 2?

    Conventional academic practice requires the research work to be made public in some form (part of a journal article or book).
    However, other forms of publication, especially in digital forms such as websites, blogs and posts on social network forums, also exist. Moreover, there are less recognised forms of publication, but performance is also a form of expressing result of a research work. Measuring the quality of a performance has not been attempted so far in academic quantitative measurements. All these less conventional forms of expression of the result of research work are not acknowledged in conventional academic assessment.
    Even if one sticks to conventional methods of publication of academic research work, measuring its quality is still a problematic issue. Standard modes of assessment rely on citations of an existing research publication. However, a lot of research work has a lot of influence or gives new leads but cannot be acknowledged within the formal space of a future publication.
    For instance, a researcher may be heavily influenced by the presentation of an existing research work. That research may not be directly linked to the later publication but the researcher may be trying to emulate or deviate from certain modes of presentation. Such influences are rarely acknowledged, as they seem unconventional. It is a silent form of intertextuality.
    Or, one may not feel the need to cite directly from an earlier publication. This happens when one feels that the point one is making in a future publication is too well-known to be backed up by references to earlier publications.
    Thus, one is left with only direct citations in order to measure the quality of research. The conventional methods of measuring these citations (in some cases only in case of science and social science journals) are as follows.

1. Impact factor – Impact factor refers to journals, rather than to a specific research publication. Wikipedia states that “The impact factor of a journal is the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years. For example, if a journal has an impact factor of 3 in 2008, then its papers published in 2006 and 2007 received 3 citations each on average in 2008. The 2008 impact factor of a journal would be calculated as follows:

    A = the number of times that articles published in that journal in 2006 and 2007, were cited by articles in indexed journals during 2008.
    B = the total number of “citable items” published by that journal in 2006 and 2007. (“Citable items” are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not editorials or letters to the editor.)

    2008 impact factor = A/B.

(Note that 2008 impact factors are actually published in 2009; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2008 publications have been processed by the indexing agency.)”

2. Eigenfactor – Eigenfactor also refers to journals, rather than to a specific research publication. This, as Wikipedia puts it, “is a rating of the total importance of a ... journal. Journals are rated according to the number of incoming citations, with citations from highly ranked journals weighted to make a larger contribution to the eigenfactor than those from poorly ranked journals.” This is similar to the PageRank logic adopted by the founders of Google.

3. h-index – The h-index refers to an individual rather than to a journal or a specific research publication. A researcher has index “h” if “h” of the researcher’s “N” (total) papers have at least “h” citations each, and the other “(N - h)” papers have no more than “h” citations each. Only the most highly cited articles of a researcher contribute to the h-index. If one of these highly cited articles is path-breaking and has changed the way the world thinks about itself, and has more citations than the other highly cited articles, it will not add to the h-index. The h-index value, unlike the impact factor and the Eigenfactor, cannot be a fraction. It has to be a whole number.

4. g-index – The g-index also refers to an individual rather than to a journal or a specific research publication. “Given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g*g (or g-square) citations.” However, unlike the h-index, the total citations of all the research papers of a researcher, add to the g-index of the researcher. Thus, if one of the researcher’s articles is very  highly cited, it will increase that researcher’s g-index value, even if the researcher’s other articles have not been cited much. The g-index value, like the h-index value, is always a whole number and never a fraction.

    As the Wikipedia articles on these four conventional methods, of measuring the quality of research, state, all of them have their drawbacks, which people have pointed out. Yet, one or more of these assessing methods is used to determine the quality of research in conventional academic practice, not only in the sciences and social sciences, but also in other streams of academics. Humanities research, which often has a validity beyond 3 or 5 years, unlike most scientific research, is also measured using the same parameters.
     Added to this, is the issue of paid publication. Conventional publication is through either books or articles. Whereas books are usually published by established publishers, articles are sometimes published also by small institutes. Most books and articles though are not free. Either the author has to pay to get the material published or the reader has to pay to read such publications. Open-access publications (no author fees, no reader fees) exist in the digital domain but most journals with high subsequent citations avoid this form of open-access model. It is worth pointing out that researchers usually do not make any profit at all from paid-publications. The profit is solely made by the publishing house. Yet, authors continue to publish in these high-citation paid-publications as it gets authors higher credit points in academic assessments. Governments, such as the UK and India, advocate all public research output to be open-access, yet such a policy is not rigorously implemented.

রবীন্দ্রনাথের উপর তথ্য

• রবীন্দ্রনাথের প্রথম প্রকাশ করা রচনা ‘অভিলাষ (দ্বাদশ বর্ষীয় বালকের রচিত)’ নামক একটা কবিতা, যেটা প্রকাশিত হয় ব্রাহ্মসমাজের মুখপত্র তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিকা-তে অগ্রহায়ণ, ১২৮১-তে।
• রবীন্দ্রনাথের প্রথম প্রকাশিত প্রবন্ধ তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিকা-তে পৌষ, ১২৮১-তে প্রকাশিত হওয়া ‘গ্রহগণ জীবের আবাসভূমি’।
• প্রথম প্রকাশিত ছোট গল্প ‘ভিখারিনী’ যা প্রকাশিত হয় ভারতী পত্রিকায় দুই কিস্তিতে শ্রাবণ ও ভাদ্র, ১২৮৪-এ।
• প্রথম প্রকাশিত উপন্যাস বউ-ঠাকুরানীর হাট যা ধারাবাহিকভাবে প্রকাশিত হয় ভারতী পত্রিকায় কার্তিক, ১২৮৮ থেকে আশ্বিন, ১২৮৯ পর্যন্ত।
• প্রথম প্রকাশিত নাটক বলতে ভগ্নহৃদয় নাটকের প্রথম ছয়টা সর্গ মুদ্রিত হয় ভারতী পত্রিকায় কার্তিক-ফাল্গুন, ১২৮৭-এ। এর পরে, আদি ব্রাহ্মসমাজ যন্ত্র ১২৮৭-এ বাল্মিকী-প্রতিভা প্রকাশ করে।

• রবীন্দ্রনাথের জীবিতাবস্থায় শেষ প্রকাশিত রচনা একটা কবিতা, যার প্রথম ছত্র ‘আমার এ জন্মদিন-মাঝে আমি হারা’ এবং যা প্রকাশিত হয় প্রবাসী পত্রিকায় শ্রাবণ, ১৩৪৮-এ। রবীন্দ্রনাথের মৃত্যুর পর, আনন্দবাজার পত্রিকা ২৪ শ্রাবণ, ১৩৪৮-এ ‘রবীন্দ্রনাথের সর্বশেষ কবিতা’ নামে একটা কবিতা প্রকাশ করে যার প্রথম ছত্র ‘দুঃখের আঁধার রাত্রি বারে বারে’। ভাদ্র, ১৩৪৮-এ বঙ্গলক্ষ্মী পত্রিকা একটা রবীন্দ্র-স্মরণ সংখ্যা প্রকাশ করে এবং তাতে ‘রবীন্দ্রনাথের শেষ রচনা ১’ নামে প্রকাশিত হয় ‘দুঃখের আঁধার রাত্রি বারে বারে’ ও ‘রবীন্দ্রনাথের শেষ রচনা ২’ নামে প্রকাশিত হয় একটা কবিতা যার প্রথম ছত্র ‘তোমার সৃষ্টির পথ রেখেছ আকীর্ণ করি’।
• রবীন্দ্রনাথের জীবিতাবস্থায় শেষ প্রকাশিত নাটক হয় মুক্তির উপায় যা প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল অলকা পত্রিকায় আশ্বিন, ১৩৪৫-এ অথবা স্বর্গে চক্রটেবিল বৈঠক যা প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল প্রবাসী পত্রিকায় আশ্বিন, ১৩৪৫-এ।
• রবীন্দ্রনাথের জীবিতাবস্থায় শেষ প্রকাশিত গল্প ‘বদনাম’ যা প্রকাশিত হয় প্রবাসী পত্রিকায় আষাঢ়, ১৩৪৮-এ।
• রবীন্দ্রনাথের শেষ প্রকাশিত উপন্যাস মালঞ্চ যা যা ধারাবাহিকভাবে প্রকাশিত হয় বিচিত্রা পত্রিকায় আশ্বিন থেকে অগ্রহায়ণ, ১৩৪০ পর্যন্ত।
• রবীন্দ্রনাথের জীবিতাবস্থায় শেষ প্রকাশিত প্রবন্ধ তিনটে --ক) ‘সত্য ও বাস্তব’ যা ‘সাহিত্য, শিল্প’ নামে প্রবাসী পত্রিকায় আষাঢ়, ১৩৪৮-এ প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল। খ) একই সংখ্যায় ‘সাহিত্য, গান, ছবি’ নামক আরেকটা প্রবন্ধ প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল।কবিতা পত্রিকা আষাঢ়, ১৩৪৮-এ একটা বিশেষ রবীন্দ্র সংখ্যা প্রকাশ করে যাতে দুটো প্রবন্ধ ছিল -- গ) ‘সাহিত্যবিচার’ ও ‘সাহিত্যের মূল্য’। এর মধ্যে ‘সাহিত্যের মূল্য’ প্রবন্ধটি আগেই জ্যৈষ্ঠ, ১৩৪৮-এ প্রবাসী পত্রিকায় প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল।

• রবীন্দ্রনাথ প্রোটন, ইলেক্ ট্রন ও ন্যুট্রন নিয়ে দুটো প্রবন্ধ -- ‘পরমাণুলোক’ ও ‘নক্ষত্রলোক’ -- এবং একটা কবিতা -- ‘মিলের কাব্য’ -- রচনা করেছিল।

Changing notions of objects

Section 1
    When it comes to physical books, whereas Dublin core metadata principles categorise them under the following 15 basic heads --

• Title
• Creator
• Subject
• Description
• Publisher
• Contributor
• Date
• Type
• Format
• Identifier
• Source
• Language
• Relation
• Coverage
• Rights

and usual library practices categorise them under heads such as --

• Title
• Creator
• Subject
• Publisher
• Place of publication
• Date
• Language
• Number of pages
• Classification number

when it comes to more non-technical methods of categorising books, one uses heads such as

• Title
• Creator
• Subject
• Publisher
• Colour of cover
• Format of cover (hardback/ paperback)
• Dimensions (not exact, but adjectives such as big, small, slim, voluminous)
• Position in stack (beside this object, above this object, etc.)
• Donor

    From the above hypothesis, it may be concluded that in non-technical methods, the memory of objects is sometimes more important than or as equally important as the specific technical identifiers. When one thinks about digital objects, rather than physical objects, non-technical methods categorise objects under heads such as

• File or Folder
• File or folder name
• Subject
• Storage media (e.g. red pen drive in black bag lying on 3rd shelf of the cupboard)
• Path in storage media (e.g. one out of the 3 folders in the folder whose shortcut lies in the top right corner of the desktop screen)
• Type of file (e.g. pdf, jpg)
• Last modified time

    According to this hypothesis about digital objects, one can say that memory, again, plays an important part in organising and locating objects. Inexact identifiers are privileged over specific, more-technical identifiers. Thus, whereas some sensory identifiers (such as colour of object) are lost in this transition from the physical realm to the digital realm, some sensory identifiers (such as path in storage media) gain more prominence than position on stack in case of physical objects.

Section 2
    In addition to categorising and locating objects, objects also occupy a sentimental role in the lives of their possessors. I am suggesting that whereas it is easier to develop an emotional attachment to physical, tangible objects, it is perhaps less easier to develop an emotional attachment to digital objects. With physical objects, emotional attachment may be because of

a) the contents inside that object – feelings evoked by text or images inside a book, or sound produced by a gramophone record, cassette or CD, or
b) it may be due to feelings evoked by associations of the object – memory of the donor, occasion on which the object was received, circumstances under which the object was received, or
c) the object itself – an object which appeals to the aesthetic senses

With digital objects, emotional attachment, if any, is due to points (a) and sometimes (b) but rarely ever (c). This may be due to the simple fact, that a digital object is not a tangible object and thus its existence as an object in the first place is slightly dicey.
    The loss of attachment to an object because of the object itself is some thing, that I am suggesting, which occurs when one moves from the realm of physical objects to digital objects.