Last update at http://inet.nttam.com : Wed May 24 8:34:43 1995 Artists on the Internet Ann Peterson Bishop Joseph Squier Abstract This paper reports on a study of three very different types of online art galleries established at the University of Illinois. The study's purpose was to explore the nature and impact of online galleries from the perspectives of the artists, gallery administrators, and audience. Several artists and administrators associated with the three Internet art sites were interviewed, visitors to the online galleries were surveyed, and HTTP usage statistics for each site were analyzed. 1 Introduction The global information infrastructure is transforming the way artistic works are created and made public [1-2]. Recent technological developments allow photographs, paintings and sculptures to be viewed from anywhere in the world. Visual artifacts may be integrated with texts and sound and exhibited as a hypermedia document, allowing viewers to experience a new kind of artistic work, and each viewer to experience it in different ways. Museums are taking advantage of these technological changes to offer remote access to their collections. Artists use the same technology to create in new ways and, in some cases, to bypass museums altogether, exhibiting their work at will to an audience that spans the globe. Members of the public no longer need to visit specific institutions in order to experience works of art exhibited there; in fact, they suddenly have the opportunity to view works on demand and communicate directly with the creators of those works. The benefits of the virtual museum include increased access to art and audience, the ability to span geographic distance (and hence cultures), and a mutability of form that facilitates innovative artistic expression. Along with these advantages come an array of problems: the same issues that have plagued scholars, publishers, and libraries in the uneasy transition from print to electronic dissemination of text are now felt in the realm of the art world. Museums face loss of revenue and control and the need to restructure operations throughout the organization, while creators face the loss of formal recognition and reward and struggle to build a new aesthetic that is not based on the physicality of the work. The patron of art on the Internet faces the loss of the familiar aesthetic and also forgoes the cultural experience of viewing works within the context of a carefully crafted collection and in the presence of other visitors and museum personnel. The problems are not new, but we face them anew with each advance in our ability to create and display art "mechanically" [3]. This paper reports on the nature and use of three different types of virtual art galleries that have been established at the University of Illinois, and explores the impact of networked art on museums, artists, and viewers. The Krannert Art Museum has set up a World Wide Web site (http://www.art.uiuc.edu/kam/) which allows virtual tours of its exhibits. Joseph Squier and several of his colleagues have developed "@art Gallery" (http://gertrude.art.uiuc.edu/@art/ gallery.html) a Web site where established artists display original digital works on a revolving basis, with each artist's work showcased for a period of six to eight weeks and then archived. Squier exhibits his own art works via "The Place" (http://gertrude.art. uiuc.edu/ludgate/the/place.html) where he goes beyond the imitation of the linear, static display of individual images and constructs hypermedia works--which exist only in their Web manifestations. The authors collected data on the use and impact of these three different kinds of virtual galleries through interviews with their creators (both artists and museum personnel) and surveys of their patrons. Extent of use was also measured with HTTP server logs associated with each online site. This paper reports on their findings and highlights the impacts of networked art on individuals, organizations, and society. 2 The Artist's Perspective The first author interviewed five artists who have exhibited their work in the @art Gallery. The semi- structured interviews were conducted via telephone. Each interview was audiotaped and lasted between one and two hours; the interviewer also took notes during the interview sessions. The interviews centered on the nature of the artists' experiences related to the production and exhibition of their work in the @art Gallery, and each was asked to comment specifically on several issues: the role of the Internet in transforming artists' relationships with their peers, audience, and traditional institutions; the nature of the Web as an art medium; and ownership, control, and reward in the networked environment. For the interviews, we selected artists from the U.S., Austria, and Great Britain who represented a variety of creative endeavors, from photography to film production to architecture and design. Only one had previously exhibited work on the Internet. Interview notes and audiotapes were reviewed in order to identify key points and issues related to art on the Internet, from the artists' point of view. Aesthetic concerns about the nature of the Web as a medium for artistic expression seemed uppermost in the artists' minds. One artist noted that good art is good art, whether it's on a subway wall, in a museum, or on the net. But many comments were made about the lack of a physical object in terms of the loss of a sense of sanctity and preciousness, the inability of the digital medium to convey the visual resolution and texture so important in the aesthetic experience, and the loss of a "visceral" and "intimate" response to art. In some cases, these views were based on the assumption that art on the Internet would just be copies of art originally created in some other medium; in others cases, the underlying assumption was that no digital work could approach the aesthetic appeal of physical works. One artist specifically raised the issue of whether art on the Internet was merely a representation of something embodied in another medium and noted that opinions on this issue can change over time, citing photography as an example of a form that was initially considered a medium for representation and only later achieved recognition as a distinct art form. All of the artists interviewed emphasized the newness of the medium, expressed a desire to get away from use of the net as just "sexy technology" or "a new toy," and recognized that they needed to gain much more experience with the medium before they could understand its "subtle potential." One artist noted that computer art to date had been highly technical, analytical and abstract and that fewer artists had experimented with the ability of the medium to convey a sense of personal and emotional experiences. She also commented that the work she displayed at the @art Gallery was originally created for another medium. She felt that next time she'd have a better idea of what to do, such as using smaller images that would be quicker to download and easier to see on the screen and creating links more intrinsic to the nature and theme of the work. Another artist noted that "I haven't got the right form yet" or even the "right concepts" for breaking out of the mindset of physical spaces and objects in connection with art. Each artist also focused on the ability or inability of the network to act as an effective medium for conveying ideas that were important in one's work. One artist noted that an important theme was identity, family, and culture, and that the Web provided an especially appropriate means for mirroring ideas about this topic, which were dense, nonlinear, and multilayered. Others considered the effectiveness of the net for conveying their ideas about mobility, the nature of public space, the connection between art and political issues, and cultural production and exchange. While the use of the Web as an artistic medium was seen as problematic, networking was viewed as an important tool for facilitating more mundane aspects of the artistic endeavor, such as communicating with colleagues, identifying experts and resources, enabling remote fabrication, and advertising one's work. Typical comments were that the Internet allows the artist to communicate more frequently with friends, develop an expanded network of professional contacts, gather "esoteric" information from people not personally known, gain access to current events and activities in the international community without having to wait for print publications. One artist noted that his work was very information intensive and that better access to information would be required in the next few years in order to keep up with competitors who might be able to get things done quicker. Another looked forward to getting online with other artists, where they could form new, interacting communities based on shared political, cultural, and other interests. Similarly, another artist hoped that network would offer a better forum for the exchange of ideas among different fields. Most of those interviewed noted the potential of the Internet to save them money by eliminating costs associated with telephone calls, printing, and postage. Both positive and negative aspects of the network as a medium for the exhibition and dissemination of artwork were identified by interviewees. Several commented on the awkwardness of scrolling through related images and texts in the online environment. One artist argued that traditional galleries were actually much more innovative than their online counterparts in their ideas about exhibiting art. She felt that while the concept of physical space is well- defined and has led to powerful exhibition techniques like displaying a tiny object in a large empty space or incorporating the artist as an object in the exhibit, online galleries were still much more conservative and followed the model of simply hanging things on a wall. None of those interviewed felt that networks would replace other channels (e.g., books, museums) as a distribution mechanism; rather, the net was seen as expanding artists' options for getting work to the public and choosing a channel most suited to a particular piece. One artist described the importance of art textbooks for giving students a way to become aware of, think about, and learn about art. He said that even though the Internet, like textbooks, cannot duplicate the aesthetic experience of viewing a work originally created in another medium, it nonetheless can fulfill this very important educational function. All of the artists interviewed embraced what one termed the inherent "anarchy of the net," and were excited by the ability of the network to break down what was seen as an elitist control of art by organizations (ranging from museums to the National Endowment for the Arts to agents, commercial publishers, and distributors). Nonetheless, they were just as vehement in their concern that the network itself was still open only to those with substantial technical skills and financial resources; thus, access to art on the Internet was still severely limited to an elite group of artists and viewers. While the possibilities of greatly increasing the size of one's audience and of establishing a more interactive, spontaneous relationship with one's audience were lauded by most of the artists interviewed, these capabilities of networks did not seem to be of extreme importance. None of the artists interviewed seemed deeply concerned with issues of reward or the protection of intellectual property. Several noted that they hadn't really thought about the potential dangers or advantages or did not care to deal with the complexities of the copyright system. Some felt that you should just jump in and see what happened; the sense was that you knew enough about the workings of the Internet to realize that you couldn't retain complete control over your work. Those artists interviewed knew they didn't want someone else to take credit for, or make lots of money from, their work but they were uncertain and ambivalent about implementing measures to increase security and charge fees. One artist mentioned feeling "very vulnerable" at first, but then figured that with all the millions of images out there, why would someone steal hers? Another didn't mind if someone downloaded and distributed multiple copies of her work, drawing the analogy to buying postcards representing favorite works at the museum. Yet another said it never occurred to her that she might not receive just as much professional recognition for exhibiting her work in an online gallery as in a traditional museum. 3 The Gallery Administrator's Perspective We also conducted semi-structured, in-person interviews with three museum administrators in our efforts to understand the implications of the Internet for the art community. Two of those interviewed are associated with the Krannert Art Museum. They discussed their experiences with setting up the Krannert Web site and sponsoring new digital art through the @art Gallery; in addition, they shared their insights on the differences between traditional and online exhibits and the implications of online galleries for traditional institutions. The third administrator interviewed is one of the curators of the @art Gallery. She described the online curatorial process and discussed her feelings and experiences as a participant in the Internet art movement. Results were recorded and reviewed in the same manner as that described above. The Krannert administrators felt that the development of the online Krannert site had generated a great deal of good publicity for the museum, increasing both its local and global visibility: the site has been featured around the world in important professional meetings and in the popular press. The administrators also felt that it allowed the museum to reach a much larger and broader audience and to enhance its educational offerings. They felt that online exhibits were more likely to increase rather than decrease visits to the museum itself by letting people know of its existence and by offering a sampler that would draw them in. One of the administrators noted that, further, educational theory suggests that with preliminary exposure to museum material online, people would gain a sense of comfort and familiarity that would encourage them to make a trip to the museum and make their subsequent onsite visits more productive and enjoyable. She called this the "celebrity effect," explaining that once people had seen something on their screens at home they were more inclined to be excited by and linger over the actual artifact and less likely to "label hop" their way through the museum. The other Krannert administrator expressed a concern about potential educational gains, wondering whether galleries on the net were just fun places to explore or whether people would really set out to learn things from them. Its Web site has also allowed the Krannert Museum to offer virtual experiences that would be inconvenient or dangerous to provide in real life, such as a demonstration of scientific techniques involved in museum preservation. The Krannert's Hals exhibit (in which viewers can click on an article of clothing in a Hals portrait and link to scholarly essays on history and fashion as well as to related artworks) has no physical counterpart in the Krannert Museum. Among the advantages of the virtual hypermedia exhibit is that it presents information on a variety of levels, allowing users to customize their learning experiences and interact more intensively with the material. One of the Krannert administrators noted that the Internet has also increased the museum's participation in art historical scholarship: after adding a "Comments" button to their homepage, museum staff received a lot of requests from scholars and museum professionals for more information about the material displayed. One of the Krannert administrators called attention to the need for museums to serve society by embracing and validating new art forms. All of the administrators interviewed seemed to share the artists' sense that people still had a lot of experimenting to do before they would realize the full potential of the Web and understand all its potential problems. The @art curator noted that they learned something with each new exhibit they mounted. She was intrigued by the Web as a new method of communication developed by the international community, yet had struggled with defining her own role amid what she termed her "neo-luddite" sympathies: given the negative aspects of the new technology, should artists protest and stay away or roll up their sleeves and have a voice in what was coming down? She concluded that those who were dissatisfied with the quality of online exhibits should try to improve the design of galleries on the net. In describing the curating process, she asserted that it was the same in traditional and online environments, except that online curators currently exerted more control, in those cases where artists don't know how to mount their own artwork. Even though @art is curated, she liked the idea of unmoderated art spaces on the Web as well. Like the other artists and administrators interviewed, the @art curator felt that the Web offers an alternative to traditional museums, not a replacement for them. Even though all three administrators expressed a sense of exhilaration with being pioneers on the electronic frontier, they also expressed some skepticism about pouncing on the Web as a "new toy." One of the Krannert administrators felt that traditional institutions were experiencing some "fear of the unknown," i.e., a realization that no one could predict yet what the exact consequences of mounting online exhibits might be; she wondered whether something that she couldn't even imagine would result in the museum getting sued or being severely criticized. One of the administrators interviewed described the net as a new world with no rules; norms and procedures for electronic display and dissemination--the institutional equivalent of netiqette--had not been worked out yet by museums. Museum curators know what to expect and are able to exert a great deal of control when they loan works to other museums; but when someone copies and distributes an online work, they often don't give credit to the institutional "lender," and may not display the work appropriately. The administrators identified a range of problems associated with art on the Internet. Institutional barriers in traditional museums included high technology costs and the lack of both technical expertise and the time needed to become educated about the implications of the "mysterious" new medium for museum operations. But online galleries with no institutional counterpart also require resources and support; the @art curator mentioned their need for more server space and a better mechanism for distributing the labor of exhibit production and maintenance. One important social concern expressed was that the goal of using the net for outreach to a more diverse and larger audience was unattainable as long as the Internet and computers remained tools accessible mainly to the white middle class. All the interviewees noted that they'd like more feedback from viewers; with little sense of who their audience was, they found it hard to create online exhibits and informational material. Both traditional and online gallery administrators seemed more cognizant of online art use issues than were the artists. The dangers they discussed included the unauthorized manipulation of images, undignified or commercial use, the appropriateness of digital representations of artwork for faculty and student use, the need to train people to be critical consumers of images (e.g., to recognize hidden agendas and realize that images could be altered). Although the increased privacy and intimacy of online exhibits were applauded, one interviewee warned that "the little presentation box" in which networked art was typically displayed limits the viewer's engagement with art: you see the computer, screen, and keyboard first and the art second. Another gallery administrator noted that kinetic and experiential qualities are an issue: tactility, scale, and resolution quality are typically inadequate in online exhibits. She found the hype surrounding Internet art annoying and felt the important question was whether it was possible to relay empathic content from artist to audience in the digital environment or whether virtual museums just cluttered up the viewers' eyes, hearts, and space. 4 Viewer Surveys In order to explore the use of virtual museums, we conducted an online survey of visitors to the Krannert Web site, the @art Gallery, and The Place. The HTTP forms survey that we developed consisted of fourteen questions which collected reports of the extent and nature of use of the Internet, online galleries, and traditional museums, along with demographic data. Links to the survey were added at several key points at each of the three sites. Visitors to the sites were invited to complete the survey at the conclusion of their visit. Most of the questions required the selection of one of several precoded responses. Three questions asked for open-ended answers from respondents. The survey was developed and pretested in March. During the period from April 17 to April 25, 154 usable responses were returned: 82 surveys were completed at The Place; 42 at the Krannert Museum site; and 30 at @art Gallery. Several completed surveys were discarded because respondents noted that they were just "testing" or "hacking" the survey. Survey responses were analyzed with SAS and simple descriptive summaries and analyses were produced. In reporting results in this paper, percentages have been rounded up to the nearest whole number, so totals may not always equal 100. The number of missing responses to each question ranged from three (for question 1 on how the online gallery was discovered) to 25 (for question 14 on respondent's occupation). Basic characteristics of survey respondents are reported in Table 1 and reveal a fair amount of diversity. Most of the respondents were male. Almost half were over 35 years old. About one fifth of respondents were themselves artists; while a significant portion were from the educational community, a perusal of the "other" responses revealed that viewers of these online galleries represented a variety of occupations, including zoologist, engineer, businessman, programmer, librarian, art historian, writer, tradesman, physician, registered nurse, lawyer, and musician. Most were daily Internet users. Although about half were experienced networked users, having utilized the net for over a year, an almost equal percentage had been online for under six months. The picture of the nature of discovery and use of online galleries presented in Table 2 supports the view that many visitors are surfing the net as a diversion. Most respondents were stopping at the gallery for the first time. About a third of survey respondents just stumbled across the gallery sites and another third were browsing for art on the Internet. A fair amount of gallery traffic, however, apparently results from the viewer being directed to a particular site. It appears as if few people scour the Internet in search of particular items; in the current stage of network development, perhaps few people would expect that desired works existed in cyberspace or, if known to exist, could be easily found. General relaxation and personal enjoyment of art apparently exceed educational aims as the purpose of visits to online galleries. This situation perhaps differs little from traditional museum use, where many people also go for simple relaxation and meander through exhibits, sampling a little of this and that. Table 1: Basic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Frequency Percent CHARACTERISTICS Gender: Female 34 24 Male 109 76 Age: Under 12 yrs. 1 1 12-17 6 4 18-21 16 11 22-34 54 38 35-44 37 26 45-54 25 17 Over 55 5 4 Primary Occupation: Artist 23 18 Student 40 31 Teacher 12 9 Other 54 42 Frequency of Internet Use: Daily 98 70 Weekly 36 26 Monthly 2 1 Less than once/mo. 5 4 Length of Time as Internet User: More than 3 years 25 17 From 1-3 years 45 31 From 7-12 months 21 15 From 1-6 months 35 24 Less than 1 month 18 13 Table 2: Discovery and Use of Online Galleries Frequency Percent How the Gallery was Discovered: Heard or read about it 30 20 Looking for certain artist, work, or type of art 4 3 Browsing the Internet for online art 48 32 Just happened upon it while using the net 52 34 Other 17 11 Main Purpose of Current Visit to the Online Gallery: Own enjoyment of art 51 36 Related to learning or teaching about art 12 9 Related to learning or teaching about the Internet 13 9 General relaxation, recreation, or just browsing 48 34 Other 18 13 No. of Times You've Visited this Gallery: This is my 1st visit 113 76 2-3 times 18 12 4-5 times 9 6 More than 5 times 8 5 Survey respondents were also asked to compare key features of the online gallery they visited to those same features in traditional galleries (See Table 3). These data are difficult to interpret because a flaw in the survey design caused "Better" responses to be entered as a default value, i.e., if respondents skipped one of the questions in this group, a response of "Better" was automatically recorded for them. Nonetheless, there is a clear trend in viewers' opinions. Convenience and ease of navigation in online galleries ranked higher than power of aesthetic experience or quality of the artwork displayed. Interestingly, it was in terms of artistic quality that viewers found themselves least able to compare digital with traditional works, perhaps lending credence to the artists' views that a new aesthetic for the medium would have to emerge. In another set of questions, respondents were asked to report the frequency with which they visited both online and traditional galleries. The majority of respondents (71%) said they visited art exhibits on the Internet on a weekly basis, while traditional galleries and museums were visited several times a year by most people (64%). It appears, then, that the Internet does expand access to artwork to people who would be less likely to view it otherwise. Table 3: Viewers' Comparisons of Key Features of Online vs. Traditional Galleries Frequency Percent Convenience of Online Access: Better* 115 75 Worse 8 5 About the same 11 7 Don't know/ Can't compare 20 13 Quality of Online Art: Better* 71 46 Worse 19 12 About the same 32 21 Don't know/ Can't compare 32 21 Power of Aesthetic or Emotional Experience: Better* 76 49 Worse 28 18 About the same 28 18 Don't know/ Can't compare 22 14 Ability to Locate and View Online Art: Better* 106 69 Worse 15 10 About the same 17 11 Don't know/ Can't compare 16 10 In their open-ended responses, a number of those who completed surveys provided eloquent insights into the differences between online and traditional galleries. The questionnaire asked people to comment on what they liked best and least about the online exhibit they had just seen and to express their views on significant differences between online and traditional venues. One major bifurcation in these responses is whether the Web is perceived as a space for exhibiting works or as a medium. Viewing it as a space, the consensus is that it is inadequate because viewers are constrained by technical features (the size of their monitors and bandwidth capacity) from viewing complete works quickly and fully. There * "Better" was inadvertently set up as the default response to these questions and was recorded as the respondent's answer even if that question was skipped. also seems to be general agreement about the lack of atmosphere created by lighting and the ability to move around in three dimensions. Comments on the advantages and disadvantages of traditional spaces for exhibiting artwork included: "In a traditional art gallery, you are confronted with the pictures in a far more sensual way, you are able to look at them from different distances and angles and you observe their effect in space and in connection with their surrounding." "The traditional 'presence' of the artpiece creates another ambiance in the Gallery or Museum. When looking, or even 'interacting' with electronic works, you get the feeling of looking just at a 'reproduction', you don't feel as if you were in an actual gallery, but more like going through the pages of a magazine. Only that it takes a lot more to turn the page!" "You don't have the speed and immediacy that you do with material objects -- this may sound counterintuitive given the hype about being online, but I can usually walk near (within a few hundred feet for a moderate scale work) and tell if it's interesting. I can't do that for online art. On the other hand, the lack of speed increases my engagement with an interesting work ." "Online art [...] gives no sense of either dimension or texture, which is bad. That is, all scale is roughly the same and the subtleties of finish, tone, and lighting are lost." Online gallery visitors agreed that virtual exhibits were useful for educational purposes, better than no access to art at all, and afforded convenience and comfort to the viewer: "I live in a rural area and my students probably will never get to visit an art gallery... this is a wonderful opportunity for them!" "Online art exhibits are never crowded. You never hear Ôoh, Picasso's blue period' at an online art exhibit." "One is not routed through a maze of art . . . I don't feel like a cow off to slaughter through the corral of walls in the gallery." "No visiting hours; no "by invitation only"; intimacy; no lines of people to struggle with at an opening; ease of returning at will; no sales pressure." There seemed to be less consensus on the ability of the online gallery visitor to locate and navigate among works of interest: "It is easy to browse. The collections are divided by subject." "I had difficulty navigating the exhibits." "It doesn't have an index of artists and/or arts." "The odds that students and teachers, who come online looking for something only mildly specific, will actually find something are very slim." Individual experience probably varies by familiarity with the Internet and the effectiveness of the organization of items at a particular site. Viewed as a medium, rather than just an exhibition space, the Web is inadequate in terms of conveying detail and sensuality of the physical object, although the very lack of a physical object seems for some viewers to induce a dreamlike quality and heightened aesthetic and emotional awareness. Many viewers were simply excited to be participating in the development of a new medium, and especially appreciative of artwork which seemed to embody a truly new art form: "The fact that this is a new medium and that artists are just beginning to use the www---I guess that's what I like----new." "Its placelessness. Vague yet distinct. I feel like I've been there but only in my dreams." "Up to now the art I have found has simply utilized the WWW to publish and disseminate." "I haven't found any other artwork on the net that is specific to the net. Most other Ôartwork' either involves someone photographing their art and posting that to the net or this Ôinteractive' art in which pseudo-novels are created (the hotel) or image manipulation tag teams play with each other's Ôart'." The Web also offers improved ability to interrelate material to create deeper, richer objects that serve a variety of needs. As one viewer commented: "But there is no 'hyperlinking' at a traditional museum, aside from the repetition of metaphors or individual images carried from painting to painting by a single artist, or a copying of a metaphor or style from one artist to another. There is no Ôdiving below the surface' of a painting to discover more art." Appreciation of innovation and access permeate either view (as space or medium). But divided opinions characterized other issues. It was quite striking that some viewers found online galleries distancing and impersonal: one person noted that "it is kind of impersonal"; and another commented that "The computer screen creates an illussion [sic] of distance between you and the 'site'." On the other hand, other survey respondents thought the Web environment allowed a much more personal and intimate experience: "Its intimacy and immediacy, the ability to make return visits at any time and idea of Ôpossessing' the art- even for a few minutes." "Most museums are filled with art that I fail to find relevant in my own life." "An Online gallery is more personal [...] The online experience is more intimate and so lends itself well to communication between the artist and the consumer of the art. " There were also differing opinions as to quality of work displayed. Some viewers found the quality of the art to be mostly "at a student level" or "fluff." Others said "Love the art" and noted "The high quality works of art." Several viewers commented that direct comparison between online and traditional galleries was difficult, if not irrelevant. A few respondents made comments related to the role of the institution in online galleries, such as "However, my biggest concern is still-----who BE the sponsor" and "I really like the idea that a knowledgeable curator has designed this for me." One respondent summed up the potential of online galleries not only for enhanced access, but for providing the "visceral response" that one of the artists interviewed felt was missing from digital art: "Being from rural Northwest Florida (panhandle sometimes called the 'Redneck Riviera'), exposure to art exhibits that even hint of anything not 'traditional' is rare. (Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' was 'banned" here because of a few pentecostals, etc.) I have traveled to Venice, Rome and other parts of Europe while in the military and have visited some famous and 'not so famous' museums and galleries. Although not overly (or even remotely) religious, I am in eternal awe of 'The Pieta' (as well as the gigantic coffee cup my daughter made in pottery class). I have enjoyed visiting (...getting back to the question...) and would have to say accessability (to those with computers) is a big 'plus' for online art...and the negative...well, I had seen images of 'The Pieta' countless times before and it never made any impression on me at all. However, I must say your two pieces that I have viewed, so far, have." 5 Online Gallery Usage Statistics Using the Getstats computer program, HTTP server statistics are collected continuously for the Krannert Web site, The Place, and @art Gallery. Selected statistics for March 1995 were analyzed in order to form a picture of the extent and nature of use of these three online galleries. It should be noted that HTTP server statistics record usage from the computer's point of view, counting the number of unique Internet hosts accessing each gallery (where a single Internet computer host may support a large number of unique users) and the number of requests to view each separate gallery file. While valuable, neither of these approaches to calculating usage reveals the number of unique visits or visitors to an online gallery. Examples of individual files are a homepage, a thumbnail image, and a navigational icon that brings the viewer to a new place in the gallery. Each online museum visitor typically views a number of files during a single visit. As seen in Table 4, all three galleries attract a significant number of visitors, although The Place, accessed by nearly ten thousand unique Internet hosts, received somewhat more traffic than either the Krannert or @art galleries. Examining the Internet domains of the host computers accessing the online galleries reveals the extent to which visitors arrive from around the world. (For the current analysis, domains representing unknown countries of origin--such as numerical, .org, and .net--were not tabulated.) About three quarters of the unique hosts in domains supporting visitors to each of the three galleries appear to reside within the United States (see Table 5). The domain names for visitors to @art and The Place were also examined to get a sense of the proportion of viewers coming from the University of Illinois itself; this appears to be only about 5%. Each gallery is visited by viewers arriving from about 50 different non-U.S. domains. As shown in Table 6, the countries representing the greatest number of unique hosts for gallery visitors appear to be fairly consistent across the three different online galleries. English-speaking countries top the list, in general followed by northern European and industrialized countries. An examination of the extent to which particular files were requested imparts some suggestion of the nature of use of online galleries. The number of file requests suggests patterns in the way people navigate in virtual museums and their preferences for certain types of material. For example, The Place displays three major exhibits--Pictures, Life with Father, and Urban Diary--along with information about the artist and, in a section marked "Soapbox," two essays he wrote. Urban Diary is the latest exhibit to be mounted. The number of requests for files in the directories of each exhibit suggests that older and newer material both attract their share of viewers: Pictures (40365 requests); Life with Father (33470 requests); and Urban Diary (39489 requests). The directory with information about the artist received 2733 requests and the first pages of the two essays in Soapbox were requested, respectively, 402 and 275 different times. It appears that most visitors are more interested in viewing the artwork than in reading associated material. Looking at the progression of viewing within a particular exhibit suggests that online gallery visitors choose to view those items of particular interest to them, as opposed to viewing in linear fashion all artworks on display. For example, the introductory page for the @art Leonardo exhibit displayed, in a list that ran from the top to the bottom of the page, each artist's name, along with a thumbnail image representing his or her work and a caption describing the nature of the work. The directory for the sixth artist listed received about twice as many requests as that of the first (perhaps due to its caption: "Digital Desires"). Table 4: General Usage Statistics for March 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Krannert @art The Place Total no. of unique hosts accessing gallery 6261 6512 9860 New unique hosts in last 7 days of month 1126 1301 1475 No. of HTML file requests 19512 38868 56851 No. of non-HTML file requests (e.g., GIF) 69420 84705 139246 All HTML and non-HTML file requests 88937 123573 196097 Average no. of file requests per hour 244 291 388 Average no. of file requests per day 5862 6979 9319 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 5: Number of Unique Hosts Accessing Each Gallery from U.S. and non- U.S. Domains in March 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Krannert @art The Place Host Domains U.S. Commercial 952 1703 1993 U.S. Educational 1728 1640 2518 U.S. Government 115 109 148 U.S. Military 44 64 79 .us domain 78 47 53 All U.S. Domains 2917 (71%) 3563 (74%) 4791 (73%) All non-U.S. Domains 1190 (29%) 1284 (26%) 1756 (27%) All Domains 4107 (100%) 4847 (100%) 6547 (100%) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 6: Top 15 Non-U.S. Domains with the Greatest Number of Unique Hosts Supporting Gallery Visitors in March 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Krannert @art The Place Domain No. Unique Hosts Domain No. Unique Hosts Domain No. Unique Hosts Canada 230 Canada 253 Canada 436 U.K. 136 U.K. 192 U.K. 292 Japan 89 Sweden 75 Australia 151 Germany 88 Japan 73 Sweden 115 France 77 Germany 70 Germany 79 Australia 69 Australia 67 Finland 73 Netherlands 58 Netherlands 65 Norway 70 Sweden 49 Italy 61 Netherlands 62 Finland 41 Norway 55 France 58 Switzerland 34 France 42 Switzerland 55 Italy 32 Finland 42 Japan 38 Israel 25 Mexico 35 Belgium 36 Norway 24 Austria 32 Austria 28 Mexico 22 Switzerland 27 Denmark 26 Belgium 19 Singapore 19 Italy 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The number of requests for the specific files in The Place's Life with Father exhibit suggests another possible feature of online gallery navigation. This exhibit combines images and text in a narrative with a clear beginning, middle, and end. While there were 1611 requests for the introductory page of this exhibit, the number of requests for each subsequent file declined dramatically as the story progressed. There were 875 viewings of an early page in the narrative, 379 viewings of a page appearing midway through the narrative, and only 199 viewings for one of the final pages in the exhibit. Thus, it appears that only about 12% of those people who viewed the start of the exhibit actually followed it all the way to its conclusion. Viewers of the Krannert site also seemed to take advantage of the hyperlink structure of the Web to jump immediately to material of special interest. From the table of contents listing a sample of museum works available for viewing online, over 1000 requests were made for the European/American files and the 20th C. art files (the second and third listings in the table of contents). The sculpture file, which was listed first in the table of contents, received only 470 requests. Information about the Krannert's educational resources, cafe, and upcoming events-- perhaps of interest to local clientele--received many fewer "hits" than did the museum's artwork itself. It is worth noting that the introductory page of the exhibit on Frans Hals received nearly as many requests (795) as the introductory page for the sample of 20th C. artwork (1053). This suggests that the Krannert's attempt to take advantage of the power of the new medium to develop and disseminate material that is NOT actually available within the walls of the museum has been successful. 6 Conclusions The online gallery is variously considered by members of the art community as space for the exhibition of art or a novel medium for art's creation. Advances in technology will no doubt improve the representation of previously created artifacts and, in the case of new works created expressly for the Web, the presentation of original digital artifacts. But further experimentation with modes of presentation-- including scale, layout, lighting, and perspective--will be necessary if the new medium is to reach its full potential. The interaction between the viewer and the work may be either less or more powerful on the net, depending on the nature of the work and the viewer's situation. It appears that the lack of a social, physical, and institutional context can either dull or heighten the viewer's aesthetic and emotional experience. Beyond such technological and aesthetic issues there exist legal, ethical, and practical concerns related to art on the Internet. Many members of the art community are beginning to recognize the need to strike a balance, in the networked environment, between appropriate controls and the exhilaration of anarchy, and to re-examine the relationship among viewers, artists, and art institutions in the production and distribution of art. Ensuring access to network resources seems to be the primary issue on everyone's mind at this point in time. This study offers a first step in exploring the viewing behavior of online museum visitors. As in a traditional setting, it appears as if many viewers move quickly among items on display while a only a few study particular works or collections at length. Greater understanding of the nature of browsing, navigating, locating, and studying digital artworks and their associated texts will help in fashioning online exhibits better suited to the multifaceted needs of the audience. References [1]Pinchbeck, D. "State of the art," Wired, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 157-158, 206-208, Dec. 1994. [2]Taylor, J. H. and J. Ryan. "Museums and galleries on the Internet," Internet Research, vol. 5, no. 1, 1995, in press. [3]Benjamin, W. "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction."In Illuminations, Ed. and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt. New York: Schocken Books, 1968, pp. 217-251. Author Information Ann Peterson Bishop is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820. Joseph Squier is an Assistant Professor in the School of Art and Design, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 142 Art and Design Bldg., 408 E. Peabody, Champaign, IL 61820. Acknowledgements The authors thank Greg Newby for mounting this study's online survey and performing the statistical analysis of results and are grateful to Mark Roth and Brad Whitmore for assisting him in this effort. We are especially appreciative of the time and insights contributed by the artists, administrators and viewers who participated in this study. Laura Hjerpe and Anna Maria Watkin provided a review of resources related to online museums and Jane Darcovich contributed valuable ideas related to the interpretation of interview results. We thank the Advanced Information Technologies Group, under the direction of Bob Jones, for its financial support.