Databases and Their Limits?

This reading raises the question of the signifier for the signified. Is an amalgamation of precise information stored systematically in computer architecture equivalent to the location where it was harvested? Just because an image, for instance, can be analyzed and stored as detailed information, a user accessing this information may never experience the work, as it could be experience in the physical world, not to mention the bias and error margin. Through this reorganization of information, it is inevitable that new meaning will be produced. The work is encoded in a database to be decoded by users who may do so in various ways all of which dependant on the particular person’s cultural history and social background. This may be seen as an opportunity to create new stimuli while tapping new meaning. Personally, I am able to distinguish between emotions surfacing from viewing a reproduced art piece stored in a database versus one observed in a museum. Databases are useful research tools, which allow me to react to items difficult to reach for various reasons.

My interest peaks where the link is illustrated between photography and databases. Since the early days of photography, the medium was nothing but a way to document every possible aspect of human existence. From immortalizing creations to freezing moments in time, the medium was not looked at from an artistic point of view. Eventually, like many other mediums, photography made its way to the gallery. This will undoubtedly be the case for any new technology. It has already begun for databases. Artists are pushing this computerized structures developed for practical purposes to its limits. An ever-present issue with databases as with other variations of programming are interwoven constraints, which affect the outcome of projects, created with the medium.

Links:

In response to the reading of : Dietz, Steve. "Memory_Archive_Database v 3.0."