I appreciated the range of media discussed in Visualizing Temporal Patterns, and although I am not as familiar with film or video games as I am with Art History, I could not help but think that perhaps the use of time as a way into standardizing information could only be effective as a tool for analysis if the data was more constrained. The example given of the 35 canonical paintings is intended to cross genres to find commonalities in development, but I cannot help but feel that the individual pieces have been selected a little arbitrarily and that although the program developed is useful for sorting categories, the data should be more limited. The author of the article states that the visualizations created by separating objective qualities of the works supports the thesis that all artists represented were moving towards modernism, a statement that I think ignores the trajectory of each individual artist’s oeuvre. Although modern technology has been employed for this visualization I find that it too closely parallels the now antiquated model of a time-lime exhibit in a museum space. I suppose that my feeling towards this kind of visualization comes from my belief that ordering art in a timeline limits the kind of engagement that a viewer feels comfortable with.
The reading, Cartographies of Time, pointed to the prolific reliance on data that could be graphed in an XY coordinate-plane. Even though the reading also mentioned 3 dimensional visualizations the input for these visualizations would still rely on concrete numerical input. I do not necessarily think that this is valuable for the general user on its own. What is the difference between Baroque, Classical and Renaissance to someone who has only just begun thinking about art? As a counterpoint to moving away from XY, in Cartographies of Time the notion of a line in graphical work as a “metaphor [as] ubiquitous in everyday visual representations” puts forth the question that the line is the most cross culturally pervasive symbol for the passing of time and this suggests that it is so intuitively read that that it is valuable. I just wonder how the XY plane can be made more inclusive.