This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 11:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Resources: An InternationalJournal of DocumentationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gvir20

Scholarship and Digital Publications:Where Research Meets InnovativeTechnologyD. Samuel Quigley , Elizabeth Neely , Amy Parkolap & GloriaGroomPublished online: 12 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: D. Samuel Quigley , Elizabeth Neely , Amy Parkolap & Gloria Groom(2013) Scholarship and Digital Publications: Where Research Meets Innovative Technology,Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, 29:1-2, 97-106, DOI:10.1080/01973762.2013.761122

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2013.761122

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Scholarship and Digital Publications:Where Research Meets Innovative Technology

D. Samuel Quigley, Elizabeth Neely, Amy Parkolap, andGloria Groom

This article examines the methodology of the Art Institute of Chicago’s online scholarlycatalogs. Beginning in 2009, the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC) was invited along with agroup of other museums by the Getty Foundation to create an online scholarly collectioncatalog. The AIC thoughtfully considered how technology could best serve art history andproduce innovative scholarship before launching the beta online catalogs Monet Paintingsand Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago (http://publications.artic.edu/reader/monet-paintings-and-drawings-art-institute-chicago) and Renoir Paintings and Drawings at the ArtInstitute of Chicago (http://publications.artic.edu/reader/renoir-paintings-and-drawings-art-institute-chicago), in November 2011. By combining the traditional hallmarks of printedcatalogs with the seemingly limitless possibilities of technology, a visionary onlinepublishing environment was created. This paper also analyzes scholars’ responses to thecatalogs and what their feedback means for the future of digital scholarship.

Keywords: Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative (OSCI); Digital Publishing; MuseumCatalogs; Renoir, Pierre-Auguste (1841–1919); Monet, Claude (1840–1926)

The work of art historians has long been defined by sifting through correspondence,inventories, and receipts, and spending countless hours in libraries and archives.With the increase of digitization projects undertaken by various institutions,however, the logistics of conducting this kind of research is slowly beginning toexploit the capabilities of the Web. But having access to resources online does not nec-essarily foster innovative scholarship. Online access can affect the research experience,but not necessarily the thought process. How then do art historians create innovativedigital scholarship? In this paper, we will attempt to answer this question by using theArt Institute of Chicago’s journey in creating an exclusively online scholarly catalogplatform and its two corresponding preview catalogs as a case study to analyze this im-portant question. Specifically, we will be looking at three key features: overall design,the inclusion of familiar research tools, and enhanced digital tools to show how tradi-tional research questions can be addressed in innovative ways using new technology.The use of sophisticated analytic imaging tools to explore an object’s physicality asthe starting point for investigation and our efforts to best present this born-digitalinformation set the stage for the narrative. We will also look at how our online

Visual Resources, Volume 29, Numbers 1–2, March–June 2013ISSN 0197-3762 # 2013 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2013.761122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

catalog has been received by the scholarly community and our hopes for its impact onthe field at large.

The story of the two beta catalogs that the Art Institute launched in November 2011,Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago (http://publications.artic.edu/reader/monet-paintings-and-drawings-art-institute-chicago) and Renoir Paintingsand Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago (http://publications.artic.edu/reader/renoir-paintings-and-drawings-art-institute-chicago),1 began in 2009 with the GettyFoundation’s Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative.2 The Getty challenged a group ofmuseums to create “born digital” collection catalogs through a two-year planninggrant.3 Collection catalogs are vital to art historical research and museum collections,but print costs run high and there is no viable way to update them with new acquisitionsor new research. Moving collection catalogs from paper to the digital realm allows formore access to texts and images and frees the catalog from the confines of limited pagecounts and small print runs. The overarching question that the Getty put forth was:What is the future of the scholarly catalog? A corollary to that all-important questionwas the challenge to discover how the new presentation media would affect the researchprocess itself. Clearly, the response would have to lie within the realm of digital publish-ing, but the exact way in which the entire challenge would be embraced was of vitalimportance. As the initiative’s midterm report declares, “Through digital publishing,museums can offer deeper, richer content, tailored to the needs of varied audiencesaround the globe.”4 With this charge, the AIC’s large cross-departmental team envi-sioned the possibilities for a dynamic, innovative online collection catalog.

Envisioning the Online Catalog

It became clear that cross-departmental collaboration would be one of the key compo-nents to realizing the full potential of the project. The team that the AIC assembledincluded department heads and staff members from our curatorial, conservation,publications, and technology groups who all brought to the table their ideas and opin-ions as well as their own field’s perceptions and knowledge.5 We approached the projectin this manner to avoid the “disciplinary introversion” discussed by Diane Zorich in herreport, Transitioning to a Digital World: Art History, Its Research Centers, and DigitalScholarship.6 As a result, our project would come to represent a wide variety of viewsabout what an online scholarly collection catalog could and should be.

To further facilitate the notion that our project should be open to any and all ideas,we deliberately chose our focus to be on a part of the collection that had not yet beensystematically analyzed in a prior collection catalog using imaging techniques that wehave been developing over the past two decades; every aspect of the project—arthistory, conservation, technology brainstorming, and researching—would begin atthe exact same starting point. This allowed us to consider the design and user experi-ence of the publication as well as to look at incorporating digital tools into the researchprocess. The team was then able to examine the entirety of adding digital assets into theresearch and publishing process in a holistic manner. It was important to us that tech-nology not be merely an afterthought; rather, we needed to experiment with technolog-ical options in dialogue with the ways in which we performed and documented the art

98 Rethinking Publication, Dissemination, and Knowledge Sharing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

historical research. To produce meaningful digital scholarship, we had to thoughtfullyconsider how technology could enhance the research and publication processes in theformative stages. Working this closely with technology teams introduced unfamiliarbut welcome elements such as iteration, agility, and experimentation.

Because the team was comprised of staff with diverse backgrounds, we needed tolearn how to understand each discipline’s jargon and language. The curatorial teamneeded to understand the technological possibilities just as much as the technologyteam, including the Indianapolis Museum of Art Lab (IMA Lab), our contracted devel-opment partners,7 had to understand how art historical research is conducted. We alsowanted to translate our rich institutional publishing experience with paper-based col-lection catalogs into this new mode of digital publishing. We considered how print cat-alogs are used in scholarly research: how the scholar finds an entry, moves betweenentries, holds the book, makes notes, reads footnotes, and so on. We conducted exper-iments to test ideas on how to accomplish the same tasks in the digital world; some ofthe proposed solutions worked well, while others did not. Much like drafting the text ofa book, software development had its own “chapters,” revisions, and “galleys.” Theteam had a clear vision of what we wanted to achieve, but we chose to stay flexiblewith the details as the project evolved. This flexibility was possible because we werenot trying to mold already existing scholarship into an already existing technology.To be a fully successful and collaborative venture, all team members needed to con-sciously stay open to dialogue and listen to critical insights from one another.

We wanted to acknowledge the fact that research can be done in a different way—afamiliar way, but decidedly different. The facts of research are the same as they alwayshave been, but the way people use and gather information can be different in the digitalrealm. As Gloria Groom stated in Moving Museum Catalogues Online: An InterimReport from the Getty Foundation, “The opportunity to have long discussions abouthow research is done, how archives are best accessed and cited, how conservationstudies need to be linked to the art historical story, how note taking helps to sort infor-mation, and how a digital format allows for note taking to become an integral part ofthe research process,” generated insights into how technology could be leveraged to“investigate answers” to research questions.8

Despite a wide-open field of possibilities, we did not just plunge ahead withoutthinking through what we wanted this catalog to do—not just what we wanted thecatalog to be or look like—but what it would actually do.9 Instead of creating thecatalog series as a one-off project, we endeavored to create a research and presentationtool that would be replicable, technologically sustainable, and beneficial to the greatermuseum community.

Producing Innovative Scholarship: Design, Familiar Research Toolsand an Enhanced Digital Environment

Design and Familiar Research Tools

In conceptualizing a digital scholarly collection catalog, we drew upon the rich heritageof the highly respected print catalogs produced by the AIC over the years. A recently

Quigley, Neely, Parkolap, and Groom: Scholarship and Digital Publications 99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

published catalog, Martha Wolff et al., Northern European and Spanish Paintings before1600 in the Art Institute of Chicago,10 served as the project’s “gold standard.” Thisapproach was not intended to confine the new catalog to traditional models, but toretain the essence of what makes a scholarly collection catalog indispensable. Fullfootnotes, edited technical notes, provenance information, exhibition history, andcuratorial entries, in addition to large color plates, technical images, comparativeillustrations, and details were all identified as essential elements. The digital publicationwould need to maintain the rigor of scholarly research and categories of information.The reader should be able to recognize the online catalog and feel comfortable with it asa book-like publication, and be able to personalize an online version with digital mar-ginalia, bookmarks, and Post-it notes. These decisions were made in part to encouragethe use of the digital catalog by scholars by allowing the reader to keep digital “facsim-iles” of personal research habits (e.g., writing in a book’s margins) in order to facilitatethe transition to an online catalog and research platform.

One of the recognized challenges was the discipline’s hesitation to engage withscholarly content on the Web because of its perceived impermanence and changeabil-ity. In our catalog, we wanted to put into place several features that would work to calmsuch anxieties and foster greater comfort of use by academics. One of the most impor-tant attributes of scholarship is how it is referenced by other writers in their own fields.To this end, we “decided to produce a more book-like publication, something that wehope will be perceived as more stable and reliably citable within the digital environ-ment.”11 We also worked through the seemingly problematic idea of having no defin-able pages within our scalable catalog. Our catalog interface can be read on any digitaldevice from a mobile device to a full-scale wall, thus obviating the metaphor of pagi-nation; yet scholars need the ability to record precisely where information is document-ed. We arrived at the solution of directly citing paragraph numbers as well as buildingin a tool that shows how one cites the catalog when faced with an effectively pagelesscatalog. Significantly, we do define the catalog as a book and not a website; therefore wedo not include a URL within the citation (Figure 1).

Enhanced Digital Environments

The digital realm allows for the possibility of a richer narrative and experience for theresearcher. Technology in the service of art history scholarship and publication shouldnot be focused on “bells and whistles,” but instead be developed and designed toenhance the scholarship. To this end, the digital environment of our catalog pivotsaround the idea of bringing alive the research process to the reader, something thatcannot be fully captured in a print publication. There were and continue to be twoparts to this feature: the online replication of our experiences examining works inthe conservation lab and the replication of our research in the AIC archives, conserva-tion files, and curatorial object files. If a scholar came to the AIC to conduct research, itwould take days to go through the curatorial and conservation files, the archives, and allof the pertinent documentary imaging. As a result, our goal for the online collectioncatalog became a sort of narrative “walk-through” of the research for each object,with various technological tools enabling and augmenting the journey. In decidingwhat level of archival resources would be published, we considered everything from

100 Rethinking Publication, Dissemination, and Knowledge Sharing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

using the Web as a distribution channel by mounting a PDF document of what mightotherwise be a printed book, to envisioning a fully dynamic and searchable database—much like the online collections resource on the AIC’s website—with much moredepth and breadth of content. Through numerous team meetings we came to targeta point along the continuum defined by those two extreme positions. We decidedthat the publication should be something that simultaneously supports the linear nar-rative as conceived by the authors, while serving as a resource suitable for searching andbrowsing.12

For a scholarly collection catalog to have credibility and to be readable and useful,it must have a scholar’s voice and be curated as such, which means choosing what toinclude and what to leave out. As a guiding principle, we looked at how to provide abackward and forward mechanism for every conclusion that our curatorial and con-servation team drew. For example, even the traditional display of “tombstone” andcataloging information has become subject to dynamic explanatory linking, allowingfor wills, receipts, and letters to be scanned and uploaded as linked PDFs so that thereader can essentially test the author’s hypotheses (Figure 2). This transparentapproach to publishing research invites a thorough and informed scholarly discourseto arise.

Emulating our analytic experience in the conservation lab and presenting it in adirectly accessible manner was especially pertinent to this project. Each curatorialentry allows the object’s physicality to lead the discussion as opposed to workingfrom the cultural context as the first step to inform the user’s understanding of thework of art. The artwork—what it truly can say to us through its buildup of paint,pigment analysis, and canvas weave count—is paramount. Since we would be able to

Figure 1 The online catalog automatically generates full citations in both Chicago Manual of Style and the ModernLanguage Association (MLA). Significantly, the catalog is regarded as a book and not as a website within the citationformat (http://publications.artic.edu/node/161/reader#para-7).

Quigley, Neely, Parkolap, and Groom: Scholarship and Digital Publications 101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

provide the extensive conservation research materials in the digital catalog, where pagespace is not a hindrance and links to conservation reports can abound, we could trulyprovide a transparent research experience to the reader.13

Furthermore, we not only wanted to convey our research experience, but also toprovide greater access to the scholarship by way of new digital-based tools. To useZorich’s terminology, we were interested in how “technology serves the scholar-ship.”14 An example from our preview catalogs that illustrates this point is the Mul-tilayer Interactive Image Viewer. As the catalog states, “[i]t was designed to facilitatethe viewer’s exploration and comparison of the technical images.”15 Layers of techni-cal images and conservation annotations can be selected for the reader to slidebetween in order to see more clearly various changes that the artist may have made(Figure 3). Readers no longer have to rely on the author’s word; they can investigatethe conservation process themselves. Curators and conservators have previously usedPhotoshop to explore these types of layers; however, it was not possible to align theselayers precisely on top of one another due to distortions produced during the imagingprocess; this misalignment was exacerbated by our extremely high-resolution images.For example, when we used the raw image files for Claude Monet’s Beach at Sainte-Adresse (1867), the boat in the foreground appeared to move drastically. This was notbecause of a compositional change between the natural-light and X-ray image layers;instead, it was due to the imaging distortions.

Figure 2 The online catalog includes archival documents in order to allow for a backward and forward reading ofthe authors’ hypotheses (http://publications.artic.edu/node/161/reader#para-47).

102 Rethinking Publication, Dissemination, and Knowledge Sharing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

After our own inconclusive experimentations, the AIC began working with JohnK. Delaney, Senior Imaging Scientist at the National Gallery of Art in Washington,DC, and Murray H. Loew, George Washington University Professor of ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science, who had developed an algorithm used to registerpoints through each image layer to accurately align them. As previously asserted by ourtechnology team, “This is a giant leap not only for our publishing agenda, but also forall of our collection research by providing conservators and curators a better tool tocompare a painting under these different technical lighting conditions.”16 Preciselyaligned layers facilitate a much more accurate reading of the images as well as agreater opportunity for art historians and conservators alike to see minute changesthe artist may have made. For example, it was much clearer to see how Monet“changed the narrative of the [Beach at Saint-Adresse] from one that foregroundedthe leisure class to one that featured local life at Sainte-Adresse.”17

Finally, the idea of backward and forward visibility inherent in our research meth-odology and technological tools can also be found at the very basic of levels within thetechnology that we used. The AIC-OSCI software tools (ChicagoCodeX) created usingDrupal 7 were open-sourced in December 2011 to Github.com, just one month afterour beta launch. ChicagoCodeX is free to download for any museum or individual

Figure 3 The Multilayer Interactive Image Viewer allows the reader to explore the physical properties of thepainting as the Art Institute’s conservators and curators have done for each artwork (http://publications.artic.edu/node/268/reader/#osci_technical_analysis_fig_268_51).

Quigley, Neely, Parkolap, and Groom: Scholarship and Digital Publications 103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

under the GPL-3.0 (GNU General Public License, version 3). We hope that making thissoftware free and readily available will spur other museums’ exploration of digitalscholarly publications.

Scholars’ Reaction to the Catalog

Recognizing that our catalogs were being published for an art world that had yet to see afully functioning online scholarly collection catalog, we wanted to know how the arthistorical community would receive such an endeavor. Two preview catalogs forMonet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago and Renoir Paintings andDrawings at the Art Institute of Chicago, containing three entries in total (Monet’sBeach at Sainte-Adresse and Cliff Walk at Pourville, 1882; and Laundress, 1877/1879,by Pierre-Auguste Renoir) were launched on November 14, 2011. Leading up to thatdate, we had to confront the challenge of how to garner feedback from our intendedaudience: scholars. In addition to soliciting our own personal and professional contactsfor feedback, we also sent the links to the preview catalogs to listservs that are gearedtowards the art historical and conservation communities. We then chose to expandthe breadth of listservs to colleagues of each member of the AIC team: these includedmuseum publishers and museum technologists as well as librarians and archivists.

We set up three ways to gather feedback in order to gauge the usability of the cat-alogs and to see how users reacted to the digital format. First, we created a systematicsurvey consisting of twenty-three questions that focused on the reader’s experience anduse of various features of the catalogs. These questions were formulated to gauge usabil-ity and the general usefulness of catalog tools. Second, in order to allow scholars tofreely respond without the constraints of a survey, we set up an email account wherereaders could send their comments and questions directly. Finally, we used GoogleAnalytics to record statistical information such as who was visiting from where andfor how long in order to gauge users’ demographics and numbers.

We were very pleased to see the enormously positive feedback that we receivedfrom the very beginning. Many testers hailed the catalogs as “remarkable,” a “game-changer,” and “ahead of [their] time.” The sophisticated imagery, innovative technol-ogy, and conceptual envisioning of a new type of collection catalog were just a few ofthe most highly praised features. The feedback solidified for us that we were on theright track in the technological design and choices that we had made. Nearly 90percent of respondents said that the preview catalogs were either “very easy” or “some-what easy” to navigate, with more than half (59.1 percent) indicating that there werenot any aspects of the catalogs that they had difficulty accessing. Meaningful to theresults, our survey respondents have been largely (65.8 percent) composed of scholars.

Most significantly, our results have shown our target audience’s willingness toembrace digital scholarship. For example, 95 percent of the respondents who were in-volved with a scholarly research community (and answered this question) said that theywould reference and cite the catalogs as they would a printed scholarly collectioncatalog. This is a pivotal statistic to show how digital scholarship can be embracedand hopefully soon be circulated within the scholarly community. Additionally, 100percent of the respondents who identified themselves as professors or members of

104 Rethinking Publication, Dissemination, and Knowledge Sharing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

an academic community (and answered this question) stated that they would find sucha publication a valuable addition to a colleague’s tenure portfolio and would encouragetheir students to reference and cite the catalogs. This is, we believe, an extremely im-portant finding, which should encourage members of the art historical communityto embrace the notion of publishing their scholarship online. We are convinced thatthe acceptance of digital scholarship will only increase as others begin and continueto participate in it.

Conclusion

As we look around us, we already see how other museums are publishing scholarlyworks online, changing the museum digital publishing environment significantlyfrom when we published our first online catalog in fall 2011. Every project and insti-tution will have different answers as to how to produce innovative digital art historyand how the design and function of digital publications should operate. Each projectis unique; and with technology, it is no longer a one-pattern-fits-all game. Withinthe walls of the AIC, we have seen in the planning of additional online catalogs howthe needs of the various subjects clearly shape the technological aspects and featuresof a catalog. We look forward to observing how the online scholarly collectioncatalog model and its opportunity for sharing scholarship will continue to grow andevolve over the coming years.

AcknowledgmentsThe AIC’s online scholarly catalogs were made possible by grants from the Getty Founda-tion and major support from the David and Mary Winton Green Research Fund. Theauthors also wish to thank Jill Shaw, research associate; Genevieve Westerby, digitalassets and research assistant; Robert Sharp, Executive Director of Publications; and theentire OSCI team for their assistance with this paper.

D. SAMUEL QUIGLEY is Vice President for Collections Management, Imaging, and Infor-mation Technology and Museum CIO at the Art Institute of Chicago.

ELIZABETH NEELY is Director of Digital Information and Access at the Art Institute ofChicago.

AMY PARKOLAP is the project coordinator of the Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative atthe Art Institute of Chicago.

GLORIA GROOM is the David and Mary Winton Green Curator of Nineteenth-CenturyEuropean Painting and Sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago.

1 Gloria Groom, ed., Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago(Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2011) and Gloria Groom, ed., Renoir Paintingsand Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago, (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2011).

Quigley, Neely, Parkolap, and Groom: Scholarship and Digital Publications 105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

2 For more information about the Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative, please seehttp://www.getty.edu/foundation/funding/access/current/online_cataloging.html/.

3 The original nine participating museums are: Art Institute of Chicago, Los AngelesCounty Museum of Art, National Gallery of Art (Washington, DC), San FranciscoMuseum of Modern Art, Seattle Art Museum, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and FreerGallery of Art (Smithsonian Institution), Tate Gallery, Walker Art Center, and theJ. Paul Getty Museum.

4 The Getty Foundation, Moving Museum Catalogues Online: An Interim Reportfrom the Getty Foundation (2012), 5, at http://www.getty.edu/foundation/pdfs/osci_interimreport_2012.pdf/.

5 For the purpose of this paper, we will be specifically focusing on the relationshipbetween the research and technology teams.

6 Diane M. Zorich, Transitioning to a Digital World: Art History, Its Research Centers, andDigital Scholarship, A Report to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and The RoyRosenzweig Center for History and New Media, George Mason University (May2012), 19, at http://www.kressfoundation.org/news/Article.aspx?id=35338.

7 In 2009, the IMA Lab became a crucial member of our technology OSCI team. Formore information about the IMA Lab, please see http://www.imamuseum.org/imalab/.

8 Gloria Groom, “Inside Perspectives,” in Moving Museum Catalogues Online: AnInterim Report from the Getty Foundation (2012), 29, at http://www.getty.edu/foundation/pdfs/osci_interimreport_2012.pdf/.

9 Martha Wolff et al., Northern European and Spanish Paintings before 1600 in the ArtInstitute of Chicago (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).

10 D. Samuel Quigley, and Elizabeth Neely, “Integration of Print and Digital PublishingWorkflows at the Art Institute of Chicago,” in J. Trant and D. Bearman, eds., Museumsand the Web 2011: Proceedings (Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, March 31,2011); also at http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/programs/integration_of_print_and_digital_publishing_.

11 Quigley and Neely, “Integration of Print and Digital.”12 Although there are no page restrictions when using the World Wide Web, we pur-

posely chose to include only resources that were pertinent to the narrative that theauthors were telling within the entry, in order to stay true to a curated narrativeinstead of providing an archive of resources.

13 Zorich, Transitioning to a Digital World, 22.14 Kimberley Muir, “Cat. 13. The Beach at Sainte-Adresse, 1867: Technical Report,” in

Groom, Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago, para 14.15 D. Samuel Quigley and Elizabeth Neely, “Online Scholarly Catalogues at the Art Insti-

tute of Chicago: From Planning to Implementation.” Paper presented at the Museumsand the Web Conference, April 2012. http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/online_scholarly_catalogues_at_the_art_institu/.

16 Gloria Groom and Jill Shaw, “Cat. 13. The Beach at Sainte-Adresse, 1867: CuratorialEntry,” in Groom, Monet Paintings and Drawings at the Art Institute of Chicago,para 9 and 10.

106 Rethinking Publication, Dissemination, and Knowledge Sharing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

36 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014