Harald Kraemer
University of Cologne, Germany

Fragments and Figments of Knowledge: the Documentation of Contemporary Art

Keywords: contemporary art, documentation, interactive multimedia

The research project Methodology for the Documentation of Contemporary Art was initiated by Professor Dr Hubertus Kohle and Dr Harald Kraemer at the interdisciplinary Kulturwissenschaftliches Forschungskolleg at the Universities of Aachen, Bonn and Cologne. 1 The main aim of this project (1999-2001) was to develop strategies and structures for a methodology for the study and documentation of modern and contemporary art. Furthermore, the project was to demonstrate, through specific characteristics of modern art, the need for new documentation procedures and the use of digital technologies. Traditional, static methods of documentation can be significantly extended through the application of multimedia electronic technologies. The diverse prerequisites and specific demands of contemporary art require a changed methodology of analysis and documentation. Hence, the aim of the project was to find the answers to the following questions: to what extent can the revamped documentation methods provide a basis for meaningful interpretation of contemporary art? And what is the role of interactive digital multimedia technology here?

State of the documentation of contemporary art

A deluge of new information is created daily by the art trade, art criticism, art magazines, artists, scholars, universities, museums and exhibition shows. On one hand, there is the discursive preoccupation with art, on the other we find the self-glorifying, dandy-like discourse. The discourse, mise en scène, documentation and communication are trans- and interdisciplinary, inter- and hypermedial and geared towards each other. They form a multifunctional network of information, media and communication structures.2 This is one side.

On the other side we find the provocations of contemporary art. Recent art is open, transient, interdisciplinary, multimedial, discursive, dependent on concept and context and besides that increasingly aimed at interactivity. Because contemporary art is so diverse — and this is the position of the Cologne project — it is in need of documentation in a wider sense in case it is at some stage subjected to research and authentication by those who were not present at its conception and presentation. Insufficient descriptions and visualisations of eventful works of art are symptomatic. Traditional methods of documentation are still valid as the basic research tool but are often ineffective in recording modern works of art.

This is one of the fundamental differences between modern and traditional works of art whose substantial physicality suits static forms of documentation. The transient process of some modern works of art, such as performance and actions, can only be recorded by means of progressive media. Works of art that depend on the concepts of time and space should be documented to reflect their function and context. Interactive media art — but not solely — may require additional descriptions and rudimentary analysis because otherwise these dimensions (time and space) would be lost. The possibilities offered by digital and multimedia technologies make them destined to document contemporary works of art. On the one hand there are huge capacities for storing text, image and film data, on the other modern database management systems, as well as hypermedia links and metadata offer new possibilities of access. All these efforts aim at creating future Digital Collections.3

We have tested various text and image database management systems, as well as thesauri used in museums of modern and contemporary art and found that the current systems — structured for the traditional documentation of individual works of art — often lag behind the demands made by contemporary art.4 The attempt to extend database systems used for traditional works of art to incorporate contemporary art have failed. The existing text and image database management systems (DMS) are mostly unfit for contemporary artworks. The current text and image DMS — structured for the traditional documentation of individual works of art — are mostly descriptive and rely on iconography. Verbal descriptions reach their limits when faced with the universality and richness of artistic expressions. How do you describe a room-inspired colour painting by David Tremlett? Or institution-related installations by Gerwald Rockenschaub who confronted the visitors with open windows? Or a fake museum tour produced by the artist Christian Philipp Müller who plays the role of a museum guide? Or the post-modern wisdom of Peter Zimmermann who inscribed the boxes called temporary architecture? Or the interactive drama and a masterpiece of digital art named continue, created by Dieter Kiessling?

The standards for the documentation of contemporary art published by Anne Bénichou for the Canadian Heritage Information Network a few years ago consider the "delicate complexity" of documenting contemporary art. Bénichou suggests using conventional methods and reduced data fields to quantitatively solve the problems.5 Despite the ongoing discussion, there are no guidelines for multimedia documentation of art. Ambitious initiatives to change the existing situation were taken at the conferences The change of meaning of art museums: positions & visions about curating, documentation, education, Kunstmuseum Bonn, 1996 6; Modern Art: Who Cares, organised in 1997 by the Foundation for the Conservation of Contemporary Art 7; Mortality Immortality? The Legacy of 20th Century Art, organised in 1998 by the Getty Center 8; the International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art (INCCA)9 and the project VEKTOR, initiated and organised by Basis Vienna10.

The changing meaning of documentation

Documentation becomes a medium used actively by the scholar, curator, registrar, but also by the artist and user in their quest for the historical truth and reconstruction of the original context. Documentation is becoming an integral part of the work of art. Documentation of contemporary art should be rethought and new strategic procedures adopted. The artist turns to the registrar and together they develop diverse strategies for the best possible documentation of his/her work of art. Contemporary art imposes specific requirements on digital multimedia technologies. The existing database management systems can at best fulfil these requirements only partly. Thus the role of documentation has changed. This will have consequences for the kind of questions raised by future generations of researchers. The increasing presence of digital media in museums will also change the viewing habits of visitors. There is an entire set of problems and perspectives to deal with.

Problem of information quality

The quality of information is increasingly difficult to assess. As there is no time to reflect on information and to discern its relevance, we are producing endless registers of data and are becoming entangled by the web of information technology. The accumulation of information aiming at comprehensiveness but without a sense of the whole may be impressive, but it leads nowhere. Such are technological developments that artists, registrars, curators, researchers and viewers alike get easily carried away. The requirements and questions at stake are by no means clear. A lot of the museum CD-ROMs I know are badly designed accumulations of boring facts, no more than a digital stamp album.11. Their target group is unknown, the subject is not suitable for multimedia and there is no script for a story, just an accumulation of facts. The computer creates new forms of work. It simplifies some working processes and administers a large quantity of information, but it gives no information about the quality of information. The computer does not differentiate between Picasso and the editor of his autobiography or between Duchamp, Duchamp's urinal and its photographer. So who is responsible for weighting information? How much of information represents dead knowledge? What must never be treated as dead knowledge? How does information differ in substance?

Problems with research

The crisis surrounding keywords and terminology is actually a crisis of research and is concerned with the ever growing divide between exhibition-oriented research in museums and problem-oriented research at universities.12 Object-oriented basic research that would result in inventories and stock catalogues, which are so badly needed, is often relegated to the realm of fiction. It is necessary to reform some disciplines and the teaching methods to promote different views of research. In the German-speaking countries the museology and museum information courses at the university level can be counted on one hand.13 Instead of painstaking, in-depth studies which would be likely to further knowledge, artworks are selected almost at random, and used to support or embellish wild theories. Simplistic statements and comparisons are mistaken for research while simple descriptions and the re-use of press releases are taken for art criticism. The hopelessness of art history, museum education and art criticism in dealing with contemporary art is illustrated daily in exhibition catalogues and art reviews. Restriced classifications and a narrow terminology lead to an impoverished language. The computer reduces theoretical diversity into narrow formulas. Works of abstract art rarely need precise descriptions other then those relating to composition, material and technique and even more importantly the terms that would convey subjective impressions and the experience-based knowledge. The terminology of modern, abstract and contemporary art needs terms extracted from the artists' texts, interviews and concepts and from a handful of articles by art critics, art historians and art connoisseurs. This terminology is dynamic, not static; it is not created years after the work of art was created, hence it is not artificial but evolves naturally out of the artistic concept and questioning the work.

Problems with reality

As researchers' predilections and questions tend to vary with time, the relationships between art, reality and the artist have changed. The medium is rarely of interest nowadays. Art is a project that can produce a specific reality, i.e. the viewer is given an opportunity to experience artistic realities and to experience reality artistically. Traditional categories are no longer valid, even though they continue to exist. Aspects of other special fields, such as genetic engineering, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, as well as ecology, sociology and politics are being introduced to art.14 While media artists provide a stimulating impetus and influence technological developments, the museum and the museum of contemporary art in particular, takes up the role of a keeper of meaningless fragments incorporating artistic conceptions of all sorts. Performance and action relics, spatial installations taken out of their original location and context, videos, computer animations and concepts to be translated into reality by the viewer, or a photograph left behind after an installation in a public space — all this characterizes the controversial claim caught in the predicament of an original artistic concern and its presentation in a museum environment.

The museum of the future

The apparent timelessness of classical ancient works of art is confronted by the transience of contemporary works. Contemporary art works — and texts about them — change. Often twice a week. Some of them are timeless, some transitory. Provocative works pass away. Once their guiding function fulfilled, most contemporary works of art are moved to a storeroom. We are mostly producing ephemeral texts, catalogues and multimedia products. Two months after publication nobody needs them. Museums are like theatres or cinemas with programmes and events changing daily. The traditional understanding of chronology disappears.

Technological developments and the media combine the past, presence and future. The world becomes a museum and art criticism is jointly responsible for that. 15 The art leaves the studio. There are no boundaries. Anyone becomes an artist.

Today, one of the main tasks of the museum is to approach the possibilities of electronic reproductions critically.16 The role and importance of art museums are changing in the age of digital revolution. Notwithstanding its present main functions as an 'arthouse' cinema, tourist attraction and shop, the museum is still an institution of enlightenment in the classic sense: a 'school of senses' and, now more than ever, it is obliged to guide the visitor towards critical viewing and experience.17 The museum of the 21st century will have to be a constructive counterpart to the deluge of reproductive media images,18 and it will also have to consider itself as an interactive transmitter, actively influencing the opening of electronic 'elbow spaces' and the creation of new visual codes. Even though technology and the related industry seem to embrace education, the focus is still on play. Will multimedia technology be able to fulfil other requirements of the communication age?

New kinds of documentation

In the field of contemporary art, the term 'documentation' is used differently in museology, conservation, art history and the art trade.19 The consequences for recent art are complex and have a lasting effect. The INCCA project put the emphasis on interviews with living artists, but this kind of documentation is of no use to restorers who are mainly interested in questions of conservation. This is just one example that shows the opposition and the lack of cooperation between the different communities working in the same field. Cooperation and communication between professionals working in the same field is critically important. The definition or re-definition of documentation has to take place.

Documentation is becoming a strategy for communication between different user groups while 'means of documentation' is becoming a work of art in its own right. 20 Three factors have contributed to this situation: facilities offered by digital and multimedia technologies, the twice-a-week-changing character of contemporary art and the semantics imported by art museums. Successful, time- and space-dependent documentation of a work of art contributes considerably to its high quality artistic presence in the art world, exhibitions and museum research. This is also an indication why documentation has this new, important position. New criteria must be discussed and found because documentation by means of new technologies will be part of the interpretation of recent works of art.


Documentation changes from a passive retrospective to an active form of archiving contemporary works of art. Of central importance will be multimedia and electronic technologies, with which traditional, static methods of aesthetic documentation can be significantly extended. The diverse prerequisites and specific demands of contemporary art involve a changed methodology of analysis and documentation. Thus one of the tasks of our project reads: How can new documentation methods support meaningful investigations into contemporary art? What is the role of digital interactive multimedia here?

Documentation as a work of art

In some cases the documentation of an artistic action is a work of art in its own right. It may, therefore, be necessary to show the difference between the documentation as a documentation and as work of art. Two examples: 1. In April 1994 the American artist Andrea Fraser was commissioned to undertake a project with the Generali Foundation in Vienna. 21 'The Preliminary Prospectus for Corporations' stipulated that the project was to be delivered in two phases, the first defined as 'interpretive' and the second as 'interventionary'. The results of this project have been presented as a display and published as a report. Shall we put this report into a library or display case?

Example 2. The French artist Marie-Jo Lafontaine has documented her installations and videos in the form of a CD-ROM.22 The disc is structured into video installations, topics, interviews, chronology and a list of her exhibition shows. The interactive network of this CD-ROM, composed of images, film stills, video sequences, talks, texts and music, is the best format to document the multimedia aspects and the inter-contextuality of the artist's work.

Construction / Reconstruction

The reconstruction of the past with the purpose of documentation (e.g. the famous Merzbau of Kurt Schwitters), the construction of static installation spaces or timed performances, become specific documentation items. Freezing the 'moment' and documenting the micro- and macro-cosmos of the whole will be the challenge of this approach to documentation. Anna Oppermann's installation Umarmungen, Unerklärliches und eine Gedichtzeile von R.M.R. is a compilation of annotated newspaper cuttings, poems and texts as well as her own drawings. Carmen Wedemeyer and Martin Warnke designed in HTML a hypermedia image-text-archive that allows to navigate through Oppermann's micro- and macrocosms. 23 The whole installation is divided into different groups and each group consists of several pieces. An index to this complex installation can be used to access the comments of the artist herself, as well as those by an art historian.

Documentation as a navigation

The accumulation of information with the aim of comprehensiveness may be imposing, but may lead nowhere. The communication between different target groups on one side and different content and methodologies on the other, requires structured navigation.24 Only well-guided navigation, supported by interactive technology, can bring the information to the different target groups and allow them to understand the different meanings and the functions of a work of art.25 Exemplary strategies have been adopted by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Points of Departure26 ; the prototype of an interactive movie Vienna Walk Demo27 by Science Wonder Productions; and the Tate Modern online distance learning course.28

The exhibition 'Points of Departure: Connecting with Contemporary Art' at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (21 March-19 September 2001) is a byproduct of the museum's ongoing research into the use of multimedia in education and enhanced, contextualized art-viewing experiences. The exhibition takes off from a number of premises that collectively prototype working methods and delivery platforms for a museum of the future, such as six galleries arranged according to themes and multimedia educational resources delivered directly into the galleries via iPAQ, Pocket PC, PDAs and smart tables with touchscreen interfaces. Specifically developed for each gallery, these tools have been tailored to each theme and are inclusive of every work in the show. In front of a painting of Gerhard Richter the user can choose between different short films about the painter. The information provided by the artist himself on how to make a painting is especially interesting and so is the non art-historical commentary by the producer.

Communication / Interpretation

Communication is an integral part of documentation. This means that documentation consists of the interpretations by the artist himself, the methodological strategies of art history and art criticism, as well as the records of users' actions. The documentation of contemporary art should be concerned primarily with the communication between the different target groups and different meanings and methodologies. It is essential to communicate, because the work of art is part of the discussion between art critics and the living artists. The artist's own opinion is a powerful tool for the interpretation of a work of art. Among good examples of statements by artists and their contemporaries as temporal documents and 'oral history' are the CD-ROM 'Improvisation Technologies' by the choreographer and dancer William Forsythe29 ,'The Anderson Collection' CD-ROM from the SFMOMA30, and Anna Oppermann's 'hyper text' structures. It is not helpful to archive every press release or article but it is absolutely necessary to document the soul of the work of art. The meaning of a work of art may change as time goes by. The questions we have and the answers we get at subsequent stages show that a work of art is not a dead object, but forms part of our communication and evolving culture.


When looking at recent works of art we face a lot of challenges and questions. The explosion of new art terms (e.g. Net Art) and the interdisciplinary expansion of the content are specific to new art. The investigation of possible strategies for documentation of Net and Media Art are part of the project 'Database of Virtual Art' at the Humboldt-University, Berlin.31 Will the fusion of real and virtual works of art in both real and virtual museum spaces create a new kind of museum? Will a series of staged events and the mutation from the unique original, signed by the artist, to digital reproductions and copies, replace a unique opus? Will the crossover of original and digital reproductions lead us to a brave new world of images and movies, and a new semantic language of organic and innorganic aesthetics, as shown by Robert Lettner in his digital paintings? In his exhibition 'Pictures on Magical Geometry' at the Viennese Seccession, Lettner presented the results of the amalgamation of an organic process, such as drawing, with an inorganic medium, the computer.32 Furthermore, we have to ask how can we document the self-creating interactive art works such as Dieter Kiessling's 1997 masterpiece 'continue'.33

Fragments and figments of knowledge

Each piece of information has its raison d'être in terms of instructiveness. It makes little sense to feed the computer with more and more data, creating a collection of dead material, useless classifications and senseless information. Documentation is interpretation. This means that registrars, scholars, restorers, artists and art critics are responsible for the documentation of art. It is, therefore, necessary for a museum or archive to act not as an 'information provider', but as an 'information broker'. Information is museums', archives', libraries' and the art trade's main asset. As digital collections merge into long-term repositories of information, the boundaries between these institutions will disappear.

Museums still legitimate and establish values, but are nothing more than a place where we can experience art. The museum has recently been transformed from a sanctuary to a production centre. Transparency and mobility become the significant criteria of documentation, reacting to the requirements of the users as well as the producers. Thus the non-standard documentation of contemporary art is changing from a passive retrospective to an engaging archive. As an integral part of the work of art, documentation is becoming a medium that should be used by the scholar, curator, registrar, as well as by the artist and user. Documentation strategies and procedures for contemporary art need to be reconsidered. The artist turns into the active partner of the registrar and scholar. Together, they must develop diverse strategies for the best possible documentation of his/her work. Digital and multimedia technologies have specific requirements, which the present database management systems can meet only minimally. This changing role of documentation will have consequences for the questions asked by later generations of researchers and will also change the viewing habits of visitors through the increasing presence of digital media in museums.

This poses an entirely new set of questions about methodology which need to be discussed in order to formulate recommendations and guidelines for digital documentation. Most important will be the discussion and definition of different technical means, forms of photographic and (hyper)textual assimilation but also the applicability of advanced software, such as pattern recognition, colour and texture analysis. A museum is not an archive for storing information provided by the art critics or historians for unlimited use. The museum is not a democratic forum for all artists. To collect all information would be foolish. We have to accept the transient nature of our work. This should be part of the museum policy. We must remember this in order to understand how to create multimedia products for the future.

Less is more: concentrate on the essentials and transfer this knowledge in the form of really good stories. The museum makes an important contribution to humanity and has a duty to guide visitors and users in their critical appreciation of art. Looking critically is hampered today by ubiquitous interactive museum guides and digitised masterpieces. The latest exhibition catalogues, formerly popular as coffee-table books, seem to be replaced by CD- and DVD-ROMs. Multimedia are displacing our beloved postcards and other substitutes for the originals. As Leo Jacobs says, "In the future, art lovers will be able to enjoy artworks in their own home instead of museums and galleries as art is ever more often published on CD-ROM. Libraries and museums could function as transmission centers which interested persons will no longer visit, they will only log on to them. Hence, the museum no longer possesses originals in the classic sense, but only administers sets of data."34 What may still be relevant for computer art consumed via networks will make a seasoned museum curator's hair stand on end. Jacobs also refers to the London National Gallery's electronic Micro Gallery, "where visitors browse through the collection on screen" and "art students" can "… look at digital pictures while doing their research." This is now reality. One of the greatest challenges that the museum of modern art must confront is to support creative processes, create spaces of experience, define communication and navigation strategies and record artist/user behaviours and a variety of interactivity patterns.

November 2001


1. Kulturwissenschaftliches Forschungskolleg (SFB / FK 427) "Medien und kulturelle Kommunikation". Nicole Birtsch, Kathrin Lucht, Martina Nied, Simone Schmickl and Christina Hemsley were the other members of the team. {back to paper}

2. Zmbylas, T. (1997), Kunst oder Nichtkunst: über Bedingungen und Instanzen aesthetischer Beurteilung, Vienna: WUV. {back to paper}

3. Kraemer, H. (2001), Museumsinformatik und Digitale Sammlung, Vienna: WUV, pp. 162-179. {back to paper}

4. The existing classification systems and thesauri, such as ICONCLASS, Art and Architecture Thesaurus the German MIDAS and the German Museum Association Catalogue do not take into consideration the complexity of contemporary art. For ICONCLASS and MIDAS see Linz, B. (1996), Ansätze zur Inhaltserschließung abstrakter Kunstwerke und Möglichkeiten der Einbindung in MIDAS, Potsdam, University of Applied Science diploma, 11.10.1996. {back to paper}

5. Bénichou, A. (1994), Normes de documentation en art contemporain, Ottawa: Ministre des Approvisionnenments et Services, pp. 1-3. {back to paper}

6. Kraemer, H. & John, H. (1998) (Eds.), Zum Bedeutungswandel der Kunstmuseen. Positionen und Visionen zu Inszenierung, Dokumentation, Vermittlung, Nürnberg: Verlag fuer moderne Kunst. {back to paper}

7. Hummelen, I. & Sillé, D. (1999) (Eds.), Modern Art: Who Cares?, Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlandish Institue for Cultural Heritage. {back to paper}

8. Corzo, M.A. (1999) (Ed.), Mortality Immortality? The Legacy of 20th Century Art, Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. {back to paper}

9. http://www.incca.nl/Dir003/INCCA/CMT/Homepage.nsf {back to paper}

10. http://www.vektor.at/ {back to paper}

11. Kraemer, H. (2001), "CD-ROM und Digitaler Film. Interaktivität als Strategie der Wissensvermittlung", In: Gemmeke, C. & John, H. & Kraemer, H. (2001) (Eds.), Euphorie digital? Aspekte der Wissensvermittlung in Kunst, Kultur und Technologie, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, pp. 199-228. {back to paper}

12. Boersch-Supan, H. (1993), Kunstmuseen in der Krise, München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, pp. 51-68. {back to paper}

13. Scheffel, R. (1997), "Positionspapier zu Taetigkeitsbereich und Berufsbild in der Museumsdokumentation", In: Berlin: Mitteilungen und Berichte aus dem Institut fuer Museumskunde SMPK , No. 10. {back to paper}

14. See, for example: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (2001), 010101: Art in Technological Times, 03. March - 08. July 2001; Klotz, H. (1996) (Ed.), Perspektiven der Medienkunst, Karlsruhe: Edition ZKM / Zentrum fuer Kunst- und Medientechnologie; Roetzer, F. (1993) (Ed.), "Das neue Bild der Welt. Wissenschaft und Aesthetik", In: Kunstforum, Vol. 124, November, December, pp. 69-235; Matysik, R. (2000) (Ed.), Zukuenftige Lebensformen, Berlin: Vice Versa Verlag. {back to paper}

15. Jeudy, H.-P. (1987), Die Welt als Museum, Berlin, Merve-Verlag. {back to paper}

16. Reifenrath, A. (1997), "Relation und Realität. Von den Problemen der Informationsabbildung in elektronischen Systemen", In: Kohle, H. (Ed.), Kunstgeschichte digital, Berlin: Reimer Verlag, pp. 27-40. {back to paper}

17. Raphael, M. (1989), "Grundbegriffe der Kunstbetrachtung", In: Wie will ein Kunstwerk gesehen sein?, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp Verlag; Imdahl, M. (1981), Bildautonomie und Wirklichkeit. Zur theoretischen Begruendung moderner Malerei, Mittenwald: Maeander Kunstverlag; Belting, H. & Gohr, S. (1996) (Eds.), Die Frage nach dem Kunstwerk unter den heutigen Bildern, Karlsruhe: Hochschule fuer Gestaltung, Vol. 8. {back to paper}

18. Kraemer, H. & John, H. (1998) (Eds.), Zum Bedeutungswandel der Kunstmuseen. Positionen und Visionen zu Inszenierung, Dokumentation, Vermittlung, Nürnberg: Verlag fuer moderne Kunst. {back to paper}

19. Fluegel, K. (2001), "Dokumentation als museale Kategorie", In: Landschaftsverband Rheinland & Rundbrief Fotografie (Eds.), Verwandlungen durch Licht, Esslingen: Museumsverband Baden-Wuerttemberg, pp. 19-29. {back to paper}

20. Breitwieser, S. (1999) (Ed.), Sammlung Archiv Kommunikation, Vienna: Generali Foundation; Koeln, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Koenig. {back to paper}

21. http://www.gfound.or.at/rueck/altpro/fras_e.htm {back to paper}

22. Lafontaine, M.-J. (1999), Installations Vidéos 1979-1999, CD-ROM, Paris: Réunion des Musées de France. {back to paper}

23. Wedemeyer, C. (1998) (Ed.), Anna Oppermann, Umarmungen, Unerklärliches und eine Gedichtzeile von R.M.R., CD-ROM, Frankfurt/Main: Stroemfeld / Roter Stern.{back to paper}

24. Schulze, C. (2001), Multimedia in Museen. Standpunkte und Perspektiven interaktiver digitaler Systeme im Ausstellungsbereich, Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. {back to paper}

25. Kraemer, H. (2001), "CD-ROM und Digitaler Film. Interaktivität als Strategie der Wissensvermittlung", In: Gemmeke, C. & John, H. & Kraemer, H. (2001) (Eds.), Euphorie digital? Aspekte der Wissensvermittlung in Kunst, Kultur und Technologie, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, pp. 199-228. {back to paper}

26. Samis, P. (2001), "Points of Departure: Integrating Technology into the Galleries of Tomorrow", In: International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Milano, 3-7 September 2001, http://www.archimuse.com/ichim2001/abstracts/prg_115000640.html {back to paper}

27. Science Wonder Productions, Vienna Walk Demo, CD-ROM, Vienna; Kraemer, H. (1999), "Vienna Walk - über den Prototyp eines interaktiven Films", In: Museen im Rheinland, Vol. 1, pp. 13-15. {back to paper}

28. Lahav, S. & Campeanu, M. & Kerrigan, J. (2001), "The Tate Modern and City Literary Institute online distance learning course about Tate Modern", CHArt Conference, London, 27-28 November 2001. {back to paper}

29. Forsythe, W. (1999), Improvisation Technologies. A Toll for the Analytical Dance Eye, CD-ROM, Karlsruhe: Zentrum fuer Kunst und Medientechnologie. {back to paper}

30. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (2000), The Anderson Collection: Art as Experiment / Art as Experience, CD-ROM, San Francisco: SFMOMA. {back to paper}

31. Grau, O. (2001), "Datenbank der Virtuellen Kunst", In: EVA 2001 Berlin, Conference Proceedings, 14-16.11.2001, p. 135-140, http://www.arthist.hu-berlin.de {back to paper}

32. Lettner, R. (1998), Bilder zur magischen Geometrie, Exhibition catalogue, 19 November 1998 - 17 January 1999, Vienna: Viennese Secession. {back to paper}

33. Kiessling, D. (1997), "Continue", In: Artintact, Vol. 4, CD-ROM, Karlsruhe: Zentrum fuer Kunst und Medientechnologie. {back to paper}

34. Jacobs, L. (1994), Screen Multimedia, Vol. 6, p. 29. {back to paper}