Response to papers: Katie and Kathy

1. Does this seem like a practical solution to the problem of repatriation on a grand scale? With all of our discussions on the uses of technology to represent objects, is the physical object what is important, or the ability to have a connection with the object (even a virtual one).
For small museums, I believe that a database such as this could be very useful. Smaller institutions do not have the resources to seek out items for repatriation. A site like this may enc0urage otherwise inactive institutions. I still feel the physical object retains more value than a recreation in the virtual world. Imaging the real object is even more powerful than seeing an image of it on the computer screen. The computer makes it something else...trivial. It is easier to lose site of its value. It becomes a photograph, less real and not itself.
2. Some people argue that too much time is being spent creating virtual comprehensive catalogues of these objects, instead of working to bring them back to the Yukon. Most museums expend effort to create databases, but databases of things they have, not things they don't. What do you think?
Data is data and it is always good to open dialogue and receive more information on an object that may have been previously lost or unknown.
1. What do you think of the data they've chosen to present? There's an on-going arguement on several listserves, including NATIVE-L, about the presentation of native objects.
It seems that objects of everyday use are freely mixed with objects of cultural significance. Some may be offended by this. It may confuse the value of the objects, putting them all on the same level.
2. This site seems as if it could have a lot of potential in the Web 2.0 arena, with the opportunity for individuals to add additional metadata to the object pages in a way that would meet one of the objectives of the project, which is to reconcile objects with information. In fact, the private database is being distributed to native groups throughout the territory and any data provided on any object is being recorded, with all information given equal weight. Could this work at any institution? What are the pros/cons of inviting that type of open participation?
The question of authority becomes unclear, but it appears that is the world we are now living in (Wikipedia, etc...). Everyone feels entitled to participate. This is good for opening dialogue. The question of peer review on oral history is sketchy.

1. Considering the idea that "The aim of art is not to represent the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance," (Aristotle) how well do you think Interactions represents the movement toward personalization and real-time interactivity as experienced in Web 2.0?
It is an interesting media, one in which I would not be driven to participate, but even still, it opens up avenues for manipulation and expression and interpretation. I don't think that is ever a bad thing.
2. How interested are you in viewing digital art as a way to explore the new world of digital media, interactivity and web communities?
Not very. I use the computer to work and do research, not leisurely, or as a means of exploring art. I need tangible objects and art for interactivity. It is more stimulating.