Institution#

This section is dedicated to preservation professionals that are looking for guidance in archiving software-based media in their cultural institution. For this section, we interviewed Jonathan Farbowitz (digital preservationist at the Metropolitan Museum of Art), Mark Hellar (creative technology consultant and media conservationist at SFMoMA), and Emma Dickson (digital conservationist and creative technologist). From these interviews, we got a sense of how they work with existing DAMS and metadata standards within the archival software that are already in use. Please note that these interviews are all from digital preservationists working with software-based artworks, which come with unique complications and oversights. Below are some considerations you may want to consider.

Distinguishing between binary executables and source code

When preserving software-based media, it is important to archive both the binary executable program and the source code that created it. Because source code is often coded through VCS like the ones listed above, it is common for institutions to keep the source code of their items in the same VCS environment. VCS’s are designed to preserve information about version history and other changes that happen across time. One important decision to make is whether your source code will be maintained in a VCS, and whether a clone of it will be stored in the same DAMs as the item’s other documentation, ancillary materials, outputs, and associated software.

Software conservation: making software work again

If you’re in a museum that preserves software-based media, you may come across source code that has not been updated for many years. These situations may require recoding, translating code into other more updated languages, replacing outdated firmware, etc. In these cases there are conservation principles in traditional archival practices that can be applied to restoring software: never delete code, always comment out. Document all changes carefully.

Creating guidelines for preservation practices

Because software-based art often involves components other than the code itself (e.g. dependencies, firmware, machinery, hardware, etc). Every case is unique and determining what the necessary components are is a bespoke and complex process.

Reports: Identity, Treatment, Iteration

Institutions often produce reports about the acquisition or conservation process for an artwork. As Joanna Phillips (2015) explains, the purpose of the identity report is not to capture venue-specific solutions, but to characterize an artwork’s behaviors under different circumstances. An identity report describes an artwork’s defining properties and must be updated as those evolve. Here are some examples of the identity report. You could model your document off of the Guggenheim’s Identity Report for Sun Yuan and Peng Yu’s piece I Can’t Help Myself, or the Met’s Identity Report Formatting, or the Smithsonian’s Identity Report. The iteration report, like version_history.csv, creates a history of change that offers insights into the decision-making process around specific iterations.

Know the programs you’re archiving - work with creative technologists

One of the most important things for understanding how to preserve code is knowing the media. Creative technology is constantly evolving, and it is helpful to keep tabs on the various changes and evolutions of artist tools. This often looks like having a creative technology practice yourself.