phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | uptake of digital methods in art history— “In this article, we explore the driving factors behind art history's reticence toward the digital turn in the humanities.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “Based on our analysis, we argue that DAH methods have not been embraced by art historians more generally because of fundamental differences in the theoretical underpinnings of DAH versus the broader field of art history.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We used a mixture of methods, both digital and non-digital, to uncover the prevalence for different art-historical theories in DAH versus mainstream art history.” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Reflecting on the historiographic trajectory of the emerging field of digital art history (DAH) versus art history more generally, we selected a sample of recent articles published between 2010-2019.” | |
| transfer | from digital humanities / computational text analysis: text mining, a method the authors note is common in other disciplines but rare in art history, is turned back onto art-historical writing itself to study the discipline's own historiography— “we decided to use digital methods on DAH scholarship, namely text mining, to elucidate the historiographic and theoretical concerns in the uptake of computational methods in art history.” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | DAH and mainstream art history rest on incompatible theoretical foundations, and that incompatibility - not merely missing technical skill - is what keeps art historians from taking up computational methods.— “Based on our analysis, we argue that DAH methods have not been embraced by art historians more generally because of fundamental differences in the theoretical underpinnings of DAH versus the broader field of art history.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Citing the Renaissance-focused founders of the discipline borrows their legitimacy, which is how a self-declared new field secures a place inside existing disciplinary boundaries.— “One simple explanation for this is that, as the nexus of art historical tradition, the Renaissance and its scholars confer legitimizing power, tying DAH back to some of the earliest roots of the academic discipline of art history and therefore asserting its place within disciplinary boundaries.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | The image-analysis tools were built for law enforcement, warfare and science rather than for art history, so their inherited design pushes users toward superficial formal, iconographic and colour-based classification.— “Moreover, these tools favour analyses on a quite superficial level and are seldom adapted for a broader spectrum of art-historical research, since none of them were initially developed for this end, but are rather a spin-off of systems used for law enforcement, warfare and science.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Because art history's primary material is images and artefacts rather than text, computational treatment is harder for it than for text-based disciplines, which partly explains its slower uptake.— “One reason for this may be that the nature of our core material – images and artefacts rather than text – makes the use of computational methods more complex for art history compared to other fields.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | Digital art history is not resisted because it is new but because the theory it imports is old - formalist and iconographic methods the field spent sixty years moving away from— “Rather, they are closely tied to very particular pre-digital methods and theories of art history – very traditional ones, in fact.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | Citing early art historians as if they were contemporaries strips the theories of their historical context and hides the ideological commitments built into them— “By referencing art historians like Wölfflin, Warburg and Panofsky and treating them as contemporaries, scholars ignore the ways in which historical methods reflect particular historical contexts.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | The available image tools shape the questions asked, because they were built for classification and pattern-matching in other domains entirely— “Moreover, these tools favour analyses on a quite superficial level and are seldom adapted for a broader spectrum of art-historical research, since none of them were initially developed for this end, but are rather a spin-off of systems used for law enforcement, warfare and science.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | Iconographic analysis and nineteenth-century scientific practice share a historical root, so the tools and the revived theory reinforce each other— “Both ideologically and technically, iconographic analysis and its focus on formal details and classification have the same historical roots as nineteenth-century scientific practices.” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | Frequency lists were generated over all names rather than a list the researchers supplied, specifically so the method could return names they had not thought of— “Rather than searching the material for key concepts and names, we intentionally produced frequency lists that were not limited to what we could come up with.” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | Counting the number of ARTICLES an author appears in, rather than total mentions, stops one heavily citing article from standing in for a field— “This means that one article with many citations of a certain author does not outweigh a corpus that does not contain any other articles that cite that author.” | mechanisms[9] |
| extends | Johanna Drucker's definition of digital art history in 'Is There a "Digital" Art History?'— “For the purposes of this study, however, we define the field in the wider sense, incorporating both what Drucker terms digitized and digital art history ( Fig. 2 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Paul Jaskot's question about which critical art-historical questions suit digital methods— “One answer to this call, which we believe the present study shows, is in the area of art historiography.” | claim_relations[1] |
| critiques | Manovich's argument that computational methods can approach scientific objectivity in the humanities— “However, the application of computational methodologies in the humanities is not strictly quantitative nor is it devoid of subjective considerations with regard to data collection.” | claim_relations[2] |
| critiques | the positioning of digital art history as a methodological innovation new to the discipline— “Common to both fans and critics of DAH, however, is the idea that it is a new thing.” | claim_relations[3] |
| extends | Drucker's distinction between digitized and digital art history, adopted as a distinction but not as a boundary— “While digitization projects are still often folded into DAH, Drucker’s essay shifted the meaning of the term to imply that DAH is the use of computational methods rather than use or creation of digitized archives.” | claim_relations[4] |
| supports | Jaskot's question about which critical art-historical questions are best suited to digital methods— “In a recent stock-taking of the field, Jaskot asks, ‘What are the critical questions in art history that demand and are best suited to specific digital methods?’” | claim_relations[5] |
| critiques | Bishop's Against Digital Art History, whose diagnosis the paper shares while rejecting the conclusion that computation is inherently incompatible— “While this article critiques the adherence of DAH research to the ‘old guard’ of art history, this does not mean that the use of computational tools is inherently incompatible with contemporary critical theory perspectives in the discipline.” | claim_relations[6] |
| sense | digital art history - Baca and Helmreich's wide sense: five overlapping phases beginning with digitization of archives— “The first phase is the digitization and dissemination of archives, the second is building tools for the digital humanities, the third is visualization/reconstruction/virtual reality, the fourth is… | senses[0] |
| sense | digital art history - Drucker's narrow sense: analytic computational techniques ONLY, explicitly excluding digitized repositories | senses[1] |
| sense | digital art history - as this paper uses it: the wider sense, adopted by explicit decision after setting out the alternatives | senses[2] |
| sense | citation frequency - number of ARTICLES an author is cited in, which is what every number here means Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| sense | citation frequency - total mentions, the alternative that was tried and rejected because one article could then stand in for a field Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[4] |
| sense | novelty of DAH - as its supporters mean it: new questions and new kinds of information about art Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[5] |
| sense | novelty of DAH - as its critics mean it: a symptom of new public management and the urge to quantify everything Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[6] |
| control | frequency lists produced over ALL names in the corpus, ordered by frequency, instead of searching the material for the key concepts and names the researchers could think of — held — rules out CONFIRMATION BY THE ANALYST - the paper's own phrase is 'looking to confirm a theme or pattern'. A search for names you already have in mind returns them, and the enumeration removes the step where salience is decided by the reader Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| differs in | Bishop's Against Digital Art History, whose diagnosis the paper shares while rejecting the conclusion that computation is inherently incompatible — THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE DIAGNOSIS IMPLIES THE STRONGER CONCLUSION. 'WHILE THIS ARTICLE CRITIQUES THE ADHERENCE OF DAH RESEARCH TO THE OLD GUARD OF ART HISTORY, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE USE OF COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS IS INHERENTLY INCOMPATIBLE with contemporary critical theory perspectives in the discipline.' The paper shares the critics' diagnosis and refuses their conclusion, in one sentence - which is exactly the position this project occupies, and its [5] supplies the historical reason (DAH inherited the formalist half of the discipline). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[6] |
| audit | digital art history —distinct-from→ digitized art history — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attributed: the span quotes Drucker. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | text mining —same-as→ distant reading — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span speaks of 'the distant reading of text mining'; same-as is loose. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | text mining —same-as→ distant reading — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| retracted | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · text mining —contrasted-with→ close reading — RE-GROUNDED. The old span named neither method. This sentence names both and states the contrast SYMMETRICALLY - neither method could have produced the other's result, which is a stronger and more careful claim than a one-way comparison. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| audit | critical theory —distinct-from→ digital art history — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'DAH' and ties it to formalist rather than critical theory methods; distinct-from is loose. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| differs in | critical theory —distinct-from→ digital art history — THE AXIS IS WHICH PRE-DIGITAL TRADITION THE DIGITAL METHOD INHERITS. 'as this study shows, DAH is closely tied to particular pre-digital methods and theories of art history, namely formalist and iconographic methods prevalent during the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century, rather than critical theory methods commonly found in more [recent work].' Digital art history is not opposed to critical theory by argument - it INHERITED A DIFFERENT ANCESTOR, and the claim is historical rather than methodological. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| weight | critical theory —distinct-from→ digital art history — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| audit | Erwin Panofsky —is-a→ iconographic — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span groups Panofsky with iconographic approaches; is-a is loose. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[7] |
| weight | Erwin Panofsky —is-a→ iconographic — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[7] |
| edge | exploratory data analysis —same-as→ unsupervised learning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[9] |
| audit | digital art history —distinct-from→ canon — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says DAH often fails to acknowledge a widened canon; distinct-from is loose. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[11] |
| weight | digital art history —distinct-from→ canon — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[11] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the Benjamin result specifically: HIS SINGULAR PROMINENCE IN THE FIELD OF ART HISTORY AS REPRESENTED BY OUR SAMPLE - DESERVES A LONG[er treatment], left unexplained here Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — every computational result in the paper, and in the genre: THE RESEARCHER MUST ALWAYS DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMPLETE, COMPREHENSIVE OR REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, WHICH MEANS THAT BIAS IS BUILT IN Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — any methodological reuse of the study: WE HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO DESCRIBE OUR TEXT MINING METHODS IN TECHNICA[l detail], being aimed at a broad art history audience Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the mainstream comparison: it rests on two journals chosen to reduce interdisciplinary noise, while ART HISTORY IS A DIVERSE, INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELD Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| duplicate of | limitation — limitations[1] Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[1] - bias enters where the sample is defined Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any interpretation of the mention counts: THEY DID NOT, HOWEVER, GIVE US ANY SENSE OF WHY THEY APPEAR so often, which is why close reading was added as a second layer Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[2] - the technical account of the text mining is in two earlier papers, so the method cannot be checked from this text Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| duplicate of | limitation — limitations[0] Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[0] - Benjamin, the one author shared across all three samples and the strongest signal in the data, is set aside as beyond scope Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The prominence of Walter Benjamin as the one author shared by all three samples is left unexplained, being outside the paper's scope. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Bias is built into the study because the researchers themselves had to decide what counted as a representative sample. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The computational methods are not described in technical detail in this article, being reported elsewhere. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The mainstream comparison rests on two journals chosen to reduce interdisciplinary noise, while the authors acknowledge art history is published far more widely Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Any computational humanities study builds in bias at the point where the sample is defined, which the authors state rather than claim to have avoided Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | Text mining alone cannot say why a name appears, which is why the study needed close reading as a second layer Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The technical account of the text mining is not in this paper but in two earlier ones, so the method cannot be checked from this text alone Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The single author shared across all three samples, Benjamin, is set aside as beyond scope although he is the strongest signal in the data Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Across the three article corpora, Walter Benjamin was the single author cited in common by all three. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Apart from Benjamin, Art Journal had no author overlap with DAH. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The two mainstream art-history journals resemble each other far more than either resembles DAH, and Art Journal is the more distant of the two from DAH. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Besides Benjamin, only Erwin Panofsky, Aby Warburg and Hans Belting are shared between the Art History and DAH citation lists. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Wolfflin is not frequently cited in either the Art History or the Art Journal sample, but often appears in DAH literature. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | By omitting critique of Panofsky, DAH literature seems to treat his work as the final word until digitization. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Computational studies are closely tied to very particular, very traditional pre-digital methods and theories of art history. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | DAH appears to de-historicize art-historical theories and methods. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | An unremarked assumption, also a barrier in Manovich's methodology as generally applied, is that digital images of artworks are true to the artworks' brightness, hue and saturation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[8] |
| finding | only one author, Walter Benjamin, is shared across all three samples Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[9] |
| finding | besides Benjamin, digital art history shares no author with Art Journal Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[10] |
| finding | Wölfflin is prominent in digital art history and largely absent from both mainstream journals Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[11] |
| finding | the two mainstream journals resemble each other more than either resembles digital art history Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[12] |
| finding | computational art history is not qualitatively different from analogue art history Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[13] |
| finding | DAH typically cites Benjamin's famous essay without further analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[14] |
| quantity | 61 — articles in the combined digital-art-history corpus (two Visual Resources special issues plus DAHJ 2015-2019) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 373 / 215 — articles drawn from Art History and from Art Journal for the 2010-2019 comparison corpora Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | thirty-five — number of top cited scholars extracted per corpus and compared in the Venn diagram Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 100 — length of the most-frequent-word list produced for each dataset after stopword removal Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | top thirty-five scholars — the size of the citation list compared across the three samples Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 2010 and 2019 — the decade of mainstream art history sampled Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | three overlapping authors — the entire shared ground between DAH and Art History besides Benjamin Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | five ‘roughly chronological’ and overlapping phases — the structure of the wide definition of the field Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| definition | digital art history Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | meta-methodology Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | text mining Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | Kunstgeschichte ohne Namen Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | digitized art history Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | exploratory data analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| definition | meta-methodology Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[7] |
| key-terms | digital art history, digitized art history, text mining, close reading, distant reading, meta-methodology, historiography, formalist, iconographic, critical theory, exploratory data analysis, unsupervised learning, canon, pattern recognition |
| frequency count | as written: frequency lists Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| text mining (word-frequency analysis in R) | as written: text mining (tm package) in R Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| phenomenon | uptake of digital methods in art history — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: uptake of digital methods in art history Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.phenomenon |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824