Skip

NYPL web gallery
March 3, 2005 7:08 AM   Subscribe

New York Public Library Digital Gallery now online. The NYPL has put online a huge gallery of photos, paintings and graphics. (via the New York Times)
posted by caddis (13 comments total)

 
Ohhh yes! We need more digital libraries like this one. Excellent news!
posted by homodigitalis at 7:25 AM on March 3, 2005


Caddis beat me to the post! I've just scrolled through the list. The sheer size of the archive is amazing. I'll get even less work done now, but I'll be spending my time wisely.
posted by scratch at 7:35 AM on March 3, 2005


Show us your NYPLs!!!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2005


If anyone wants a healthy dose of snark, the NYT article saying "ooh, it's good, but not great" is here.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:53 AM on March 3, 2005


I wonder what the copyright restrictions on this stuff is...
posted by Brockstar at 8:25 AM on March 3, 2005


Ending the NYT's first paragraph: 'The Public Library's digital gallery is lovely, dark and deep. Quite eccentric, too.'

Perhaps you take issue with this paragraph, grapefruitmoon: 'Despite the Web site's great richness, sleek looks and fast response to a mouse click, it does feel a bit musty. The digital gallery is modeled on an old-fashioned card catalog, with all the attendant creaks. Doing a search is like going into a library and opening file drawers.'

Well, why not have it that way? Nicholson Baker must must be jumping up and down with joy.

If I missed something, let me know, but the review seems glowing.
posted by attackthetaxi at 9:29 AM on March 3, 2005


Brockstar, read the second paragraph, for crying out loud.
posted by attackthetaxi at 9:31 AM on March 3, 2005


Ooops, the NYT article wasn't in the original post. My bad, Brockstar.
posted by attackthetaxi at 9:34 AM on March 3, 2005


*snark*

Despite the Web site's great richness, sleek looks and fast response to a mouse click, it does feel a bit musty. The digital gallery is modeled on an old-fashioned card catalog, with all the attendant creaks. Doing a search is like going into a library and opening file drawers.

For instance, you can't get a list of all the photographers or the printmakers or the artists - only an alphabetical list of every proper name in the digital library.


*/snark*

Do you see what I was saying?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2005


Not snark. It's simply a critical assessment of what is offered and not offered.
posted by scratch at 11:11 AM on March 3, 2005


Wow, despite The Times review I thinks it's attractive and easy to both browse and search. This is good. Very very good.
posted by cedar at 11:49 AM on March 3, 2005


The site is a gem. Thanks, caddis.
posted by attackthetaxi at 12:41 PM on March 3, 2005


The site is impressive by virtue of the sheer quantity of what it contains. But you might say the same thing about walking into a huge warehouse too. To me, what's more impressive than scale are sites that offer tools or context that add some kind of value on top of the records in the database. Because, in the end, the only special about this is that so much is now accessible online. To be commended, for sure, but access is only half of what the web can do, no?
posted by immerito at 1:37 PM on March 3, 2005


« Older Kentucky cracks down on budding writer   |   Kamikaze Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post