
MoMA on GitHub - kermit666
http://research.kraeutli.com/index.php/2015/09/moma-on-github/
======
buster
Somehow i am wondering if the 1900 spike is just a flaw in the data model.
Does he explain why so many items are labeled as 1900?

Could it be that for items with an unknown date in the large collection the
data field only contains "'00" or can be itnerpreted as 1900 or someone
decided that the default value for an items creation date is 1900 and not all
items have a date set?

Edit: I think the mystery is solved: Looking at
[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MuseumofModernArt/collecti...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection/master/Artworks.csv)
you will find a lot of data fields like "c. 1900". For example the data field
for this item says "c. 1900":
[http://www.moma.org/collection/works/60868?locale=en](http://www.moma.org/collection/works/60868?locale=en)

I first assumed "c. 1900" means "created 1900" but it's more likely "circa
1900". Also, this particular piece was created 1910:
[http://www.davidrumsey.com/amica/amico866157-125545.html](http://www.davidrumsey.com/amica/amico866157-125545.html)

So, i think the collection contains a lot of items with unknown creation date
which are labeled "circa 1900".

~~~
Amorymeltzer
>Such anomalies can stand for series of items in the collection, they can be
traces of curatorial decisions in cataloguing, they could be mistakes in
dating, etc.

I'd call those "curatorial decisions". Makes sense here in the art world, but
large datasets which defaulted unknown dates to January 1st bug the hell out
of me.

