I cast the net far and wide (excuse the pun) and researched all sorts of potential ideas: a graffiti blog, an American Indian blog, an art website,  a 1980s band… but in the end I settled for the idea I have had for quite some time: looking at You Tube.

As a case study the artist Mark Rothko has been a fascinating subject for me. I would like to look at how Rothko, or rather, his paintings have been represented online. [The underlying question for me is to what extent do we experience art online? Can online art  spaces (and how we interact with these) contribute to an aesthetic experience? The representation of space in YouTube is mostly a recording of real life space. Can online discussions about viewing a TV documentary extend into an online art space?]

There are many websites that offer information on Rothko: some have a commercial interest (selling posters or prints), others are run by museums and galleries (the Tate is a fine example). Not long ago Rothko was in the news when one of his painting in the Tate Modern was de-faced. This act sparked a lot of of internet topical news activity. I even came across an extreme right wing internet forum, illustrating that internet opinion can be diverse and shocking.

For most of the week I used search engines to build up a picture of where Rothko can be found. (I even wondered how Google in a nitty-gritty sense actually works?) There are many social media platforms such as Flick’r, Vimeo, Twitter, Pinterest, even Google Maps and indeed of course YouTube which all offer a dynamic ‘Rothko’ view: pages are retrieved and aggregated, unlike the static articles that are published on various websites, including newspapers, galleries and in an academic  context.

I started a new Pinterest board to keep track of some of these websites.

The readings of Hine, Clari and Kozinets gave a better idea of the context of what I will be doing in the next 2 weeks.

I checked the ethical considerations and looked at Timetoast as a timeline (but I don’t expect to use the latter one)

On the eve of the anniversary of Rothko’s death (25/2/1970) I feel I am ready to find out how the BBC programme by Simon Schama, opinion on Rothko and YouTube contextualisation will mix.

I hope the study will give me a foundation for considering my future dissertation on the topic of aesthetic experiences in online spaces, as well a better understanding of the scope of virtual ethnography.

I have checked the potential ethical considerations involved and I am satisfied that there are no special issues involved.

I have not yet decided on the platform for presenting the ethnography, nor the time line.

My draft proposal for the ethnography is as follows:

I will draw observations with regards to

1. the technical aspects of how the YouTube platform is accessed
2. issues around the identity of the users
3. the range of topics they are addressing
4. the reflection on Rothko as an artist
5. reflections on any topics other than Rothko as an artist
6. the level of online community or subculture development

I will

1. research a suitable platform for presenting my findings.
2. consider how to present the ‘work in progress’  in a timeline

2)     Who are the subjects’ posters / authors / creators of the material and/or inter/actions under study?
In order to post comments one has to have a YouTube account and existing comments made have been approved by the account holder of the videos.

The names of the posters are mostly pseudonyms, this includes the uploader of the videos, although the programme was initially made by the BBC and has been split in 7 parts. The programme was uploaded in September 2008.

3)     What are the initial ethical expectations/assumptions of the authors/subjects being studied?
You Tube comments are public. Those that are posting comments are aware of this via their initial sign up policy.

More info is available via YouTube support pages

4) What ethically significant risks does the research entail for the subject(s)?
It is unlikely that using examples of any of the comments posted publicly and made available as part of this research would harm the individual who made the original post nor the uploader of the videos.

It is unlikely that comments are made by children. Individuals who explicitly show signs of a mental illness may visit the YouTube site but in view of this concise study it is unlikely there will be any reference nor use of their comments which may make them identifiable.

As the programme is made by the BBC there is a possibility that the BBC will take action to have it barred from viewing due to potential licensing issues.

(a) utilizes the internet to collect data or information, e.g., through online interviews, surveys,

archiving, or automated means of data scraping;

(b) studies how people use and access the internet, e.g., through collecting and observing

activities or participating on social network sites, listservs, web sites, blogs, games, virtual

worlds, or other online environments or contexts;

(c) utilizes or engages in data processing, analysis, or storage of datasets, databanks, and/or

repositories available via the.

(d) studies software, code, and internet technologies

(e) examines the design or structures of systems, interfaces, pages, and

(f)  employs visual and textual analysis, semiotic analysis, content analysis, or other methods

of analysis to study the web and/or internet-facilitated images, writings, and media forms.

(g) studies large scale production, use, and regulation of the internet by governments,

industries, corporations, and military forces.

Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Version 2.0