[In response to the Art Against Information article]
The article begins with an important
distinction between data and information.
Data is described as the raw material of
information
Information is described as the meaning derived
from data in a particular context
Even if it is representative,
non-biased and accurate, it seems unfair to claim that raw data comes with an
inherent context. It may carry logistical weight, such as sample size and type
– but meaning, as the creators of The
Listening Post (2003) describe, is linked with information. Mark Hansen and
Ben Rubin go on to claim that information is hidden within data. While this is may be true under regular
circumstances, we must be careful not to assign data a larger role than
information. In some cases, data is presented ‘as is’ to support or prove a point.
Information ends up exhibiting a somewhat inferior undertone. It seems to me
only natural that the information or meaning plays as important a role as the
data itself (if not more). Sure; information is essentially meaningless without
data to quantify it… but what good is data without context?
The numerous examples provided in the
article are works of data art which reveal a healthy relationship between data
and information. They all cleverly create contexts and visualize information using
complex datasets, all with a distinctly balanced ratio of data to information. It
is indeed possible to envision this as a gradational scale, with contexts sometimes
focusing on one rather than the other.
However, with all the debate about the
balance between data and information, we mustn’t forget the aesthetic
dimension. It’s data art, after all.
