Digital Archive LibraryMuseum of One / Source-linked catalogueSeven research tools and experiments in critical language, viewing situations, and curatorial relations, with methods, PIC context, and limits.
Canonical website source ↗ · All website captures · Original content HTML ↓
Dorian Vale (Credited website author)
This is a stored copy of a public website publication, captured under the website owner’s archive instruction. Original source rights, image credits, citations and third-party exclusions remain applicable. Public access does not grant a new licence. External embeds and unpreserved files are explicitly identified below. Interactive source is retained as an inert HTML download; a live software environment is not guaranteed.
Featured experimental tool · Working prototype
Observatory · Museum of One. A local research workbench for artworks, artifacts, sources, situated encounters and curatorial decisions.
Ask a question. Bring things together. Follow the evidence. Inspect precise passages, retain conflicting descriptions, document a material situation and keep the reasons for a decision open to review.
Eight connected tools support documentary, object-centred, exhibition, translation, encounter and qualitative inquiries. Start from your question; use the tools it needs.
New in 2.1: guided workflows. Move from a working question to an output, one step at a time. Adapt the route to the inquiry, save notes and progress, and open the relevant research tools directly from each step.
Explore guided workflows & adaptable routes →For museums & curators →Study guide & FAQ →15 application views →Worked study →Research programme →
Request the private repository or a copy of the tool through Museum of One. This public page provides documentation; the research application runs locally.
Working prototype · Observatory 2.1. Research outputs require their own evidence and permission review; software completeness does not establish empirical validity.
Featured experimental tool · Working prototype
A working research instrument for museums and curators. Compare a framing, arrangement or sequence, preserve first accounts, and retain the evidence behind the decision.
Design a protocol around 2–8 artworks, mark image regions, use a clear or magnifying looking glass, compare participants and export an inspectable research package.
New: start from a demonstration or museum-pilot template, record readiness decisions, rehearse in saved practice mode and allocate one framing condition per pilot participant.
Explore the new study templates ↓For museums & curators →Study guide & FAQ →15 screens & export examples →Research programme →Download demonstration study ↓Museum pilot draft →
Individuals and institutions interested in experimenting with this or another research tool are welcome to contact Museum of One. On request, I can send the GitHub repository or a copy of the tool itself.
A working prototype is available for experimentation; it is not a validated measure of attention or aesthetic value. This website provides documentation and static screenshots.
New in the working prototype · 21 October 2026
Two built-in templates now connect the published study materials to the local application. Start with a complete design, adapt it to your question, rehearse the procedure and retain the decisions behind the protocol.
01 / Demonstration · template 1.0.0
Rehearse a within-person comparison with counterbalanced order, bundled artworks and an example region. Opens in practice mode.
02 / Museum pilot · draft template 0.1.0
Prepare a feasibility comparison with balanced blocks of four. The draft still needs a host, local review, defined regions and a justified recruitment plan.
Design diagrams explain the implemented allocation procedure. They show no participant results. A local protocol lock records the design; it does not provide ethics approval or external preregistration.
Two editable starting points. The demonstration opens as practice. The museum pilot opens with a research-readiness review. Each creates a new draft with a fresh identifier.
Enlarge screenshot ⤢For museums, galleries and curators
For museums, galleries and curators who need to explain why a display, sequence or label was chosen and preserve the evidence behind that decision.
Every exhibition makes choices about what visitors encounter. If a decision is important enough to shape that encounter, it is important enough to leave a research record.
Bring a documented pilot into exhibition development, interpretation review and institutional research. Retain the alternatives, procedure and evidence alongside the eventual decision.
Compare an arrangement, sequence or framing before committing to it. Make the question explicit, inspect what changed, and keep your judgement answerable to the record.
Collect first accounts before showing an analysis, compare declared conditions, and retain observations, disagreements and exclusions for qualitative or mixed-method work.
Start with one decision your team is already discussing. These are proposed museum uses, illustrated with the working interface and constructed demonstration records.
Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration
What changes when the same works are introduced differently?
A traceable comparison to bring into an interpretation review, with the texts, accounts and uncertainty retained.
How a museum team can use itRetain two exact introductory texts as separate protocol conditions. Keep the works and presentation settings fixed. Collect first accounts before revealing the trace, then compare recorded interaction and code the written accounts.
When prior knowledge would defeat identity withholding, use a justified design with fresh participant groups. The app does not undo exposure to a label or automatically establish comprehension.
Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration
What does a different arrangement make available for comparison?
An inspectable basis for discussing a proposed pairing or sequence, including accounts that resist the curatorial premise.
How a museum team can use itKeep the same artworks and use a linked reverse or rotation, or define the alternatives in a locked protocol. Review transitions, returns and first accounts by stable artwork identifier.
This is a digital comparison. Confirm decisions in the physical display; the tool does not reproduce gallery distance, lighting or visitor movement.
Proposed museum workflow · interface illustration
Does a looking glass change recorded exploration and description?
A reproducible record for discussing detail access and close-looking exercises, with region definitions retained.
How a museum team can use itName image regions before collection. Compare clear and magnifying conditions using the same works, display and instructions. Review regional pointer dwell, entries and accounts alongside the lens settings.
Region membership follows the pointer centre. It is not eye tracking, and the lens itself changes the encounter.
Explore all six museum workflows and the pilot plan →
Keep the question and alternatives, a locked protocol, region definitions, participant accounts, recorded interaction, reasoned exclusions and claim–evidence annotations together. Export the records, tidy tables, source images and verification material so another colleague can inspect the reasoning.
Request it for your museum →Run the worked study →Read the research programme →Tell Museum of One your institution or practice, the curatorial question and the intended setting. On request, I can send the GitHub repository or a copy of the tool itself.
Use it as a documented digital pilot. The current working prototype supports facilitated comparative studies with images. Pair it with appropriate recruitment, consent and an analysis plan, and check the transfer of any conclusion to a physical exhibition. Pointer interaction is not gaze, preference or proof of understanding.
Research is part of the museum role described in ICOM’s museum definition. Encounter Differential offers one practical way to make the investigation of a curatorial choice explicit and inspectable.
Encounter Differential / Working prototype / Visual tour
Fifteen views of study design, recorded encounters, analysis and exported evidence. Select any image to inspect it at full size.
Actual interface screenshots and three readable previews generated from an actual export. All records are constructed demonstrations; no participant findings are shown.
01 / 3 views
Choose the works, draw the regions and retain an exact protocol.
Artwork selection and conditions. Demonstration only; no participant record.
View full image →Regions of interest use image coordinates. This draft polygon is an illustration, not an observed attention region.
View full image →A locked demonstration protocol with clear and magnifying conditions. The local fingerprint is an audit aid, not external preregistration.
View full image →02 / 3 views
A looking glass, a first account and the conditions of acquisition.
Three artworks in a demonstration encounter with a magnifying looking glass. — image at source
The looking glass is a recorded viewing condition. Its pointer-centre trace is not eye tracking.
View full image →Write before seeing the trace. This scripted rehearsal shows the first-account gate, not a participant response.
View full image →The acquisition manifest from a scripted rehearsal retains environment, source-image checksums and display geometry for inspection.
View full image →03 / 6 views
Read patterns alongside accounts, uncertainty and declared conditions.
Trace replay, normalized pointer paths, cumulative regional maps and return intervals. Constructed interaction data; no gaze or intention is measured.
View full image →Actual selection-time chart from a constructed three-artwork encounter. — image at source
Per-work selection shares and recorded duration from constructed traces. Assigned time is the denominator in this chart; selection is not gaze.
View full image →A network of recorded transitions between artworks. Arrows and weights describe selections, not artistic influence or psychological attraction.
View full image →Constructed trace and annotation used only to show the interface. These are not participant findings.
View full image →Linked-condition comparison from constructed records. Percentage-point differences are descriptive; changes do not establish a causal effect or preference.
View full image →Entirely constructed demonstration data. Counts, means and differences illustrate the interface; they are not research results.
View full image →04 / 3 views
Actual exported files, readable tables and independent verification.
Readable preview generated from an actual demonstration ZIP. Shows retained files and source-image checks; this preview is not an app screen.
View full image →Actual exported trial and region CSV values displayed as readable tables. — image at source
Actual CSV projections from the constructed demonstration export. The readable preview retains column names and millisecond units.
View full image →Actual verifier output and dictionary excerpt from the demonstration evidence package. File integrity and calculation checks are separate from empirical validity.
View full image →Open the complete study guide & FAQ →
Individuals and institutions can request the GitHub repository or the tool itself. The website presents documentation and static images.
The export example retains eight completed demonstration trials plus one explicitly excluded scripted rehearsal. The participant comparison uses the eight completed trials. Integrity checks do not establish empirical validity.
Seven further methods and workspaces address research evidence, critical language, frameworks, curatorial conditions and relations between works.
Observatory · Curatorial/Museum Research →Phenomenological Indices →Linguistic Diagnostics →Theory Prism →Curatorial Space →Spatiotemporal Comparison →Adjacency Mapper →Research / Infrastructure / Tools and experiments
Documentation only. The interactive applications are not embedded. Each record presents the method and its limits; none of these pages accepts material for analysis.
Compare tools ↓ · Browse records ↓ · Research worksheet ↓
Choose a starting question, then consult the full record before using a method. These are documentation pages; the comparison does not run an analysis.
| Question and tool | Starting material | Documented output | Main limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phenomenological Indices →How does a text move between description and interpretation? | A critical passage and its coding record. | A provisional reading across five proposed indices. | Coding judgments and thresholds require scrutiny. |
| Linguistic Diagnostics →Where does critical prose assign meaning or speak for viewers? | Critical prose and the applicable coding rules. | A traceable account of rhetorical decisions. | A profile cannot establish motives or moral worth. |
| Theory Prism →How do different critical approaches construct their claims? | A common object, stated approaches, and source texts. | A comparison of attention, premises, and inference. | Assisted accounts need source checking. |
| Encounter Differential →How do documented viewing conditions shape recorded interaction and first accounts? | 2–8 artworks, locked protocols, image regions and participant accounts. | Versioned records, participant comparisons and reproducible evidence exports. | Pointer traces and selected time are not gaze or preference. |
| Curatorial Space →What changes when one display condition changes? | A reference arrangement and one controlled change. | A documented comparison of presentation conditions. | Simulation does not reproduce a gallery encounter. |
| Spatiotemporal Comparison →Which conditions can be compared across places and periods? | Dated source records from specified contexts. | A bounded account of similarities, differences, and gaps. | Juxtaposition does not prove influence or causation. |
| Adjacency Mapper →What assumptions does a proposed pairing impose? | Declared attributes, relational parameters, and rules. | A model profile with an inspectable calculation log. | Model consistency is not a measured viewer effect. |
| How can a curatorial account remain answerable to its evidence? Observatory · Curatorial/Museum Research | Works, artifacts, sources, exact fragments and situated accounts. | Linked claims, sourced assertions, decisions and reviewed research outputs. | A complete record does not establish truth, consent, legal rights or empirical validity. |
A local workbench connecting studies, artworks, artifacts, documentary evidence, material situations and curatorial decisions.
Research use: inspect exact passages, retain competing assertions, compare readings and prepare a traceable account.
Status: Working prototype, Research Desk v2. Demonstrations are constructed; no completed empirical validation is claimed.
Five proposed indices for examining description, presupposition, phase, residue, agency, and movement within critical writing.
Experimental instrument · Tool v.1 · Worked example → · Citation →
A diagnostic reading of rhetorical density, interpretive load, viewer displacement, and ethical proximity in art-critical language.
Experimental instrument · Tool v.2 · Worked example → · Citation → · Diagnostic Reading guide →
A comparative teaching instrument for examining what different critical frameworks notice, assume, overlook, and authorize.
Experimental teaching instrument · Worked example → · Citation →
An editable, three-page worksheet for Linguistic Diagnostics. Retain the source passage, coding decisions, exclusions, uncertainty, and review notes alongside the method you use.
Version 1.0 · 17 October 2026. The worksheet is a manual documentation aid. It introduces no new coding rules or validated results. Read the Linguistic Diagnostics record →
A working prototype for comparative artwork research: 2–8 works, locked protocols, image regions, a clear or magnifying looking glass, first accounts, participant comparisons and reproducible evidence exports.
Working prototype · Encounter Differential 2.0 · Worked example → · Citation →
A curatorial experiment in how light, scale, distance, framing, adjacency, and sequence condition an encounter with art.
Experimental curatorial environment · Worked example → · Citation →
Comparative inquiry into the historical, geographical, institutional, and material conditions surrounding artistic production.
Comparative research framework · Worked example → · Citation →
A rule-based modelling experiment in dominance, amplification, flattening, narrative pressure, and relations between adjacent works.
Experimental rule-based model · Worked example → · Citation →
Instruments, viewing protocols, and modelling experiments within Museum of One’s research infrastructure. These seven records explain the purpose and procedure of each tool, its connection to Post-Interpretive Criticism, and the limits of its claims. They support the Phenomenological Methods and Diagnostic Reading programme.
The records explain each tool’s purpose, method, limits and citation. Encounter Differential also includes a complete study guide, FAQ and screenshots of its working prototype. Examples and demonstration records report no participant findings or empirical validation.
The shared question is how critical language, viewing arrangements, and curatorial decisions condition an encounter with art. PIC supplies the demand for restraint and answerability. These tools give selected questions a procedural form so that assumptions, observations, and inferences can be inspected separately. They do not establish a measurement of aesthetic truth.
The tools belong beside the arguments and coding procedures that make their use open to scrutiny. A tool record describes a design; a published method supplies claims and evidence that require their own evaluation.
A documented design specifies a procedure. An experimental instrument makes selected assumptions available for testing. Neither label is a claim of independent validation.
Quantifying Critical Posture reports a related single-coder pilot, not independent validation of these tools. Diagnostics Without Possession sets out coding and reliability procedures; a procedure for testing agreement is not a completed reliability result. Each record states the limits of the evidence it presents.
Return to the Methods programme → · All Research Programmes →
Transcribed declarations retain their source scope. Identifiers are not promoted to independently verified edition assignments.
Source content SHA-256: 4b160558b6b65d3311fc0b7a51797e945d86e7cfd68a66cd1e412fed96686f20