{"id":899,"date":"2019-04-14T19:18:11","date_gmt":"2019-04-14T23:18:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/?page_id=899"},"modified":"2019-04-14T19:18:11","modified_gmt":"2019-04-14T23:18:11","slug":"oconnor","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/volume-4-2015-2016\/oconnor\/","title":{"rendered":"Slow Dissolve: Re-presenting synchronised slide-based artworks in the 21st Century"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Fergus O’Connor
The Electronic Media Review, Volume Four: 2015-2016<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Tate has a collection of\ntwenty-seven slide-based artworks, ten of which use synchronized slide\nprojectors. A project was started in 2014 to explore the technical challenges\nof these ten synchronized artworks. The key aim of the project was to enable an\nimproved understanding of the coded signals used for the crossfading, slide\ntransitions, and timings of synchronized slide-based works in the art\ncollection, in order to inform Tate’s collection care strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through the project, we researched\nand reviewed the synchronization control systems in terms of differences and\ncompatibility. The main finding was that the translation between different\nsystems was not reliable, and therefore we will aim to support all the systems\npresent in the collection for as long as possible. Furthermore, an outcome of\nthe research was to improve cue track identification and to make\nrecommendations on capturing this information for the future. This paper\npresents an overview of the research carried out and considers practical\noptions for the preservation of these works. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Tate has a collection of twenty-seven\nslide-based artworks, ten of which use synchronized slide projectors. The\nproject was started in 2014 and circa 30 days were allocated to it over\n18-months to explore the technical challenges of these ten synchronized\nartworks. This was initiated as a review into the methods of showing these\nworks in the future following on from previous research at Tate into slide\npreservation (Weidner 2012). Tate\u2019s strategy for managing its slide-based\ncollection following on from the Dying Technologiesresearch project in 2011\u201312 is\u2014where in accordance with the\nartist\u2019s specification\u2014to create digital images of each slide-based artwork,\nworking with the artist to digitize the original transparencies and where they\nrepresent the best available master set (Weidner 2012). Tate\u2019s current strategy\nis to display these works in their original formats, but as the obsolescence of\nboth the synchronizing and slide technologies continues, we have begun to\nexplore options for how to reproduce and present these works using modern\ntechnology.  To ensure this\nrepresentation is possible in the future, it became crucial to understand the\ncoded synchronization signals for the ten synchronized works within our\ncollection. This would ensure a better understanding, and more accurate capture,\nof the coded signals used for the crossfading, slide advancement, and timings\nfor each synchronized slide-based work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the 1970s and 1980s,\nslide-tape artworks emerged from the expanded cinema practice where artists\nembraced this relatively low cost means of creating visual narratives using slides\nand audio (Vivid Projects 2013). This practice would be later abandoned by most\nin favor of video technologies, as advancements in computer operating systems\nenabled transition into a digital realm (Fogerty 2011). Slide-tape technology\nprovided new possibilities for installation art, as one could employ two or\nthree projectors at one time, and was being used by key emerging artists of the\ntime, such as William Furlong (b. 1944), Ian Breakwell (b. 1943), Nan Goldin\n(b. 1953), KwieKulik (1971-1987), Black Audio film Collective (1982\u20131998), and\nJames Coleman (b. 1941). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This technology originated in the\naudio-visual industry, where it was referred to as Multi-image presentations\n(Wikipedia 2016a). These more commercial applications shared the same hardware,\nbut were typically more advanced in scale and complexity than those found in\nthe experimental art community. For the programming, sophisticated switching\ndevices were used to great effect along with banks of projectors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TECHNOLOGY EVOLUTION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Kodak\nintroduced the first carousel slide projector in 1961, and by 1975, companies\nsuch as AVL (Audio Visual Laboratories) were producing programmable controllers\nto further automate the carousel movements and lamp brightness. Early control\ndevices, such as the AVL Show Pro or the Clearlight 1500 Programmer, used\npunched tape as a basic form of memory. These would typically cost in excess of\n$1500 (Mesney 2000; Benedict and Fuller 1975). \nBy the 1980s dissolve control devices using solid state electronics were\nbeing developed, allowing slideshows to be programmed in a variety of\nways.  Companies like AVL, Dataton,\nElectrosonic, and Arion all produced different (mostly incompatible) systems\nusing proprietary coded control data with names such as Mate-trac, Syncode,\nSync-Lock, PlusTrac, FreeTrac, and PROCALL. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As this technology advanced,\ncomputers were used to program slideshows, and two popular systems were AVL\u2019s\nEagle II computer and Dataton\u2019s TRAX software, although both are now obsolete\nand unsupported. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The AVL Eagle II computer pre-dates\nCommodore and Apple, and runs the software PROCALL. AVL used a proprietary\ntimecode called ClockTrak<\/em>, which is\ndigital control data that can be recorded as audio; it is similar to (but\nincompatible with) the widely used timecode SMPTE. The computer is used for\nprogramming only and is not required during display as the control data (cue\ntrack) can be played back independently (Wikipedia 2016b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dataton TRAX software runs on\nthe discontinued Mac OS 9 operating system (1990\u20132000). TRAX was designed as a\nmulti-media control system which could interact with devices beyond slide\nprojectors such as DVD players and lighting systems. TRAX has a graphical user\ninterface with a linear timeline for programming cues. TRAX is similar to the\nAVL system in that it also outputs control data as audio so that the computer\ncan be substituted by a CD player or similar device for display (Fahl 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the late\n80s-early 90s Harvard Graphics\u2014one of the first presentation programs\u2014arrived,\nMicrosoft released the first version of PowerPoint and significant advances\nwere made with LCD projectors, which in conjunction with the digital\nphotography revolution, contributed to a decline in the commercial demand for\n35mm slides. In 2004, Kodak ceased production of slide projectors due to\ndisappointing sales in 2003 (Global Events Consulting 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SLIDE SYNCHRONIZATION SYSTEMS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This section describes how the\nDataton system functions, as well as the key differences to the AVL system,\nwhich comprise two of the three systems primarily used at Tate. Both systems\nrequire an initial programming step, which includes designating the projectors\nand either inputting the commands (fade in, fade out, change slide, etc.) by\ncode if using an AVL Genesis, or arranging the commands on a timeline in\nDataton TRAX, before exporting the sequence to tape to create the cue track. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once ready for display, the system\u2019s core is the dissolve control unit and the cue track it receives to operate each slide projector. Figure 1 illustrates a basic display set up of a synchronized slide-based artwork (Fogarty 2011). The diagram shows two channels of audio. One channel of audio is sent to the amplifier and contains the soundtrack, which is heard in the room via the loudspeakers. The second audio channel, which is a tone with binary data, is played into the dissolve control unit to run the slide-show in time with the soundtrack. The slide control device reads the electronic pulses sent from the cue track and actuates the correct switches (Benedict and Fuller 1975).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 1. Typical System Set up Diagram. Courtesy of Adrian Fogarty 2011. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

SYNCHRONIZED SLIDE-BASED ARTWORKS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As mentioned in the introduction, the focus for the slide synchronization project was the group of ten works that require synchronization of multiple channels with a soundtrack (fig. 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 2. Synchronized Slide-based Artworks in Tate Collection, including works that formed part of the project discussed here. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For three of those 10 artworks, the synchronization\nhad been defined by the artists in a system-independent fashion, and meaning\nthat transfer to different systems is easier and the risks for future display\nare lower. The aims of the project were to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Identify\nthe synchronization systems for each individual work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Review the\ncontrol systems in terms of differences and compatibility <\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Identify\nthe cue track<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Make\nrecommendations on capturing this information. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A series of practical tests were\nconducted using the synchronization tones provided with each artwork. These\ntests were run to ensure playback was still possible for all of the synchronized\nworks for which Tate had either been supplied with a cue track or had made a\ncue track in-house.  These practical\ntests identified three distinct systems associated with the seven artworks:\nDataton, AVL, and Stumpfl (fig. 2). During these initial tests, it was\ndetermined that the Dataton system could be used to playback all of the cue\ntracks in the Tate collection excluding Baumgarten (b.1944), I Prefer it There Better than in Westphalia<\/em>\u2014ELDORADO\n(1968\u20131976 Tate, acc no. T07869), which currently is only compatible with the\nStumpfl controller. Despite the ability of Dataton to interpret an AVL cue\ntrack via a device called a TRANS PAX, it was important to assess how\naccurately this could be achieved.\nLeading on from the initial tests, the decision was\ntaken to focus on the AVL and Dataton in more detail, rather than Stumpfl\n(Wings Platinum) due to the number of devices present in Tate\u2019s slide tape\nfacility and the associated expertise and time available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AVL AND DATATON COMPARISON<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A comparison test between the two control units was set up. This test used two pairs of Kodak 2050 SAV projectors. One pair of projectors was controlled by an AVL Dove controller and the second pair was connected to the Dataton Pax controller using the TransPax to interpret the signal being sent (fig.3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 3. Signal Path for AVL Dataton Comparison <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A group of test slides were used in\nthe comparison test, with the same cue track played into both systems, in this\ninstance this cue track was from a work by James Coleman (b. 1941): Living and Presumed Dead<\/em> (1983-5, slide,\n35 mm, 167 slides, 3 projections, color, and sound, Tate, acc. no. T07076).  James Coleman has expressed a clear\npreference for AVL in his display specifications and it was important to\ncompare any differences in how the two systems would handle the same slide show\ncues (Coleman 1996; Vitale 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Initial observations suggested that\nsome of the Dataton PAX fades were either slightly longer or shorter when\ncompared to the AVL Dove, even when using the same cue track. This may point to\ndifferences in the dissolve curves on each device. The fades times varied by\napproximately half a second in response to particular commands. This was not\nconsistent throughout the show as other fades matched precisely. This may not\nbe an issue for all artworks, but it could affect the accuracy of the synchronization\nbetween sound and image.  It should be\nnoted that the cue track used in the comparison was native to the AVL system,\nand the Dataton TRANS PAX unit was required to translate the signal in\nreal-time for the Dataton PAX controller. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has not been possible to diagnose\nexactly why this difference exists between the two systems, but Pip Laurenson\nrecalls a discussion with James Coleman where he described the AVL Dove x2 as\nhaving a more precise and immediate control over the lamp filament, which may\nwell explain this variable response time (Laurenson 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent email correspondence\nbetween Pip Laurenson and Aebhric Coleman, James Coleman\u2019s son, (2016) revealed\nthe following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the early 2000\u2019s, I did a \u201cshoot-out\u201d comparison with Dataton and Dove X2 for the artwork Charon (MIT Project)<\/em> (1989), which incidentally is in the collection of Tate. The Dataton on paper, and by very confident assertions of their main supplier in Ireland, would translate the cues correctly. However, it only worked for the simpler ones\u2014the more complicated dissolve sequences did not work at all and the timing also went out of sync. (Coleman 2016)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The result of the tests was that the\nsystems behave differently and the transcoding between systems is not\naccurate.  Given the observed difference,\nit remains important to maintain at least two to three different control\nsystems in use in the Collection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CUE TRACK IDENTIFICATION <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Cue track identification is critical\nas it enables the playback of slide-based artworks. In some cases, cue tracks\nwill have been recorded in real time with the various slide changes and\ndissolves, etc., essentially creating the score to the sequence and\ncorresponding directly to the soundtrack we hear. It is of course possible to\npreserve the cue track recording itself but its meaning is lost without the\nability to replay it through the correct system or decode it based on our\nknowledge of the relevant system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the cue tracks were\nidentified as an area of vulnerability for synchronized slide-based artworks, it\nwas important as part of the project to explore the cue tracks for each of the\nseven artworks. To assist with identification, it was helpful to consider\nspecific characteristics of different tracks, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-If one listens to cue tracks from\ndifferent systems, do they sound different? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Do they look different when imported into audio software that can\ndisplay the waveform? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For most of Tate\u2019s collection works,\nit was possible to identify the relevant control system for each cue track from\nthe labelling or documentation associated with each work, and confirmation was\nachieved by testing each one with the relevant equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CASAS ALTERADAS<\/em> EXAMPLE<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During testing, one particular cue\ntrack was proving to be very elusive, namely for Casas Alteradas<\/em> by Armando Andrade Tudela (b. 1975) (2006, slide,\n35 mm, 160 slides, 4 projections, color, Tate, acc. no. T12771).  According to the artwork documentation\n(Weidner 2010), the piece can be shown using both Dataton and Stumpfl control\nsystems. Despite having a version of the sync tone on a CD, it was not entirely\nclear for which system it was intended to be used with. Various tests were\nconducted using the Tudela cue track by attempting to control slide projectors\nwith the three systems available, but none responded. Despite having the timing\ninstructions well documented, it was important to positively identify the cue\ntrack as this sequence timing had been approved by the artist when the work was\ndisplayed previously. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results of the testing also\ndemonstrated that there are various factors that can mean a system does not run\ncorrectly. Critical to the running of the systems is its configuration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examples of this would be cabling\nissues, audio channels switched left\/right, projectors not assigned correctly,\ncontrol devices configured incorrectly for a specific model of projector, or in\nthe case of a TRANSPAX, selecting the wrong input code setting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It became apparent when listening to the cue tracks that there were audible similarities and differences. This lead to further analysis using the audio editing software Audacity, which enabled observations of distinct characteristics by viewing closely the linear graphical depiction of the waveforms. When comparing the Tudela cue tone with a working Dataton cue tone, it was clear that they had a very similar shape, but the amplitude was different. They also sounded very similar, but the Tudela tone was louder. By decreasing the gain to 2.5db, it was possible to confirm that the Tudela sync tone was indeed made for the Dataton system, but had been recorded too loud to be played at line level (fig 4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Fig.
Fig. 4. Tudela before and after Comparison (Duration illustrated less than 1\/10th<\/sup> of second) <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By going through this processes, we\nconfirmed that it is possible to identify a cue track by its sound and\nwaveform, which may be useful if trying to source equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REVERSE ENGINEERING POSSIBILITIES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A synchronized slide-based artwork\nis unlike other forms of media such as film and video. The difference is that\nthe instructions or score set out by the artist are recorded in the form of a\ncoded audio cue track that is proprietary to the system being used.  If it is indeed possible to crack these\ncodes, conservators could eliminate a potential loss of accuracy introduced by analyzing\na cue track by more subjective forms of visual analysis (i.e. looking at and\ntiming a projection), that could be considered as lossy or having a degree of\ngenerational separation from the original. Extraction of the original\nprogramming could offer the most exact means of documentation of this aspect of\nthe artwork.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Work has been undertaken by software\nengineer Adrian McCarthy (2002), and his work does indicate a possible way\nforward. He has demonstrated that it is possible to reverse engineer a\nslide-show from the (*Mate-trac) synchronization signal only. This was achieved\nby writing a bespoke piece of software for capturing, analyzing, and decoding\ndata encoded in audio streams. This can facilitate the re-interpretation of a\nwaveform pulse present in the cue track. McCarthy wrote the software to\ninitially decode a .WAV file version of the SMPTE signal into bit and byte\nstreams and then successfully applied this to the Mate-trac. Adrian later\nrefined his software and entitled it Oddio, but it has not been publicly released.\nThis technique, coupled with a key to what each coded signal does, essentially\nprovides an accurate script for any given show using the Mate-trac synchronization\nsignal (McCarthy 2002).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of a dependency on a\nproprietary system, the risks are diminished if reverse engineering becomes a\npossibility. This method would remove the necessity of having a fully\nfunctional system to play the work, as the work could potentially be remade\nfrom the coded instructions from the cue track, provided you have good quality\narchival master slides to work from. \nThis is an area of research to further develop as a work currently being\nacquired into the Tate Collection, A Man\nCalled Love<\/em> (2008, slide, 35 mm, projection, black and white and color,\nsound, acc. no. X42727) by Tamar Guimaraes (b. 1967), uses Mate-Trac cue tone.\nThis would facilitate the documentation of the cue tone, so that in future the\ncontrol device could be replaced, while ensuring the artist intent is\naccurately captured. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEXT STEPS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Subject to suitable resource\nallocation, it is desirable to build upon the knowledge gained during this\nproject, to further ensure synchronized slide-based artworks can be displayed\nwithout compromise in the future. Further avenues of research may include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Expanding the comparison test to include Stumpfl\n(Wings Platinum) and the Baessgen Triplex+ controller, both of which have\nbackwards compatibility with a variety of cue tracks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Refining the means of documenting fade rates by\nproducing slides specifically for this purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Investigating alternatives for capturing audio\ncontrol data using digital oscilloscopes and considering potential options for\nhardware emulation with micro controllers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Refining methodology for cue track identification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Reaching out to industry professionals with\nspecialist expertise, such as current or former employees of companies that\nproduced slide synchronization (multi-image) control systems, who may be\nwilling to collaborate and advise on preservation techniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-Engaging software programmers to develop solutions\nfor reverse engineering slide synchronization cue tracks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Conservators are presented with many\nchallenges when preserving slide-based artworks, due to both technical\nobsolescence and the availability of persons with the relevant expertise to\nwork with such equipment. For the synchronized slide-based artworks, this\nchallenge is increased by the need to capture detailed information about the\nprecise timings, and in many cases, this is stored in the cue track. Due to the\nvariety of cue tracks used for the Tate collection works, it is currently\nnecessary to continue supporting two to three control systems. Options for\nformat migration have not been considered as part of this project, but as part\nof a preservation strategy documenting synchronized slide-based works using\nvideo recording is highly recommended, and in future it may be possible to\nreverse engineer cue tracks to extract the score to these coded sequences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Many thanks to Patricia Falcao,\nLouise Lawson, and Anna Nesbit of Tate for all their invaluable help, support\nand specialist expertise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In memory of Adrian Fogarty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Coleman, A. 2016. Personal Communication.\nKramlich, New York <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coleman, J. 1996. Display\nSpecifications for Living and Presumed\nDead<\/em> (T07076). Time Based Media Conservation, Tate, London, UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fahl, M. 2016. The Story of\nWatchout. http:\/\/fahl.se\/the-story-of-watchout\/<\/a> (accessed 08\/24\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fogarty, A. 2011. Proposal for a\nSlide Tape Conservation Resource. Time Based Media Conservation, Tate, London,\nUK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fuller, B. and J. Benedict. 1975.\nProgrammers and Dissolve Controls for Multi-Image Presentations. Paper presented\nat the Annual Conference on Visual Literacy, Portland, Oregon. http:\/\/eric.ed.gov\/?id=ED109984<\/a> (accessed 08\/12\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Global Events Consulting. 2016.\nKodak Projector 67 Slides into History. http:\/\/globalevents.com\/audio-visual-consulting\/kodak-projector-67-slides-into-history<\/a> (accessed 08\/12\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Laurenson, P. 2016. Personal\nCommunication. Tate Stores, London, UK. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCarthy, A. 2002. Mate-Trac Signal.\naidtopia.com\/mccarthy\/aid\/multi-image\/matetrac.html<\/a> (accessed\n07\/08\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mesney, D. 2000. Keynote\nPresentation at Dataton Watchout™ Launch. www.mesney.com\/0Keynote.html<\/a> (accessed 7\/08\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vitale, T. 2001. Techarchaeology:\nWorks by James Coleman and Vito Acconci. Journal\nof American Institute of Conservation <\/em>40(3): 233-258. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vivid Projects. 2013. Slide Tape<\/em>: Exhibition Press Release. www.vividprojects.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/SLIDE-TAPE-5-Oct-16-Nov.pdf<\/a> (accessed 07\/15\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weidner, T. 2010. Internal\nDocumentation Display Specification for Casas\nAlteradas<\/em> by Armando Andrade Tudela (T12771), Time Based Media\nConservation, Tate, London, UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weidner, T.2012. Dying Technologies:\nthe end of 35mm slide transparencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/about\/projects\/dying-technologies-end-35-mm-slide-transparencies\/digitisation<\/a> (accessed 07\/13\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wikipedia. 2016a. \u201cEagle Computer.\u201d https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Eagle_Computer<\/a> (accessed\n08\/23\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wikipedia. 2016b. \u201cMulti-image.\u201d https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Multi-image<\/a>  (accessed 08\/23\/16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fergus O\u2019Connor
(Former) Senior Conservation Technician, Time-based Media
Tate
7-14 Mandela Way
London, SE1 5SR
fergus@fergusoconnor.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fergus O’ConnorThe Electronic Media Review, Volume Four: 2015-2016  ABSTRACT Tate has a collection of twenty-seven slide-based artworks, ten of which use synchronized slide projectors. A project was started in 2014 to explore the technical challenges of these ten synchronized artworks. The key aim of the project was to enable an improved understanding of the coded … Continue reading “Slow Dissolve: Re-presenting synchronised slide-based artworks in the 21st Century”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"parent":616,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-899","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/899","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/899\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/616"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/emg-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}