This is an interesting rumination. It seems to me
that the largest dimension is typically given first. In the realm of
two-dimensional items, printing most commonly is in "portrait" orientation, as
it started out with text, with the "height" dimension of a page seemingly
larger. However, since pages are typically printed (on a press, not a
computer printer) two side-by-side, the "width" of the sheet is actually larger
than the "height," thus a reason for the convention of listing "width" first in
printing.
In two-dimensional art mounted on a wall (vertically),
either convention could have applied. I would venture that more art was
initially created in the "portrait" form factor, and thus the "height" was
larger and listed first. The form factor ratio may have changed with time,
but I would guess that "portrait" still outnumbers "landscape."
All of this becomes muddled if the two-dimensional art
is mounted on a floor or ceiling (horizontally). The terms "height" and
"width" are not easily deciphered. We are now entering the world of
three-dimensional objects. Typically, "length" is side to side as viewed;
"height" is the vertical dimension; and "depth" is the front to back
dimension. "Width" generally is not used, although sometimes it is
substituted for "length." Usually, "length" is the larger dimension, but
not always, as in a high chest of drawers or a chair. In these examples,
the side to side dimension is sometimes called "width" instead of
"length." It is all rather confusing and
individualistic.
This three-dimensional convention is also used in the
shipping industry. For example, the United States Postal Service web site
defines "length" as the longest dimension. However, they use the term
"width" as a substitute for "depth" or the front to back dimension. This
also is the convention used by UPS.
There may be general conventions, but definitely there
is no agreement and lots of variation. Glad to have muddied the waters!
:)
Marc
American
Conservation Consortium, Ltd.
4 Rockville
Road
Broad Brook, CT
06016
www.conservator.com
860-386-6058
Marc A. Williams, President
MS in Art
Conservation, Winterthur Museum Program
Former Chief
Wooden Objects Conservator, Smithsonian Institution
Fellow, American Institute for Conservation (AIC)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:10
AM
Subject: [MUSEUM-L] dimension conventions
(height by width?)
Hi
listers,
Does anyone know (or have a theory about) the rationale and/or
history behind the museum convention of listing the dimensions of artwork as
"height by width" (rather than "width x height")?
The standard in
printing and paper is "width x height," so as a designer working with
museums I
find myself frequently having to "translate" dimensions, when speaking with
curators and printers.
I've done a bit of research so far, and have
found that h x w has been used by museums and architects for hundreds of
years. However, paper, printing, and technology (most of our graphic design
software and screen sizes) use width x height. I wonder how far back THIS
convention can be traced.
I was planning to write about this for my
next e-newsletter, but had no idea it would be such a complex
mystery!
I look forward to your insight!
Johanna
--
Johanna Goldfeld Design, LLC
Graphic
and Exhibition Design
Tel: 718-789-1238
Visit my
website: www.jgoldfeld-design.com
Sign up
for my newsletter: Pointers -
Tips, ideas, and inspiration from the world of exhibition and graphic
design
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following
link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1