September 26th, 2017
Response to Rommel, Kirschenbaum, Smith, & Juola
Kirschenbaum dissects in his article what exactly digital humanities and humanities computing means. He points out that it's not a simple task to define such terms because they're more complicated than they seem. He said, "digital humanities, which began as a term of consensus among a relatively small group of researchers, is now backed on a growing number of campuses by a level of funding, infrastructure, and administrative commitments that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago" and that "digital humanities is also a social undertaking. It harbors networks of people who have been working together, sharing research, arguing, competing, and collaborating for many years."
Similarly, Rommel has this to say about digital humanities: ". . . The application of a common tool, are the strong points of studies of literature carried out with the help of the computer. Discussions of literary theory, textuality, and the interdisciplinary nature of computer-assisted literary analysis feature prominently in modern studies. In this respect, mainstream literary criticism is most open to contributions from a field that is, by its very nature, acutely aware of its own theoretical position. In the future, the discourse of meta-criticism, however, may be fused with innovative approaches to literary texts."
On the other hand, Smith and Juola disagree with Kirschenbaum and Rommel's stance on "digital" humanities and even argue against the concept. Smith argues that changes to the foundation of literature, how it is crafted, perceived, and showcased, must be preserved. She said, "Indeed, humanities computing will continue to change the way humanities scholarship is practiced, expanding objects of study and lines of critical inquiry, thereby making more expansive, responsible critical histories. As these evolutions occur, we need to be relentless in the scrutiny of our tribe’s practices. The new media, and the new critical technologies they produce, require that we scrutinize anew how our items of knowledge come into being, who makes them, and for what purposes."
Juola argues how "digital" humanities might even be possible. He also seems in agreeance with Smith in the way that literature's old ways and foundations must be preserved as technology takes over, which he calls the "killer application."
Kirschenbaum dissects in his article what exactly digital humanities and humanities computing means. He points out that it's not a simple task to define such terms because they're more complicated than they seem. He said, "digital humanities, which began as a term of consensus among a relatively small group of researchers, is now backed on a growing number of campuses by a level of funding, infrastructure, and administrative commitments that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago" and that "digital humanities is also a social undertaking. It harbors networks of people who have been working together, sharing research, arguing, competing, and collaborating for many years."
Similarly, Rommel has this to say about digital humanities: ". . . The application of a common tool, are the strong points of studies of literature carried out with the help of the computer. Discussions of literary theory, textuality, and the interdisciplinary nature of computer-assisted literary analysis feature prominently in modern studies. In this respect, mainstream literary criticism is most open to contributions from a field that is, by its very nature, acutely aware of its own theoretical position. In the future, the discourse of meta-criticism, however, may be fused with innovative approaches to literary texts."
On the other hand, Smith and Juola disagree with Kirschenbaum and Rommel's stance on "digital" humanities and even argue against the concept. Smith argues that changes to the foundation of literature, how it is crafted, perceived, and showcased, must be preserved. She said, "Indeed, humanities computing will continue to change the way humanities scholarship is practiced, expanding objects of study and lines of critical inquiry, thereby making more expansive, responsible critical histories. As these evolutions occur, we need to be relentless in the scrutiny of our tribe’s practices. The new media, and the new critical technologies they produce, require that we scrutinize anew how our items of knowledge come into being, who makes them, and for what purposes."
Juola argues how "digital" humanities might even be possible. He also seems in agreeance with Smith in the way that literature's old ways and foundations must be preserved as technology takes over, which he calls the "killer application."
Comments
Post a Comment