The past several years have seen increasing corporate and educational interest in, and major funding for, projects that make urban histories, knowledges, data, etc., accessible, visible/audible/tangible, and, ideally, intelligible to urban publics. Examples include the projects of the recent Towards the Sentient City exhibition at the Architectural League of New York, UCLA and USC’s Google Map-based Hypercities, and mobile-phone- or mp3-based audio walking tours, like Justin Hopper’s “Public Record.”
This workshop will examine a selection of these projects, critically addressing their rhetorical and aesthetic strategies and examining their utility as platforms for research, as pedagogical resources, and as political tools for civic engagement. Acknowledging the widespread commitment among these projects to “making the invisible, visible” (which occasionally results in collapsing “the urban” into “the visible”), we will pay particular attention to the media and sensory modes of mapping and “content” presentation.
Please send 300-word abstract, links to relevant media, and c.v. to Shannon Mattern (matterns AT newschool DOT edu) by Wednesday, August 11. All will be contacted regarding the status of their proposals by August 15.
A few students have contacted me to ask for syllabi for my fall classes, and I’ve unfortunately had to tell them that the courses are still in development. I’m teaching two brand new courses in the fall, and both are proving to be somewhat logistically challenging.
Syllabus development is always a long, complicated process for me: when I build a new course, I typically spend weeks or months digging through all my books, journals, pdf’ed articles (yes, I do have this stuff organized in bibliographies, but I always want to make sure I haven’t missed something!), web bookmarks, and audio and video archives to find relevant material. I think about logical and rhetorical structure: what do students need to know about A before being exposed to B? What context C is necessary for appreciating concept D? How do I tie their assignments to the course material, and how do I stage those assignments? How do I ensure that I’m incorporating different types of assessment, to give students an opportunity to try out their ideas in different formats — and to give me a chance to assess their ability to examine those ideas in different contexts? What types of projects lend themselves best to individual work, and which would work best with responsibility distributed among a group? How do I make sure all group members are given credit for the work they did, and didn’t do? Am I distributing the workload evenly throughout the semester? Am I cutting back on the readings when an assignment is due? How do I work in opportunities for us to witness, or participate in, the course content in action, out in the world? Living in New York, it’s not hard to find a lecture or exhibition that pertains to whatever you’re teaching at any given time. That said, what relevant events are taking place while I’m teaching the course? What guest speakers should I invite, and what field trips should we take? Which of these events can I schedule whenever I want, and which do I need to schedule around?
Needless to say, it’s quite a process — one that, for this round, will likely continue right up through the start of the fall semester. Still, I thought I should post some of my initial thoughts and plans, so interested students can get a sense of what they’re in for…and so that I can solicit feedback.I welcome suggestions!
First, the “Media & Materiality” Course Description: This seminar examines media as material objects, as things, as symbolically charged artifacts, as physical supports for communication. Pairing case studies of contemporary and historical media forms, we’ll begin the semester by studying digital readers in relation to early print forms, computer databases in relation to early filing systems, broadband networks in relation to telegraph infrastructures, and hand-held screening devices in relation to early film exhibition technologies. Along the way, we’ll explore various theoretical frameworks and methodologies – from “thing theory” to media archaeology – that can be useful in studying the material culture of media. Some classes will be dedicated to guest speakers and field trips to museums or special collections. For the second half of the semester, the class will create an online exhibition of material media. We will collectively determine the exhibition’s theme and structure, but each student will be responsible for choosing two media objects or material networks, conducting primary and secondary research, and composing text and compiling media content for presentation in the online exhibition space.
We’ll take a few field trips, go out into the world to see and touch the “thingness” of media. We might arrange some guided tours through the Thomas Edison National Historical Park (where we’ll find some great material on the history of recorded sound and film!), the Morgan Library, or the zine libraries at Barnard and ABC No Rio — or maybe we’ll venture into the behind-the-scenes circulatory system of our wireless technologies. I try to schedule my classes at 4pm (the earliest available time slot for grad classes at The New School) so we can go on field trips during institutions’ open-hours. If you have other excursion suggestions, let me know…soon, please, so I can make plans!
I’d like to invite a few guests — librarians, curators, fellow scholars, media technicians and engineers, product developers — to join us, too. Confirmed visitors include poet/sound artist/scholar Kate Eichhorn and curator/scholar Christiane Paul.
Our class project will be the creation of an online exhibition (like this one, from the NYPL). Ideally our class would create a single exhibition, with a coherent theme, and with each student contributing work and then everyone contributing to the creation of “meta” and connective texts. But I realize that finding a common thread — one that’s not a “stretch” or a forced fit — among 20 students’ projects might be too much expect. So, we might see how groups form naturally among the individual projects, and create a cluster of exhibitions instead. We might use the Omeka platform, create our own system, or just do something simple and blog-based. We’ll talk about this together — perhaps in collaboration with a guest curator or exhibition designer. Fortunately, we have a few of those on-staff at The New School 🙂
Readings? I’ve got a lot of work to do here; there are so many good options, and I have to read through everything to make sure I’m choosing the most useful stuff. The way I see it, our readings and discussions will follow along four parallel threads:
Theoretical Frameworks: these are the texts that will introduce us to various approaches to “materiality.” I’ll choose afew of the following for all of us to read together: Charles R. Aclund, ed., Residual Media (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007); Arjun Appadurai, “The Thing Itself” Public Culture 18:1 (2006): 15-21; Bill Brown, “Materiality” in Critical Terms for Media Studies, Ed. W. J. T. Mitchell and Mark B.N. Hansen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010); Bill Brown, “Thing Theory” Critical Inquiry 28:1 (August 2001): 1-22; Fiona Candlin and Raiford Guins, Eds., The Object Reader (New York: Routledge, 2009); Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, “The Enduring Ephemeral, or the Future Is a Memory” Critical Inquiry 35 (Autumn 2008): 148-71; Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Thomas Keenan, Eds., New Media Old Media: A History and Theory Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006); Mary Ann Doane, “The Indexical and the Concept of Medium Specificity” differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 18:1 (2007):; Vilém Flusser, The Shape of Things: A Philosophy of Design (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht and K. Ludwig Pfeiffer, Eds., Materialities of Communication, Trans. William Whobrey (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1994); Erkki Huhtamo, “Kaleidoscomaniac to Cybernerd: Notes Toward an Archaeology of the Media” Leonardo 30:3 (1997): 221-4; Matthew G. Kirschenbaum, Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008); Friedrich A. Kittler, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, Trans. Geoffrey Winthrop-Young (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999); Rosalind Krauss, “Reinventing the Medium” Critical Inquiry 25:2 (Winter 1999): 289-305; John Durham Peters, Speaking Into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Bruce Sterling, Shaping Things (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005; Samuel Weber, “The Unraveling of Form” and “Television: Set and Screen” In Mass Mediauras: Form, Technics, Media (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press), 1996: 9-35, 108-128; Geoffrey Winthrop-Young and Michael Wutz, “Media Materiality, “Memory” Special Issue, Configurations 10:1 (Winter 2002). Here are my delicious links on “material texts.” XXXXXWe won’t be using the following, but they represent other approaches to the study of technological “things,” “objects” and material media: Arjun Appadurai, Ed., The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Roland Barthes, Mythologies, Trans. Annette Lavers (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972); Jean Baudrillard, The System of Object, Trans. James Benedict (New York: Verso, 1996); Matthew Fuller, Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005); Daniel Miller, Ed., Materiality (Durham: Duke University Press, 2005); Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1934); Christopher Tilley, Ed., Reading Material Culture (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990); Sherry Turkle, Ed., Evocative Objects: Things We Think With (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007) [includes chapters on the archive, the datebook, the laptop, the radio, the World Book, the SX-70 instant camera, salvaged photos]. ______________________________
Methodologies: Of course the methods we apply in our curatorial case studies will be informed by which theoretical frameworks we choose. The execution of the various critical strategies suggested by our theoretical texts will likely be new to many of us — and many of these strategies will require that we draw on methods from a variety of fields: art history, design history, cultural history, material culturestudies, industrial design (which might in turn require studying corporate histories and accessing corporate archives), etc. So we’ll want to take some time to consider how to apply these strategies — i.e., how to “do” media archaeology, how to write a “material history,” etc. Readings might include: Siegfried Giedion, Mechanization Takes Command: A Contribution to Anonymous History (Oxford University Press, 1948); Jussi Parikka and Garnet Hertz, Archaeologies of Media Art” CTheory (April 1, 2010); Thomas J. Schlereth, Ed., Material Culture: A Research Guide (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1985); Siegfried Zielinski, Deep Time of the Media: Toward an Archaeology of Hearing and Seeing by Technical Means (Cambridge, MIT Press, 2006). _________
Case Studies: the following texts will likely be used by individuals or groups as they pertain to their case studies for the online exhibition:
Recorded Sound: John Corbett, “Free, Single, and Disengaged: Listening Pleasure and the Popular Music Object” October 54 (Autumn 1990): 79-101; Frances Dyson, Sounding New Media: Immersion and Embodiment in the Arts and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009); Aden Evans, Sound Ideas: Music, Machines, and Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005: Lisa Gitelman, Scripts, Grooves, and Writing Machines: Representing Technology in the Edison Era (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999); Greg Hainge, “Vinyl Is Dead, Long Live Vinyl: The Work of Recording and Mourning in the Age of Digital Reproduction” Culture Machine (2007); Caleb Kelly, Cracked Media: The Sound of Malfunction (Cambridge, MIT Press, 2009); Stan Link, “The Work of Production in the Mechanical Aging of an Art: Listening to Noise” Computer Music Journal 25:1 (2001): 34-47; Jonathan Sterne, The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Production (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003); Will Straw, “The Music CD and Its Ends” Design & Culture 1:1 (2009): 71-92; Emily Chivers Yochim & Megan Biddinger, “‘It Kind of Gives You that Vintage Feel’: Vinyl Records and the Trope of Death” Media, Culture & Society 30 (2008): 183-95. Some delicious links on “records” and “cassettes” and some other relevant stuff.
Letters and Handwriting: Kitty Burns Florey, Script & Scribble: The Rise and Fall of Handwriting (Brooklyn: Melville House, 2009); Sigmund Freud, “A Note Upon the Mystic Writing Pad” In The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 19, Trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1971); Esther Milne, “Email and Epistolary Technologies: Presence, Intimacy, Disembodiment” Fibreculture 2; Sonja Neef & José van Dijck, Sign Here!: Handwriting in the Age of New Media (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006); Denise Schmandt-Besseratt, How Writing Came About (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996); Tamara Plakins Thortin, Handwriting in America: A Cultural History (Yale University Press, 2006); José van Dijck, “Composing the Self: Of Diaries and Lifelogs” Fibreculture 3. My delicious links on writing and notes. I have much more to add here!
Typewriting: Lisa Gitelman, Scripts, Grooves, and Writing Machines: Representing Technology in the Edison Era (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999); Friedrich A. Kittler, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, trans. Geoffrey Winthrop-Young (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999); Darren Werschler-Henry, The Iron Whim: A Fragmented History of Typewriting (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2005). My delicious links on the typewriter. I have much more to add here!
Print/The Book: Nicholas A. Basbanes, A Splendor of Letters: The Permanence of Books (New York: HarperCollins 2003); Roger Chartier, Forms and Meaning: Texts, Performances, and Audiences from Codes to Computer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995); Roger Chartier, The Order of Books (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press 1992); Johanna Drucker, The Visible Word: Experimental Typography and Modern Art, 1909-1923 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); N. Katherine Hayles, “Print is Flat, Code is Deep: The Importance of Media-Specific Analysis” Poetics Today 25:1 (2004): 67-90; Peter Stallybrass, ‘The Library and Material Texts” PMLA 119:5 (October 2004): 1347-1352. My delicious links on books and textual form, and on e-books. I have much more to add here!
Paperwork/Files: Ben Kafka, “The Demon of Writing: Paperwork, Public Safety, and the Reign of Terror” Representations 98 (Spring 2007): 1-24.; Sven Spieker, The Big Archive: Art From Bureaucracy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008); Cornelia Vismann, Files: Law and Media Technology (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008); Rowan Wilken, “The Card Index as Creativity Machine” Culture Machine 11 (2010). I have much more to add here!
Photography: Jonathan Crary, Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990); Susan Laxton, “Flou: Rayographs and the Dada Automatic” October 127 (2009): 25-48. I have waaaay more to add here!
Film: Giuliana Bruno, Atlas of Emotion: Journeys in Art, Architecture, and Film (New York: Verso, 2002); Boaz Hagin, “Examples in Theory: Interpassive Illustrations and Celluloid Fetishism” Cinema Journal 48:1 (Fall 2008): 3-26; Miriam Bratu Hansen, “Benjamin’s Aura” Critical Inquiry 34 (Winter 2008): 336-75; Amelie Hastie: anything; Pavle Levi, “Cinema by Other Means” October 131 (Winter 2010): 51-68; Dominique Paini, “Should We Put an End to Projection?” October 110 (Fall 2004): 23-48; Vivian Sobchack: Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004); Jonathan Walley, “The Material of Film and the Idea of Cinema; Contrasting Practices in Sixties and Seventies Avant-Garde Film” October 103 (Winter 2003): 15-30. I have much more to add here!
Television: Anna McCarthy, Ambient Television: Visual Culture and Public Space (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001); Anna McCarthy, “From Screen to Site: Television’s Material Culture, and Its Place” October 98 (Fall 2001); Lynn Spigel, Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Samuel Weber, “Television: Set and Screen” Mass Mediauras: Form, Technics, Media (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1996): 108-28. I have much more to add here!
Telecommunications: Avital Ronell, The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia, Electric Speech (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989); Tom Standage, The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Centruy’s Online Pioneers (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998); Kazys Varnelis, “Invisible City: Telecommunication,” in The Infrastructural City: Networked Ecologies in LA, ed. Kazys Varnelis (New York: Actar, The Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, and The Network Architecture Lab at Columbia University, 2009), 120-129. I have much more to add here!
Computer/Gaming Hardware: Paul Atkinson, “The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men: The Computer Mouse in the History of Computing” Design Issues 23:3 (Summer 2007): 46-61; Patrick Crogan, “The Nintendo Wii, Virtualization, and Gestural Analogics” Culture Machine 11 (2010). I have much, much, much more to add here!
Digital Media: Mark B. N. Hansen, Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media (New York: Routledge, 2006); N. Katherine Hayles, How We Became Postmodern: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002); Christiane Paul, “The Myth of Immateriality: Presenting and Preserving New Media” In MediaArtHistories, ed. Oliver Grau (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007); Michelle White, The Body and the Screen: Theories of Internet Spectatorship (Cambridge, MIT Press, 2006).
Media Waste: Elizabeth Grossman, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health (Island Press, 2006); Lisa Parks, “Falling Apart: Electronics Salvaging and the Global Media Economy” In Residual Media; Jonathan Sterne, “Out with the Trash: On the Future of New Media” In Residual Media
Digital Humanities and New Ways of Knowing. UCLA’s (Center for?) Digital Humanities and Media Studies recently released a “Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0,” which explains that DH is “not a unified field but an “array of convergent practices” that have the potential to profoundly transform the “production and dissemination of knowledge.” A well-designed DH project fosters “attention to complexity, medium specificity, [and] historical context” and promotes “analytical depth, critique and interpretation.” It accepts that knowledge might exist in many forms: “it inhabits the interstices and criss‐crossings between words, sounds, smells, maps, diagrams, installations, environments, data repositories, tables, and objects.” The process of knowledge production is “anchored in making: making in the poetic sense of poeisis, but also in the sense of design carried out in action.” Digital humanists “make” knowledge, they build theory, by building things, designing websites, plotting maps, producing video and audio and, as always, writing cogently. Although one need not have expertise in all modes of production or communication – DH projects are necessarily collaborative in part because of the need to tap into others’ specialized skills – one should have basic literacy in these various modes. DH thus has a stake in the recent discussions about expanded “21st-century literacies.” As Stephanie Barish and Elizabeth Daley, who are affiliated with USC’s Institute for Mutimedia Literacy, argue, “To be literate today, one must understand how strategically chosen and juxtaposed combinations of media enable the construction and dissemination of meaning in ways that bypass or enrich traditional text and the spoken word. Indeed, one must not only be able to read such media, but also to author it.”
Such knowledge work calls into question the distinction between theory and practice. And, through its continual reflection on process, this work also has the potential to raise critical questions about what constitutes knowledge, “who gets to create [i]
,… how it gets legitimated and authorized, and how it is made accessible to a significantly broader (and potentially global) audience.”
Teaching Through the Digital Humanities. All this talk about scholarship might suggest that DH is primarily a field, or practice, for advanced scholars – for people who, as our traditional research models suggest, are specially trained and have been authorized to participate. In other words, DH seems like a faculty affair. Yet the critical skills and values that DH promotes – critical examination of methods, multiple “literacies,” collaboration, internationalization, interdisciplinarity, careful consideration of research presentation, making research accessible to wider publics – are also central to the 21st-century university’s pedagogical mission. DH might not be right for all types of classes, or for all faculty and students – the literacy of print-based reading and writing and research skills required for individual study are still an integral part of any contemporary curriculum – but there is significant opportunity for greater integration of DH into the classroom.
One impediment to that integration is the way many teachers have been trained to think about technology in the classroom. As Barish and Daley note, “To date, much of the support for university faculty to use media is directed toward technical services and basic pedagogical applications.” Faculty are encouraged to use audiovisual materials in the classroom, to integrate social media, etc., “but the implications of their use, as well as the formal components and theoretical basis of multimedia, are not addressed.” Nor is “teaching with technology” instruction tailored to address specific intellectual content. If faculty become more aware of how technology might enhance their own scholarship, they are likely to approach classroom technology as something more than mere illustration or ornamentation. Possible means of introducing faculty to the potential of the Digital Humanities – or at least helping them to develop rudimentary technological literacy so they can more meaningfully integrate technology into their classes and perhaps encourage “multimodal” student projects – include sending faculty to the regularly occurring THATCamps or the Digital Humanities Summer Institute, or, given the number of talented, technologically adept faculty at The New School, hosting a summer “digital humanities boot camp” (much like the camp Parsons’ MFADT organizes for its incoming students each summer) on campus during the semester breaks.
As we encourage faculty to change the way they think about technology in the classroom, we must also reconsider how we ask our students to use these learning tools, and to what ends. “Although many students are involved in the creation of their own expressive media presence through personal webpages and social networking,” Presner and Johanson write, “they are infrequently engaged in either interrogating or applying these technologies in their learning and scholarship.” Faculty should be helping students to develop both traditional and new (media) literacies and “the technical skills related to this literacy,” as well as…
tools for critical analysis, the ability to navigate across, reconfigure, and evaluate different media forms, the ability to negotiate and work across diverse cultures and communities, the ability to synthesize material and bring together different methodologies to solve complex problems, the ability to interpret and construct models for responding to real-world situations, the ability to critically evaluate the potentials and limitations of new technologies, and the cultivation of a broad understanding of the social, historical, linguistic, and cultural context in which they are learning and working.
A well-organized DH project has the potential to reinforce all of these skills and promote critical thinking that is transferable to any kind of problem in any context, inside the classroom or out.
Presner and several colleagues have involved their students in the development of HyperCities, a well-funded, frequently lauded interactive map – or, as described on the website, a “a collaborative research and educational platform for traveling back in time to explore the historical layers of city spaces in an interactive, hypermedia environment.” On HyperCities, “student projects exist side-by-side with scholarly research and community collections and can be seen and evaluated by peers.” He finds that his students “demonstrate a high degrees of skill in articulating a multi-dimensional argument in a hypermedia environment and bring together a wide range of media resources,’ including 2D maps, 3D models, photos, videos, audio, text, etc. Their success can likely be attributed to the fact that the existing content on HyperCities models for the students what a successful submission looks like – and because the public nature of the site, and the stature of some of their co-contributors, motivates students to take the challenge seriously. Through their work on HyperCities, the students come to appreciate the distributed, “processural, iterative, and exploratory” nature of digital scholarship.
USC’s Institute for Multimedia Literacy is based on offering many such experiences for undergraduates. The IML’s Steve Anderson and Anne Balsamo explain the program’s philosophy:
Participants in IML programs learn to “write” multimedia by first learning to critically read it. Students develop proficiency with the modes of formal analysis required for the critical evaluation of a wide range of multimedia artifacts—including images, video, sound design, information visualization, typography, interface design, and interactivity. In addition, students become familiar with the major theoretical frameworks guiding the development of contemporary multimedia applications and interactive experiences. One of the key concerns of multimedia pedagogy is ensuring that students avoid the uncritical adoption of conventions of commercial or entertainment media. The IML curriculum addresses this concern by exposing students to a broad range of multimedia genres—such as argumentative, documentary, essayistic, experiential, game-based, narrative, and archival forms—and by teaching the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. In their own projects, students are required to justify their authoring and design decisions to demonstrate that their use of media and techniques are appropriate to their overall communicative goal.
As students become critical readers of multimedia, they also learn to produce it in a scholarly way. Students gain experience in both individual and collaborative forms of multimedia authorship. Rather than positioning “multimedia literacy” or “scholarly multimedia” as an emerging field, the IML focuses on developing strategies of integration with existing disciplines and academic practices. The strength of the IML methodology is its modeling of pedagogical practices that are highly mutable, scalable, and flexible in implementation.
Wherever and however (in individual productions or group projects) these practices are implemented, that implementation must be followed up with critique. While students might learn to engage in a form of social or cultural critique through their multimedia creations, they must also learn how to critique their own multimodal productions – how to assess their success in serving their intended purpose, effectively making an argument, meaningfully (and not gratuitously) employing various modes of presentation, etc. As the rampant DH boosterism and invariably positive commentary on projects like HyperCities (despite its limitations) reveals, the Digital Humanities community has yet to build a tradition of critique. In the DH classroom, a project isn’t complete when it “goes live” online, or when the video is screened; a period of reflection and critique must follow.
 Schnapp, Presner, et. al, 2. Presner writes elsewhere: “I consider ‘Digital Humanities’ to be an umbrella term for a wide array of practices for creating, applying, interpreting, interrogating, and hacking both new and old information technologies” (“Digital Humanities 2.0: A Report on Knowledge”).
Laying Bare the Process of Scholarship.This reflection on method and process is another defining characteristic of Digital Humanities 2.0. “From a distance,…much of what is currently done in digital humanities has the look of automation,” argues textual theorist Johanna Drucker; it often appears as if digital scholarship consists of feeding a data set into database, and waiting for it to crunch the numbers and perhaps graph or map the results. Digital humanists “have to show that digital approaches don’t simply provide objects of study in new formats, but shift the critical ground on which we conceptualize our activity… The challenge is to structure instruments that engage and enable these investigations.” Sometimes these investigations happen when the instruments call attention to themselves. Matthew Kirschenbaum notes that the technologies he worked with in creating the William Blake Archive, a text-and image-encoding project that has been online since 1995, “constantly make their presence felt, visibly and palpably pushing back against the interface we attempt to enfold around them.” This is a common occurrence in the digital humanities, he says, because “necessity often dictates that we adopt and adapt tools and technologies that were originally developed for other needs and audiences.”
But in the 15 years since the Blake Archive debuted, new technologies have emerged that make even the most rudimentary sketch appear professionally produced; they often smooth over the cracks and create a semblance of rhetorical seamlessness. Likewise, new tools have the potential to further automate data input, crunching, visualization, and analysis. DH projects often use these tools, but do not do so uncritically. As Drucker says, “Digital humanities projects are not simply mechanistic applications of technical knowledge, but occasions for critical self-consciousness.” In creating an interactive version of her book The Virtual Window, Anne Friedberg discovered the limitations and affordances of the print and interactive formats: “the digital format is not at its best in building a complex argument; it works by accretion, by juxtaposition, by comparative assemblage. It is rhizomatic.” Creating a digital humanities project requires that one consider the unique capabilities of particular instruments, media formats, etc., and employ those that are best suited to their particular project.
Foregrounding these considerations in the public presentation of a digital humanities project has the potential to open up the scholarly process to a wider audience, and to invite them into a conversation on method, value, even the purpose of research. Avi Santo and Christopher Lucas have noticed a shift “in scholarly work practice, from an emphasis on polished demonstrations of academic virtuosity to a foregrounding of scholarly process and collaboration.” Blogging one’s research or posting drafts online and soliciting comments – through standard blog comments, or through platforms like Commentpress or Sophie – can “illuminate the shadowy process of critical thinking, encouraging readers not only to digest finished works, but also to learn from and evaluate the mechanisms of their creation.” The public is thus not merely an audience for this work; it has the potential to critically engage with it and perhaps even contribute.
The actions that constitute the research process in DH might seem foreign to our traditional models of humanities scholarship, which emphasize solitary study and single authorship. Presner describes DH as a “humanistic practice anchored in creation, curation, collaboration, experimentation, and the multi-purposing or multi-channeling of humanistic knowledge.” Many proponents of DH draw particular attention to its collaborative nature, which helps it to “leverage the increasingly distributed nature of expertise and knowledge and transform this reality into occasions for scholarly innovation, disciplinary cross-fertilization, and the democratization of knowledge.” This “distribution” of expertise and knowledge spans both traditional disciplinary boundaries and geographic boundaries. Inclusive, team-based DH projects are thus well positioned to respond to, and foster, interdisciplinarity and the globalization of education. Computer scientists from California might collaborate on a project with designers from China, historians from Canada, and high school students from Zimbabwe. By further integrating institutions outside the university – Presner mentions libraries, museums, archives, historical societies, advocacy groups, non-profits, schools, and local communities (I would add arts organizations) – DH projects can become inter-institutional, inter-public, fostering “community-based learning experiences” that promote “new forms of civic engagement.” Such ways of working have the potential to make possible new ways of knowing.
 The “Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0” exhorts scholars to not only think critically about how they use existing tools, but also to play an active role in creating new tools, as does George Mason University’s Center for History and New Media. Digital humanists should seek “not only to seek to understand and interrogate the cultural and social impact of new technologies, but to be engaged in driving the creation of new technologies, methodologies, and information systems, as well as in their détournment, reinvention, repurposing, via research questions grounded in the Arts and Humanities: questions of meaning, interpretation, history, subjectivity, and culture. (Schnapp, Presner, et. al., 6)
 Related concerns that are central to DH are open access, intellectual property rights (i.e., allowing content makers to control theirs), and digital preservation (See Brett Bobley, “Why the Digital Humanities?” 2008 [pdf no longer available] and Schnapp, Presner, et. al., 10). Making sure that these “knowledge productions” remain open and publicly accessible requires that scholars and librarians “work together to ensure that the output of our scholarly work is created, published, shared, and preserved appropriately” (Bobley, 3).
 Presner, “Digital Humanities 2.0: A Report on Knowledge.”
 Schnapp, Presner, et. al., “The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0”: 5.
 There is much talk about how DH might reconfigure, or reinvent, the academic discipline. We might need a new university structure to accommodate this “transformation of scholarly practice from individuals working and writing in isolation to team-based approaches to research problems that cannot be conceptualized, let alone solved, by single scholars. Here, we are beginning to see the emergence of finite, flexible, and nimble ‘knowledge problematics’ that do not derive from or reflect entrenched disciplinary lines, methodological assumptions, or scholarly silos. I see these knowledge problematics as “virtual departments,” which exist only for a finite period of time, are agile, and are constantly built and dismantled. To use a term from the emergent field of digital cultural mapping, they might function as “overlays” on existing departments and institutions, connecting distant scholars and communities together and creating new feedback loops or among between them” (Presner, “Digital Humanities 2.0: A Report on Knowledge”).
 “Digital Humanities scholarship not only cuts across and unifies traditional fields in the humanities (literature, history, the arts) but also brings the tools—both technological and methodological—of other disciplines to bear on the analysis of culture and society. For example, tools from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) help historians to map the transmission of cultural artifacts; architectural modeling and simulation tools aid archaeologists in the investigation and recreation of ancient city spaces and societies; text-analysis and data-mining tools help linguists and literary scholars to detect and analyze patterns in the study of complex textual corpora (Todd Presner, Chris Johanson, et. al., “The Promise of Digital Humanities,” White Paper, March 1, 2009: 3)
This summer I’m participating in an “academic think tank” organized by our Provost’s Office at The New School. We participants are charged with investigating possible areas for pedagogical innovation or the development of new academic initiatives. I’m looking at how we could make a space for the digital humanities — or digital, or “multimodal,” scholarship, or whatever you want to call it (I’d prefer that we call it something other than “digital humanities,” for a bunch of reasons) — at The New School. There’s already plenty of work going on here that approximates the digital humanities, and I think that if we simply recognized it for what it is, and pushed it a little father to claim it as a new form of scholarship, we’d be in a much better position to tap into communities of like-minded researchers and designers and into the DH grant pool.
Plus, over the past couple of years I’ve come to the realization that my current research exceeds the limitations of print-based presentation. I’m focusing on the historical layering of media infrastructures and material media systems in various global cities. Edward Soja acknowledges the limitations of print in representing geographic complexity:
What one sees when one looks at geographies is stubbornly simultaneous, but language dictates a sequential succession, a linear flow of sentential statements bound by that most spatial of earthly constraints, the impossibility of two objects (or words) occupying the same precise place (as on a page). All that we can do is re-collect and creatively juxtapose, experimenting with assertions and insertions of the spatial against the prevailing grain of time. In the end, the interpretation of postmodern geographies can be no more than a beginning (Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (New York: Verso, 1989): 2).
I’m still writing a book, of course, for tenure purposes (I hope Minnesota will have me again!) — but I hope to supplement it with some interactive components, maybe even an entirely-online chapter. I’ve had the extremely good fortune to discover several like-mindedcolleagues with whom I’m now collaborating on the creation of an online platform that will support not only my research, but also the work for my new fall class and their fall classes — and, eventually, the research and coursework of any “urban” faculty at The New School.
For the purposes of our summer think tank, I’m trying to explain this new mapping project within the context of the digital humanities. I’ve been watching these DH people for quite some time now, trying to deal with my slight annoyance with their boosterism and seeming technofetishism. What eventually won me over was Tara McPherson’s thoughtful, temperate intro to the special “digital humanities” section in the Winter 2009 issue of Cinema Journal. I figured I should figure out what this enterprise is all about. So, what follows is the alpha version of a lit review; I have yet to integrate more of my own critical perspective.
Defining the New Digital Humanities.The Digital Humanities are not new; they’ve been around for almost a half-century. In the early days, the term “digital humanities” was often used interchangeably with “humanities computing,” in which practitioners were “mobilizing the search and retrieval powers of the database, automating corpus linguistics, stacking hypercards into critical arrays.” Much of the work was quantitative and focused on building “large-scale digitization projects (typically of literary corpuses) an the establishment of technological infrastructure.” At the same time, scholars began incorporating new media technologies into their publications; “Writing in the Digital 1.0,” as media scholar Anne Friedberg calls it, involved the addition of digital concordances – in the form of packaged CDs or links to online supplementary materials – to conventional print books; “the digital material was largely illustrative and served as a supplement.”
The second wave of the Digital Humanities (DH) are emerging, proponents say, amidst ever more rapid technological, social, cultural, and economic changes – changes for which “digital scholars” are beginning to develop appropriate “intellectual tools, methodologies, disciplinary practices, and institutional structures” to interpret an respond to these transformations. These tools and methodologies must go beyond conceiving of new technologies as mere illustrations for, or processors of, traditional printed texts. As German scholar and “digital humanist” Todd Presner explains, Digital Humanities 2.0 is…
deeply generative, creating the environments and tools for producing, curating, and interacting with knowledge that is “born digital” and lives in various digital contexts. While the first wave of Digital Humanities concentrated, perhaps somewhat narrowly, on text analysis…within established disciplines, Digital Humanities 2.0 introduces entirely new disciplinary paradigms, convergent fields, hybrid methodologies, and even new publication models that are often not derived from or limited to print culture.
Architectural historian Diane Favro and Christopher Johnson, Associate Director of UCLA’s Experimental Technology Center, for instance, use digital models of ancient funeral processions in the Roman forum not simply as “post-research presentations of their work, but [as] integral research tools.” Their models allow for the “consideration of (funeral) events in situ,” which helps them better understand “how the Romans choreographed their processions to exploit the scale, orientation, sequencing, and symbolic associations of structures and places.” Similarly, media scholar Tara McPherson notes that, in some projects, databases allow for new ways of organizing data:
Our carefully collected evidence can now be animated in new ways, allowing us to present multiple lines of thought in relation to the materials at hand and to invite others to join us in this process in extended collaboration and conversation. Working with databases allows us both to present our arguments differently and to understand our materials differently.
Rather than fetishizing the database, as some “first wave” scholars seemed to do, however, Digital Humanities 2.0 scholars consider other modes of “processing” a research project. They consider how particular questions or problems might lend themselves to investigation or representation through aural, visual, or interactive media; through maps, audio archives, documentaries – even video games. In some cases, a book – designed so that its material form reinforces its argument – might be the most appropriate means of giving form to an argument. This media-minded scholar, whom McPherson calls “multimodal” (I prefer her terminology because it does not privilege the digital at the expense of other, non-digital, yet equally appropriate and effective, media forms), “thinks carefully about the relationship of form to content, expression to idea.” She examines “what happens when scholarship looks and feels differently, requiring new modes of engagement from the reader/user.” “How do you ‘experience’ or ‘feel’ an argument in a more immersive and sensory-rich space?” “Can scholarship show as well as tell?” “Will representing data differently change the ways we understand, collect, or interpret it?”
From the Western Union collection at the Archives Center at the National Museum of American History:
For Mom & Dad:
“Every time an incision is made in the pavement, those noisy surgeons expose ganglia that are tangled beyond belief.” -E.B. White, “Here is New York,” 1949.
“Outside, alone on a delivery run, the uniformed messenger served as both visual advertising and as the direct customer contact for the telegraph company. Boys were to appear neat, speedy, polite, and responsible, with ‘Clean Hands and Face,’ ‘Uniform Pressed and Spotless,’ and ‘Cap Squarely on Head’…” -Gregory J. Downey, Telegraph Messenger Boys: Labor, Technology, and Geography, 1850-1950 (New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 68.
I’m in the process of migrating everything from my clunky old html site (she served me well for the past eight years) to this super-deluxe WordPress site, which will allow for much easier updating. Thanks to Joel for his help! The move is a work in progress, so I hope you’ll pardon all the typos and broken links for the next few weeks.
The new site obviously comes with a blog — the blog that features the stimulating post you’re reading right now. I realize I’m at least ten years behind the curve on this. That’s totally okay by me: I like being anachronistic. Maybe in 2117 I’ll start tweeting.
I’m looking forward to two weeks of archival work at the NYPL here at home, and at the Lemeleson Center, the National Archives, and the Postal Museum in D.C. In reviewing NARA’s policies for visitors, I stumbled across, and was impressed by, their Digital Vaults.
I’ve logged a good number of hours in various archives — but I’m a bit nervous about this trip. This time, it’s not only about me and the “content”; it’s also about my ability to handle a bunch of other technologies.
Over a decade ago, when I was working in libraries’ institutional archives and architectural offices’ company archives, my research typically involved a staff member either wheeling out a cart full of boxes full of dusty documents, or leading me into a storage room, where I was given free rein to dig through filing cabinets. Depending upon the institution’s policies (or lack thereof), I either took notes on my laptop or with pencil and paper. Some places allowed me to make unlimited copies; in those cases, I’d typically copy anything that looked remotely relevant, then review my stack of Xeroxes later that night or when I returned home after days or weeks on the road. Back then, everything was on paper. All my archival material for my first book filled at least 10 3″ 3-ring binders.
I’ve visited other archives since then — but they all seem to have had rather restrictive reproduction policies. In some places, I was permitted to take only loose leaf paper and a pencil with me into the reading room. Other places allowed laptops. But, as far as I recall, nobody allowed cameras, scanners or digital recorders. Consequently, I missed out on earlier experiences to develop my digital archival (i.e., in-the-archives) research skills.
I have a decent publication record — including a book with a good press and several book chapters and peer-reviewed articles — yet the relative lack of technological sophistication of my research methods for some reason made me question the effectiveness of those methods. (I think reading too many ProfHacker posts and listening to too many Digital Campus podcasts has somehow convinced me that early tech adoption is obligatory — as is the deep integration of technology into one’s teaching and research.) It made me wonder if I was missing out on something important because I don’t know how to write Applescript…and I don’t “get” Tweets…and I occasionally even have a hard time setting up a tripod. If this is where research is heading, if this is the kind of research I have to prepare my graduate students to do, am I falling behind?
Initially, my current project was only feeding into these concerns. Most of my previous archival work focused on texts — flat, static, docile paper documents. This time, I’m working not only with manuscripts and maps and blueprints, but also with archival audio, video, and film. Things with moving parts and plugs. Reading the National Archives’ policies for self-service audio and video copying left my head spinning. BNC connector? SUM jack? Awhoza? Awhatza? The list of crap I’d have to schlep down to D.C. on Amtrak seemed endless: I imagined myself rolling up to the archives in College Park, MD, with a UHaul full of recorders and cables and hard drives; the logistics of transporting all this stuff baffled me. Another issue was that I owned few of the tools they recommended — so my internal cash register was anticipating a pretty hefty bill at B&H.
Then Kevin and Jen, godbless’em, came to the rescue. Despite having a brand-new baby, they took some time to introduce me to a few audio and video recorder options, showed me how to record and upload, etc. I’ve chosen equipment for which there isn’t too steep a learning curve, but is still “robust” enough for me to maybe, someday, grow into it (I’ve always wanted to do more audio recording, so I decided to get a recorder that’s a bit fancier than I really need right now — so I can eventually learn how to use all those other features). Now I’m a bit less freaked out. I’m heading over to B&H tomorrow to do some damage.
And soon I’ll head into the archives with some shiny new geegaws in my toolbox. I just hope that all these gadgets don’t get in the way of my engagement with, and enjoyment of, the archival material. I don’t want to be so stressed out about, say, adjusting the resolution on my videorecorder or the gain on my audio recorder that I forget to engage with the content of the film or radio show I’m dubbing…or forget to appreciate that Holy crap, I’m watching something that maybe nobody has seen since 1933. If you ask me, that’s way more awesome than “super bit mapping” and Applescript.