Recent Comments

November 22, 2017 - 07:46

I teach and also provide do my assignment uk services to students, to build an interest in my students I suddenly starts a contest and announced that the winner of the contest will get some extra benefits in final examination and many more things like this.. " Just try to be friend of your students rather than 

November 17, 2017 - 13:05

There is, indeed, a mise-en-abyme quality to all of this, and I think that quality belongs, in all of the cases we have thus discussed, to artistic agency itself, which has only been taken up into the digital to find layers of artists exiting or resisting the digital. Scholarship is a slightly different matter. If the work of art is also a work of scholarship, the stakes are doubled. If the work of scholarship is also conceived as a work of art, then the stakes are perhaps quadrupled. This means maneuvering within the ecosystem becomes part of the work of art and scholarship. I think Thomas Ruff’s recent “Photograms and Negatives” series is instructive. In the case of “Nature Morte,” he used public domain, “found” prints of still-life photography and created a negative in digital space and then printed the negative as negative (making a print out of the non-existent negative but retaining the image of the digital negative in the new “positive”). The result is retro-avantgarde and semi-archaic. This series is diametrically opposed to his earlier super-large, super-saturated chromogenic prints.

In Richard Prince’s case, there is little or no real political agency in his act, even if he did return the $36,000 as the Hyperallergic article below claims. It's all symbolic and a game, in my estimation. No doubt Ivanka could sue him if in fact he rendered her print truly invalid. And no doubt Prince has a stable of lawyers at the ready given his perpetual appropriations. What is political here then returns to artistic agency. I suspect that erasure today is an artistic gesture that is for the most part in response to “too much of everything.” The Prince-Ivanka episode is in many ways the reverse — "more sensation, more scandal." Post-digital operations in the Arts and Letters have been around for some time. The difference today is that the digital is beginning to resemble a sinister fun house at a traveling circus, and artists and authors have to increasingly find ways to evade appropriation to remain untainted by the negative effects of platform cultures and identity politics.

https://hyperallergic.com/351403/richard-prince-disowns-his-ivanka-trump…

November 16, 2017 - 12:14

Yes, I would agree that this attempt to subvert capture by Capital through creative maneuvering is not specific to a critique of the DH.  Yet the DH is the current privileged place to valorize mediatic forms of scholarship. I am also arguing from the perspective of the work in/for itself, versus the platform. Platforms condition works — and increasingly define works. My main concern is nonetheless the Moral Rights of Authors and the complete evisceration of those rights by platform cultures. We all know the term "the precariat" by now. But it only exists due to the opposite term, "the vectorial class".

November 16, 2017 - 11:45
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; background-color: #ffffff} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

I’m interested in this definition of the digital humanities.  “Production and dissemination of media across diverse platforms”  is such an expansive definition that it could characterize forms of knowledge across almost any field (i.e media studies, film studies, etc).  Rather, I wonder if the object of study and critique here isn’t DH, but forms of knowledge production that participate in the “Event”, which isn’t necessarily particular to DH.  After all, isn’t one aspect of knowledge production to produce and disseminate scholarship in different forms in order to engage with a scholarly audience? There are many fields that see media disseminated across different platforms as a form of knowledge production. And depending on the field, the very definition of media is expansive.  At the same time, I'm excited about conceptualizing a realm of knowledge production that isn’t complicit in the logics of capitalism and neoliberalism. Perhaps this means not producing at all or playing with what producing means? And performance studies offers exciting avenues. So, I find this question about “Event, Fall, Return” interesting, but it seems like the “so-called Digital Humanities” as a discipline (and many of those engaged in DH would actually disagree with calling it a discipline) is less the site of critique here.   

November 16, 2017 - 10:24

Thank you for your post.   It made me think about the growing ecosystem of archives that are negotiating similar issues. Earlier archives such as  the Lesbian Herstory Archive and One Archive started with a focus on lesbian and gay history. Now the Digital Transgender Archive (DTA) has launched positioning itself as supporting a broader acquistion policy than these previous archives. They specifically note the need to use new vocabularies (such as trans) to describe archival materials so that the material are more easily discoverable.  What I find really interseting is th DTA's  focus on pre-2000 materials. Their project seems to be one of re-labeling and revealing a trans history pre-2000, which is important work. This move also seems to align well with your concerns that Lesbian history might be effectively rendered invisible through these kinds of processes.  What also caused me to pause was the prioritized periodization of the archive, which seemed counterintuitive to me. One would think they would focus on the plethora of born-digital post-2000 materials considering how important the early 21st century is to trans history. Like the women's bars and bookstores that are vanishing, the platforms where queer online communities formed to forge networks of support and resistance are vanishing rapidly (or often occur in for-profit platforms run by multi-national corporations). It makes me wonder how we, historians, will tell the history of these gender and sexuality revolutions now and in the future.  What about the memories that are erased when a digital platform/ community is deleted? How dependent will be we be on the memories of individuals produced through oral histoires? It seems we have more work to do. 

November 15, 2017 - 17:26

Viktor's remarks strike me as highly appropriate to the issue of "memory" (and therefore his perceptive recourse to Borges), or what constitutes memory in the age of Big Data. One of the issues with the Digital Humanities is that practices associated with this new super-discipline also coincide with practices at large in Cognitive Capitalism — and not all together pretty practices. Many of the unhandsome aspects of Big Data and Digital Culture are enhanced in the Digital Humanities, to the detriment of the Arts and Humanities. Data is not memory, even if data is increasingly seen as identity. I often have to revert to my own understanding of memory as a form of magical-realism to keep in perspective what constitutes literary, artistic, or humanistic research today. Whether Borges or Subcomandante Marcos, we can always find perceptive justifications for allowing elective lapses in memory to become productive of "revolutionary" change.

My own remarks in "Event, Fall — Harvest," as published here, have to do with the need to permit the agency of the artistic event to "play out," and to be archived and/or erased (withheld as mere commodity or artifact). This then suggests that we also have a huge responsibility for the formatting, dissemination, and archiving of works. Performance-based media, for example, is more or less an out-of-control phenomenon today. Yet what is NOT out of control, or what is generally missing, is a carefully crafted response to the explosion of platform cultures and the curation of works across works. There is no effective avant-garde today because Capital has nearly fully appropriated memory and identity. Total closure in this sense is not so far off. What needs to occur is an effective counter-movement to the conversion of everything to scaleable and marketable wares across digital platforms. Proponents of the Digital Humanities need to examine their own complicity in this impending disaster.

October 16, 2017 - 09:19

With the digital world infiltrating every aspect of the modern world, traditional religion and spirituality are not exempt. The incorporation of digital technologies into religious worship is already occurring on global and local levels. Even the Roman Catholic Church, an institution that some claim is stuck in the past, is embracing new technologies. Its popes have communicated to the faithful worldwide through the social media platform Twitter since 2012. In my own Catholic community, Saint Thomas More Chapel at Yale University, a smartphone application named “Cloud Hymnal,” digitally shares liturgical resources for church services. Religious institutions and communities are logging online simply because many of their believers already use digital media. The shepherds are pursuing the flocks. The digital also provides an opportunity for evangelization where religious leadership can spread the message among a wider, more diverse group of people. The Church of England supplies the best example of this, with Archbishop Justin Welby actively pursuing new members via Twitter. During this past Christmas season, the Church launched (and Archbishop Welby promoted) a digital campaign called #JoyToTheWorld. Online users were asked to find and attend one of the Church of England’s offline Christmas services. Local churches and their congregants were encouraged to post online photos and videos of their celebrations.

There is also the incorporation of spiritual practice in the virtual world. Christians are baptizing via the video conferencing app Skype. Buddhists are meditating through the 3D virtual world of Second Life. These new practices prompt the questions: Can and does God work through Wi-Fi? Are online religious practices as valid as offline religious practices? Will there come a time when online worship is not just a supplement to brick and mortar worship, but the norm?

These were some of the questions addressed in Professor Berger’s Digital Media, Religion, and Theology course at Yale Divinity School. This study of intersection of digital media and religion drove the class to approach and reexamine broader theological questions like what it means when we say that religion is a living process? How important is physical matter to religious ritual? Is there such thing as unmediated access to the divine if we are always in a physical body?

This nascent field of digital religion has personally left me with more questions than answers, but through these debates my own preference of traditional brick-and-mortar worship over cyber religious practices has been challenged.

September 14, 2017 - 23:52

Appreciate such knowledgeable information, I am sure our students and tutors at Quality dissertation writing services UK will find it very useful. 

May 6, 2017 - 08:27

Thanks for this great post, Margaret. I really love this course and would love to see how you might teach a variation on the course at the undergraduate level. 

I have a longer question about the centrality of textual studies approaches to archives in DH — as opposed to media studies and cultural studies approaches. Textual studies approaches absolutely have their place in the digital humanities and it doesn't have to be a choice between the fields, but sometimes I worry that the centrality of textual studies pushes out other approaches to DH. To be sure, your post and your course don't unproblematically valorize textual studies, but their subject reminded me of a larger disciplinary question I've been pondering for a while.

Apart from how these conflicts parallel some of the debates about decolonizing the archive, I feel that the discourse surrounding technology in DH as a tool and not a medium creates many problems. For instance, tool discourse makes it easier to see technology as an "add on" to traditional literary studies rather than (as you say in the post) showing the history of the codex within a larger media history of technological change that includes social media, etc. So, technology isn't added on to the book, but the book is already technology. My sense is that the discourse of humanism also does this. Humanism posits an essence to what beings can be considered human, almost always essentializing white heteronormative bourgeoisie subjectivity, and this subjectivity gradually accepts others as "add ons" once they are deemed similar enough to this essence. 

Ava Meijer — drawing off of Kim Gallon's piece — has a really powerful way of articulating this tension: "the future of the archive is in acknowledging 'humanity' as not being a fixed category and the creation of tools representing that." What's interesting here, for me, is the way a posthuman argument might recast this issue. Humanity has traditionally been a category of exclusion, even if this exclusionary category has changed over time. The issue may not be inclusion, but deconstructing the human and showing how it is the product of many different technosocial assemblages that make specific experiences seem naturalized. Perhaps it is a question of merging textual studies with media and cultural studies to construct the archive as not a bourgeoisie artifact, but as something else?

March 28, 2017 - 11:01

Thank you for flipping the question to think about how art transforms dh!

As always, and which you of course know from our collaborations, I am interested in those embodied knowledges and muscle memories. If we were to be less concerned with policing the boundaries between "art" and "dh" we might be able to see that coding and other forms of digital praxis that usually get shorthanded as dh, including the creation of media, are as embedded in the bodily memories of some of us as, say, painting or doodling are for others. I am thinking here of yours and others' insistence elsewhere on ways of producing algorithms that are not digital (or rather, "digital" in the sense of having to do with our fingers). Artistic process is algorithmic, involving the cutting up and layering and recombination of bits and pieces of things; I would argue that this is as true of dance as it is for writing or collage or crochet, for example. We get hung up on what to call these processes and what they technically involve, as thoroughly disciplined in these fields and immersed in their vocabularies as we are. Having done such processes for so long that they become thoroughly integrated into our bodily knowledge, it is easy to forget that none of them are "natural"—they have just become naturalized to us, remaining black-boxed for others. I think it is this humanistic questioning of what is natural, and in turn what is "human," that I would like dh practitioners to borrow from the arts (and of course, what I find so compelling about your work!).