Let’s end this series of entries with a claim that Ted Underwood posited on a recent blog post which was retweeted by Brian Croxall: DH is going to die. I happen to agree with this claim to a certain degree but before explaining why it’s a good idea I’ll sum up what he has to say. Underwood thinks that DH is composed of three options and their corresponding method of death for DH. Here’s the blog post http://tedunderwood.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/why-dh-has-no-future/
1) transforming scholarly communication- now/will apply to all academic disciplines (generalized)
2)digital objects of study- creates division because all humanists will not value this equally(division/tension)
3)digital means of analysis-neighboring disciplines will continue to benefit from advances yet the humanists left in this camp will become marginalized/isolated in these projects due to disciplinary loyalties (informantics absorption).
Now I think this is brilliant and exactly what I was looking for in an ending to this course. It’s simply a prediction of what’s to come for DH and even though it sounds dismal I think it’s actually quite positive…except for outcome #2. I think that the first outcome is positive because it gives all disciplines the benefits of accessibility and higher standards for communication. For me this outcome means that DH is doing what it’s intended for which is collaborative, sustainable scholarship. As for outcome 2 and 3, I think that with time there will be increased acceptance of digital technology as a study itself because with technological growth there are always conflicts. But conflicts can be resolved and change can be implemented gradually to make it more comfortable for more traditional academics which is similar to new methods of analysis. So what do you think? Is DH going to die? And if so…is that bad?
On a completely unrelated note: National Record Store Day is tomorrow. I am super excited to go get limited edition vinyls at my favorite independent record stores!! I bring this up because it reminded me of class today when we were talking about how the medium is the message. Vinyls are a good example of this because I could just as easily go get a cd or download from i tunes… but I am going to spend an afternoon at stores (really cool stores) sifting through hundreds of vinyls and why? Because the experience is different. I can touch a record…can you touch i tunes? Records have full sized cover art and inserts… not to mention that the sounds is better. Point being: the medium really does matter and I didn’t realize it until I remember about Record Store Day!
One reoccurring theme I’ve noticed throughout the course is that digital humanities is still in its earliest stages of defining itself. One complication in defining digital humanities lies in the fact that it is constantly changing as technology, means of communication and scholarship changes. With that being said, I do not feel that “digital humanities” will die. I do believe that as it continues to grow, it will continue to change. It might be a drastic change, but I don’t think it would be fair to say it’s dead.
I agree with the point that DH is going die as a specific field of science. Nowadays, when technology is developing every day our way of studying/learning things will change as well.We can see with different projects that digital objects will become a part of class lecture.
I love your point that vinyls are such a cool medium for a message. I was thinking about how exciting and shiny dvds were, kind of symbolizing the shiny and exciting, but somewhat flimsy medium for movies these days. But vinyls! I feel like the classic messages of awesome, old, cherished music can easily be drawn from a vinyl medium.