2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2026
    1. In a conceptual and disciplinary map of the digital humanities, the encounters described above and the examples cited earlier would be distributed over a rather diverse territory. One important, distinguishing parameter is how different perspectives and initiatives relate to information technology and the digital. For example, as we have seen, traditional humanities computing tends to have a rather instrumental relationship to information technology, which serves primarily as a tool, whereas a cultural or media studies-based approach is more likely to focus on digital culture and the cultural construction of information technology as a study object.

      Interdisciplinarity solves some of these problems, I think. Rather than viewing the "digital" and the "humanities" and separate entities that we are trying to reconcile, perhaps there is value in addressing them as partners in addressing a unique problem according to its inherent complexities. The interesting question becomes, then, not which discipline owns the problem, but what kinds of relationships are required to understand it.

      This perspective aligns closely with the work of Julie Thompson Klein. In her foundational text, Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice, Klein (1990) argues that “Interdisciplinarity is a means of solving problems and answering questions that cannot be satisfactorily addressed using single methods or approaches” (p. 196). Currently, this is the perspective that I maintain. Interestingly, this article and work on interdisciplinarity seem to have emerged around the same time. Perhaps this represents a societal as well as an academic turning point. As social, technological, and cultural problems became increasingly complex, traditional disciplinary boundaries may have become less capable of addressing them independently, creating a need for collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge preservation and production.

      References

      Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press.

    2. we believe that theory flows from the act of making, rather than the other way around. The point of each ACTLab course is to help you define, develop, and produce a project that reflects on the social, cultural, aesthetic, political, and personal issues raised in that particular class. […]  Our motto is make stuff. We offer you the opportunity to engage cutting-edge technologies, but we also encourage you to view these as tools rather than as ends in themselves. Make sure you're taking advantage of technology, rather than waking up to find that technology is taking advantage of you. That's why we encourage critical thinking, and offer you the opportunity to engage cutting-edge theory along with making. [original emphasis] [ACTLab]

      This comment aligns with how I currently view technology as it relates to any discipline, especially humanities disciplines. And, I think it's interesting that as we struggle to define what "digital humanities" actually is, and what it means for us, we continue to create art and study it according to whatever means are available. It just so happens that, increasingly, the means available are digital; this presents the advantage of the humanist/scholar/regular art-making human to make connections faster and, perhaps, more meaningfully than they would have before the age of digitization and mainstream technology in general. The key, I think, is to remember that these are the tools and we are the drivers.