21 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2015
    1. What both the religious and digital visions offer (if only in prospect) is a steady yet dynamic state where there is movement and change, but no center, no beginning and end, just all middle

      All middle--is this so bad?

    2. Fitzpatrick contends, first, that authorship has never been thus isolated — one always writes against the background of, and in conversation with, innumerable predecessors and contemporaries who are in effect one’s collaborators — and, second, that the “myth” of the stand-alone, masterful author is exposed for the fiction it is by the new forms of communication — blogs, links, hypertext, re-mixes, mash-ups, multi-modalities and much more — that have emerged with the development of digital technology.

      False premesis of solo authorship.

    3. a blog privileges immediacy — the newest posts appear first on the screen and older posts quickly lose currency….

      Good point.

    4. This is a blog. There, I’ve said it. I have been resisting saying it — I have always referred to this space as a “column” — not only because “blog” is an ugly word (as are clog, smog and slog), but because blogs are provisional, ephemeral, interactive, communal, available to challenge, interruption and interpolation, and not meant to last; whereas in a professional life now going into its 50th year I have been building arguments that are intended to be decisive, comprehensive, monumental, definitive and, most important, all mine.

      Fish at his egotistical finest.

    1. David Golumbia: the two huge parts of the university already devoted to teaching coding have a very different approach. they teach things like the theory of program design, code design, principles behind various kinds of application and server design. you don't get a CS PhD in "XML" or even "markup." you get it in "compiler design" or "theory of system security."

    2. Alan clarifies.

      en up the latter aspect of the issue. Recall the contrast in Lévi-Strauss's discussion of bricolage between the "engineer" and the "bricoleur." The former, as least in Lévi-Strauss's argument (which has been deconstructed by others), builds things from scratch and by design. The latter goes into the garage (which is as large as the Web these days), scrounges around the shelves for existing or old parts that can be repurposed, mashes them up anew, hand-builds or files down a few key parts, and–voilá–makes something that works. This is not too unlike working with a template-driven CMS Web site like WordPress these days. One scrounges around for a "theme," then–with enough handyperson smarts–one mixes things around in the PHP files of the theme or the CSS file. For example, I recoded the index page for the 4Humanities site through pure bricolage so that it operates multiple WordPress "loops": found some other examples on the Web, swapped in a chunk of code, hand-revised other code to suit, debugged about a hundred times, and got it finally to work.

    3. So DH scholars and those who with to come into the tent don't need to worry (and probably never did) if they feel like they cannot build on their own. That is a myth propagated as far as I can tell to ensure job security for those who say they can do it on their own. Mark being expansive and kind.

    4. He can talk all he wants about being a bricoleur, but we can see the grease under his fingernails. That is true of every “big name” I can think of in dh.

      mechanic...working class...

    5. Alan Liu

      Why Alan tries to differentiate himself. Is this fair?

    6. Only a radical subset of the dh community knows how to code; nearly all are engaged in building something.

      Build vs Code

    7. Learn to code because it’s fun and because it will change the way you look at the world. Then notice that we could substitute any other subject for “learn to code” in that sentence.

      Why he thinks coding is important.

    8. Almost everyone in Digital Humanities was taught to do this and loves to do this. But making a map (with a gis system, say) is an entirely different experience. dh-ers insist — again and again — that this process of creation yields insights that are difficult to acquire otherwise. It’s the thing I’ve been hearing for as I long as I’ve been in this. People who mark up texts say it, as do those who build software, hack social networks, create visualizations, and pursue the dozens of other forms of haptic engagement that bring dh-ers to the same table.

      WHY making is important.

    9. who bid participation

      Easy to say based on who he is?

    10. And that commonality, I think, involves moving from reading and critiquing to building and making.

      His sense of what makes us a group.

    1. But if you are not making anything, you are not — in my less-than-three-minute opinion — a digital humanist.

      CRUX of the matter.

    2. I also think the discipline includes and should include people who theorize about building, people who design so that others might build, and those who supervise building (the coding question is, for me, a canard, insofar as many people build without knowing how to program).

      what it includes

    3. Maybe that means Yale’s dh ambitions will never get off the ground. Or maybe Yale is powerful enough to redefine the mission of those institutions with respect to the Humanities.
    4. Nowadays, the term can mean anything from media studies to electronic art, from data mining to edutech, from scholarly editing to anarchic blogging, while inviting code junkies, digital artists, standards wonks, transhumanists, game theorists, free culture advocates, archivists, librarians, and edupunks under its capacious canvas.
    5. Or decided that Digital Humanities is what we used to call New Media Studies


    6. Do you have to know how to code? I’m a tenured professor of digital humanities and I say “yes.”

      Using his status to reinforce his take.

    7. It is a series of concrete instantiations involving money, students, funding agencies, big schools, little schools, programs, curricula, old guards, new guards, gatekeepers, and prestige.

      what's at stake