Many of this weeks readings attempted to define, or make sense of digital humanities. While I understand the desire to do so it seems to me that there is something to be gained in leaving it open ended. If the field is left open ended outsiders will be more likely to chime in with their own two sense. No doubt some of this chiming will be useless noise but there will also be masterpieces. A firm definition of the field would no doubt aid in its professionalisation but again, this will only serve to alienate the dabblers. This, in my opinion, would be great folly. The digital humanities have to mirror, to a certain extent, the internet in general. And much of what makes the internet such a wonderful (and terrifying) place is that it provides a space for dabblers to do what they love. To close off, define and professionalize ( and I would argue that they are all interrelated) will only serve to slow the progress of the field in the long term.
The digital method this week included blogs, twitter, RSS and google reader. I'm not so sure I will be very active with my own tweets and I'm afraid they are likely to get me in trouble. Also, it's not time to riot just yet! Since my blog and twitter were already account all that was left for me was to subscribe to other blogs and make some sense of my google reader page. I've done both. And by done both, I mean that I have followed the applicable prompts.
I have a feeling that this is going to get very messy, very fast. I already have way too much on my plate without this added distraction. This despite the fact that I'm doing my very best not to subscribe to every page Charlie Sheen related!
No comments:
Post a Comment