Happy Slippy Trippiness: (Or the Effects of DH on a Traditional Humanist)
Although there are several definitions of DH that we have discussed, none of them were as enjoyable to read as Chapter 20 given the alternation between snark and deathly sincerity. Forcier likening DH to an oil spill on the side of the road is both especially humorous and serious in the sense that comparing something […]
Defining DH: Definitions Response
Even though Stephen Ramsay is a DH428 certified crank, I found myself drawn to his definition. He pictures DH [in this snapshot moment] as people and scholars with broad ranging interests. “Practitioners are as likely to be adept at Java as they are post-structuralism; as drawn to the iPhone as they are Moby Dick; as […]
10/10 response
The question of whether or not DH changes people fundamentally depends, I think, on who they are, and ultimately what they do within DH. If for example someone goes into DH with little knowledge of the digital, their understanding of and what they can do within it will undoubtedly be fundamentally changed. To an extent, this […]
“I would prefer not to”
How does DH change people fundamentally? Answering this question feels a bit like defining DH, because it’s an attempt to define the people. I will make an attempt at this, even though I would prefer not to give a definition, just as the scholars in these examples expressed: “I don’t, I just do it. –Nick Mirzoeff” (Selected […]
Defining Digital Humanities
Defining Digital Humanities has been an issue for those involved with it and those eager to study it. The first group want to label the field as logical and solid, while the second group want to understand it and search it, so it is very important for both groups to have a certain definition, one they […]
Why all the squabbling? Anxiety erupting from change; resistance and definitions
Definitions are important because they provide a frame of reference. They also dictate inclusivity, and that seems to be a fundamental issue with DH studies. There seems to be some amount of anxiety about whether or not people are “doing it” and whether or not that changes/challenges their identity as humanities scholars. Based on the […]
You Got Computer Science in my Humanities
Eric Forcier comment about DH “as an ephemeral, seemingly idiosyncratic curiosity that either attracts or repels people, and often changes them fundamentally” (297). This statement reflects how DH mixes disciplines. To dive deep into DH, you have usually have to skim at least the surface of programming. I’m going to extend Forcier’s analogy about DH being […]
Response to Cody’s Prompt
The digital humanities do change people fundamentally. This is in ways of learning, and growing with the ever changing world into a machine of forward digital movement. Of course this would either attract or repel people, and this, as always, relies on age and experience. Digital humanities can propel projects to be done faster, people […]
Definitions: Does Not and Cannot Exist.
Digital humanities can be defined differently for each individual. This is what we learned while reading chapter twenty and twenty-one. I think that if digital humanities were to have a solid definition, the humanities would fall into a slippery slope of conceptions and fundamentals that are needed for us to use, work, and understand humanities […]
Defining Digital Humanities
To start off with, I do not believe that Digital Humanities changes *people* fundamentally. DH may attract a certain kind of people who are more open to change but the field itself does not take people who were fundamentally one way and make them another. Most of the definitions surrounding DH revolve around methodology and […]
