Although an artist might take a sanguine view of the proliferation of datasets as the new mode of humanities research, getting lost "in the beauty of patterning," there is clearly a conflict emerging in some academic and critical sectors about the value of traditional textual analysis and literary interpretation versus quantitative statistical analysis. Given that the "digital humanities" can sometimes command funding from the very purveyors of the databases they make use of, the arguments are not just over ideas, but over what research gets funding and what does not.
This conflict over modes of research taps into earlier conflicts about the nature of literary production and culture. William Deresiewicz's essay in the The Nation provides a somewhat jaundiced but eminently intelligible critique of the field of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary literary studies that seems relevant to the whole issue of applying "scientific" data analysis to literature or art. http://www.thenation.com/article/adaptation-literary-darwinism I think he is taking shots at an easy target, but the conflict he discusses strikes me as the sort that is likely to appear in the humanities as the traditional disciplines of interpretation through "reading" of one sort or another are displaced by those of "analyzing" through computational data. And since funding is involved, the conflict won't be pretty. cheers, -- Paul On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/06/2011 02:47 PM, Ruth Catlow wrote: > > > > I was reminded of a presentation given recently by Gary Hall (author of > > Digitise this Book) about emerging trends in Arts and Humanities > > Oh I haven't read that! [adds to wish list] > > > research as a result of the new openness (networks+academia+markets). He > > suggested that academics' engagement with the proliferating contextual > > data brought about by industrial-scale digitising, databasing and > > In other areas of computing, complexity is managed by successive modules > and layers of code managed by successive projects. Each project can put > people's different competences to best use. Humanities computing (and > humanities data) can be handled similarly. > > Theory can easily declare itself to be the top of the stack so that its > position will remain unthreatened. ;-) > > > archiving (the example he gave was historians of literature tracking the > > changing frequency of words in newly digitised 18th-20th century novels) > > might have the unintended consequence of separating Arts and Humanities > > from their traditions of critical, philosophical and ethical enquiry. > > I think it is the competences and privileges of the hegemony of Theory > and its adherents that humanities computing threatens rather than the > possibility of critique, reflection and inquiry. > > > There's just so much data to play with- one can get lost in the beauty > > of the patterning and the task of processing and organising data into > > some/any coherent meaning. > > As an artist and hacker I don't regard that as a bad thing. :-) As long > as the experience is shared, which is where ensuring that the data and > code are free-as-in-freedom comes in. > > > Interesting to think that while digital networks may promise to provide > > humanity with the perfect tool for developing collaboration and > > purposeful collective action (arguably, just when we need it most) that > > they may also effectively throw up diverting mirages and obstacles to > > counteract purposeful action in direct inverse proportion. > > I don't think that interesting conclusions indicated by datasets will > remain uncommented on by those who prefer writing. And it often seems > like we are already in a desert of the real, surrounded by beguiling > textual mirages. > > > Please will you contribute your definition to Rosalind's Lexicon, > > recently revived in the new website?! > > http://www.furtherfield.org/get-involved/lexicon > > Sure. :-) > > - Rob. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ----- |(*,+,#,=)(#,=,*,+)(=,#,+,*)(+,*,=,#)| --- http://ignotus.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
