Projects - their Scale, Time lines, Integration.
Projects - huge, large, enormous - turned into Web sites, after years of lots of hard work, funds, energy, visions, by lots and lots of people working and contributing together, whether Shadow, Rossetti, or Tibetan H. Digital Library. Is there a valuable role for the 'little' scholars contributing or even just making a little site around a topic, an article, a thesis or dissertation, a book?
The three - Shadow, Rossetti, or Tibetan H. Digital Library - seem very similar in their scale and how long and how much it took to develop them. S and R are now 'complete' while THL continues. What is the message here? All three are very academic orientated, whereas THL seems to have a very conscious goal of serving and including the 'community.'
In this New Media - is there a space for the 'little' scholar to develop a limited but open web site, and what might it include or exclude - should it also allow contributions and collaboration, besides just comments and feedback, and would that affect its academic-ness? Might other larger projects scan or go out and search proactively for web pages of 'little' scholars which they could add on?
What is the difference between the S R & T hugh projects, and journals which are focused topics (like project sites), or databases / web sites focused on subject data (such as the collection of materials by the Digital South Asia Library or http://dsal.uchicago.edu/). How much effort should there be for good interfaces and navigation, and a obvious, stated vision of how the different components are integrated into a single web site?
Showing posts with label Rossetti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rossetti. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
3. Hypertexting Humanities into the future
Much of this third week focuses on hypertext and the past and future of digital humanities - what is there beside hypertext? Will there ever be a way that Projects such as Shadows and Rosetti will not have to spend so much time on updating, re-formating, reorganizing, adjusting to new forms, ways, and programs - like Wordpress allows you to adjust your theme and change all within the blog or web site (or allow users to see the same information in the way they wish)? Might gaming or some such way to look at scholarly projects be a solution? Also, what solutions might there be so that Projects do not have to be finalized, completed, but remain infinitely open (but who will take on that task? or could it remain open forever like the Hypertext Hotel, without any moderator, artist, controller)? What is the future of digital humanities - will Shanti succeed and lead the way?
The digital class page is http://bit.ly/pdigital
The digital class page is http://bit.ly/pdigital
Week 3 - Q and Comments Rossetti readings
This is the order I read or looked at the assignments, with my comments / questions.
1.Coover, 1992, “The End of Books” In the New Media Reader, p. 705-709.
** Coover’s essay makes me wonder again, what is hypertext? His 1992 questions near the end of his essay are still unanswerable 18 years latter, but I suspect will remain important and at the center of the New Media. As he says “‘Text’ has lost its canonical certainty. How does one judge, analyze, write about a work that never reads the same way twice?”
2. The Rossetti Archive. http://www.rossettiarchive.org/.
** Why a fourth and final installment? Is it because they have decided that all of the most important parts of the project have been collected and are displayed? There does seem to be some open-endedness to it, with the Nines and welcoming others to contribute or comment. But if this is a prime example of hypertextuality, like the Shadows, according to Coover these projects should have “fluidity, contingency, inderteminacy, plurality, discontiuity” and “”dimensionless infinity.” Like with Shadow, my question is, if they were starting from scratch today rather than 5 or 10 or 15 years ago, how would they approach it differently?
3. McGann, 1995, “The Rationale of Hypertext”http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/public/jjm2f/rationale.html
** This essay, in some ways, answers two questions I had, and also doesn’t – there is a good description of what McGann thinks is hypertext; and my question of starting from scratch in 2010 on this project – well, here McGann is starting from scratch in 1995. What would he discuss, and try to convince scholars about in 2010, instead of hypertext in 1995?
The R Project is now ‘closed’ even though McGann states “hypertextual order contains an inertia that moves against such a shutdown.” (can’t be ‘complete’)
4. McGann, Jerome. 2004. A Note on the Current State of Humanities Scholarship. Critical Inquiry 30, no. 2. http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.McGann.html.
** Was this a cry in the wilderness? Six years later, what does McGann think of the ‘State of Humanities Scholarship'?
Perhaps his 2008 article answers some of this question - but is it another cry? and who is listening?
1.Coover, 1992, “The End of Books” In the New Media Reader, p. 705-709.
** Coover’s essay makes me wonder again, what is hypertext? His 1992 questions near the end of his essay are still unanswerable 18 years latter, but I suspect will remain important and at the center of the New Media. As he says “‘Text’ has lost its canonical certainty. How does one judge, analyze, write about a work that never reads the same way twice?”
2. The Rossetti Archive. http://www.rossettiarchive.org/.
** Why a fourth and final installment? Is it because they have decided that all of the most important parts of the project have been collected and are displayed? There does seem to be some open-endedness to it, with the Nines and welcoming others to contribute or comment. But if this is a prime example of hypertextuality, like the Shadows, according to Coover these projects should have “fluidity, contingency, inderteminacy, plurality, discontiuity” and “”dimensionless infinity.” Like with Shadow, my question is, if they were starting from scratch today rather than 5 or 10 or 15 years ago, how would they approach it differently?
3. McGann, 1995, “The Rationale of Hypertext”http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/public/jjm2f/rationale.html
** This essay, in some ways, answers two questions I had, and also doesn’t – there is a good description of what McGann thinks is hypertext; and my question of starting from scratch in 2010 on this project – well, here McGann is starting from scratch in 1995. What would he discuss, and try to convince scholars about in 2010, instead of hypertext in 1995?
The R Project is now ‘closed’ even though McGann states “hypertextual order contains an inertia that moves against such a shutdown.” (can’t be ‘complete’)
4. McGann, Jerome. 2004. A Note on the Current State of Humanities Scholarship. Critical Inquiry 30, no. 2. http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.McGann.html.
** Was this a cry in the wilderness? Six years later, what does McGann think of the ‘State of Humanities Scholarship'?
Perhaps his 2008 article answers some of this question - but is it another cry? and who is listening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
