Flip-Flop

(I am sorry for the delay, I just got back my macbook fixed)

As both Valeria and professor Riva pointed out in their blogs, the widespread diffusion of affordable 3D printer has the potential to influence the standardized top-to-bottom model of production (perhaps, as Eco says, toward a complete ‘triumph of consumer ideology”). I do think that 3D printing can deeply reshape the relationship between consumer and producer, where the consumer becomes the ‘ total-maker’ or at the least the creative mind that leads the concrete production of the objects. There are many collaborative production platforms (3DHubs is one of them) based on this idea. Of course, such a production model can become an effective alternative to the established one only if 3D printing technology will greatly improve in the near future; Neely and Langer seem to be very confident about that.

 

Along with all the beneficial effects associated with 3D printing (in terms of research, teaching and learning), what I find most fascinated is the dialectic relationship between different media that the “flip-flop” process implies; or, more precisely, the dialectic relationship between the creative thinking peculiar to each media. Is this just the synergy of two creative approaches or maybe an entire new one, more complete and better suited for the ‘concretely virtual’ world in which we live?

Using Sloan’s recipe as a guide…

1. Carve a statue out of stone. PHYSICAL

2. Digitize your statue with a 3D scanner. DIGITAL

3. Make some edits. Shrink it down. Add wings. STILL DIGITAL

4. Print the edited sculpture in plastic with a 3D printer. PHYSICAL AGAIN

… I would put the emphasis on the blank space between 3 and 4 (or 1 and 2) rather than on one of the four steps.

More dimensions, more opportunities

Bonnet’s article underlines the pedagogical importance of 3D technology, both in terms of teaching methodology and valid response to a world in which “the constraints governing story-telling are changing, and that, in turn, the forms will as well.”  Even if the efficacy of digital tools in teaching approach and the concept itself of digital natives are still highly debated (for example here and here), it is certain that humanities professors are dealing (and will deal more and more) with students whose access to information and experience is mediated by digital and visual interfaces. I believe that this “mandate to attend to society”, something perhaps not enough stressed by scholarly debate, is per se a valid reason (if not the most important) in pursuing a digital tools expertise by humanities scholars. I also think that the contraposition between digital and traditional approach as the best way to conduct research (both Favro and Bonnet deal with this question) is a false problem. Why one approach should exclude the other? The Theban Mapping Project posted on the blog by professor Lubar is a great example of how video, oral narration, 3D representation and written text can work together to enhance the understanding of a specific artifact. The idea that adding complex layers of interpretation could stimulate the peculiar intuition of researchers seems to be also underlines by Bonnet when he says that, “Researchers in a variety of disciplines — from ethnography to cognitive psychology — are pointing to growing bodies of evidence that suggest 3D immersive environments can enhance creativity and transform the way we see the world.”

Text, database, narrative

This week readings mostly discuss the relationship between text (writing, narrative) and the digital tools, programs, methods and new media now available for humanities scholars.

The Stanford site talks about the multiple ways in which these tools could be used, while Moretti talks about the ways they should be used. Riva and Folsom discuss in detail the peculiar concept of text in the digital era: the former focus on the relationship between writing and digital devise (therefore digital narrative), the latter on the apparently conflict between narrative and database.

I would like to focus here on Folsom’s article that I found quite problematic.

I do agree with Folsom’s (and Manovich) idea that database does not tell stories (databases of course imply a selection, but selection, even if important, is just one of the features of narrative) but I do not think that database and narrative are in sharp contrast (battle) to each other. At the opposite, I believe there is a mutual advantageous relationship between the twos. If database as a selective process is the first step (or foundation) of a narrative, narrative gives meaning (interpretation) to the data. It is not very different from the way writers used to (and still do) create their personal archive as organized but still raw material from which “extrapolate” a narrative. In this regard, we could say that new media push the creation of a narrative toward the user, the one in charge to create connections and sequences of meaning between the data. In my opinion, it would be more useful to analyze the reshaping of narrative in the digital era, rather than “celebrate” its death. As Riva points out “the ‘liquefying’ of (literary) canons and the emergence of new intrinsically kinetic or fluid forms of mobile textuality requires a critical assessment that does not prematurely celebrate the funeral of the text as we know it“ (Riva, 91). Folsom also considers the digital biography of Whitman he is working on as an example of database as new, independent genre. Is this example misleading? From Folsom’s description, in fact, this digital biography seems to be a hypertext (that is not a new idea and not necessarily related to digital media). First, it is important to notice that a hypertext does not exclude narrative, it just utilizes a specific kind of narration, the non-linear one. Second, I am not convinced that a hypertext can be defined as a genre (yet), I would rather consider it a medium.

I think Moretti gives the best explanation of the still controversial relationship between new digital tools and traditional methods in the humanities when he says that, “[graphs, maps and trees] share a clear preference for explanation of general structures over individual texts. This is of course a major issue in its own right” but “[digital tools] may account for the many levels of literary production and their multiple links with the larger social system” and “right now, opening new conceptual possibilities seemed more important than justifying them in every detail.”

Collections, landascapes (and video games)

I found very interesting Manovich’s distinction between ‘database’ and ‘data stream’. Database seems to correspond to the structure of  ‘traditional’ collections, while data stream, as “a quintessential modern experience”, fits better to the idea of a collection/user interaction that should be more engaging, active and that should allow wider freedom of choice.   

On the same line of though seems to be Tim Wray (“Collections as Landscapes : Part 1 – Empowering Spatial, Experiential Interaction,” and “Canvas”) when he proposes the concept of a digital collection as a landscape (which implies the ‘urban flaneur’ perception of data as a stream) rather than a container (or database). Both Wray’s idea of visually rendering a collection on a large canvas and his app ‘A Place for Art’ are interesting examples of possible new ways to consider the relation between collections and viewers.

I also found very useful Wray’s reference to contemporary game design, since games developers have long been debating of the pros and the cons of ‘open-world’ (landscapes) vs ‘linear’ games (container). It could perhaps be of some interest to give a look at the devises (and the critical thinking behind them) that a popular videogame like ‘Skyrim’ uses in order to enhance the player engagement.

Networks and Methodology

This week’s readings made me mainly think of the importance of thinking in a bidirectional way when we “borrow” network sciences methodologies (but also other sciences’ methodologies) in order to better serving the purpose of humanities.

Weingart’s blog diffusely informs us about the hidden dangers in translating methodologies. He states that, “This reduction of data comes at a price […] The important thing is either to be aware of what you are losing when you reduce your objects to one or a few types of nodes, or to change the methods of network science to fit your more complex data.” I was wondering if it could be equally interesting, as a critical thinking approach, trying to keep the methods of network science when applied to humanities and therefore analyze if, by doing so, the humanities methodology has to change an eventually how it changes. In order words, should we properly use network science methodology just as a way to enhance humanities methodology or could we maybe change (hopefully) for better this methodology? Is there a form of scholarly citation in the digital era that is radically different form the ‘most powerful’ one proposed by the philosopher? The computer science seems to touch this point when he talks about the “desire to reproduce the traditional research structure with all its (old fashioned?) virtues” and cites Wikipedia as an example (perhaps implying Nupedia and Citizendium too) but then the discussion switches toward the tradition/innovation debate and the necessity of a cultural mutation (it is worth to notice that the idea of mutation implies, if beneficial, not just the improvement of a specific feature but rather the creation of a new, and ultimately different and unique feature: just to say, Cyclops is a structurally different entity compared to the ‘enhanced man’ Batman).

 

I think this analyze of “The Social Network of Dante’s Inferno” could be an example of a well balanced and partly bidirectional interaction between different methodologies. I would like to points out in particular the considerations about fig.2

 

 

where the authors state that, “according to the visible the evolution one can say that the network exhibits a ‘winner takes all’ effect — very similar to the well known preferential attachment model of the Web”. I think that this similarity is very reassuring in terms of a proper use of translated methodology (as in Weingart) but could also serve as a standpoint for a bidirectional approach in rethinking the nature of (in this case) literary analyses methodology.

Carpin – Space and place

This week’s readings illustrated the topics we have discussed in class. For example, the “supremacy” of visual representation regarding a hermeneutics of data and the challenge of source criticism in digital humanities -‘ the humanistic approach is to understand a source through its biases without expecting it to yield definitive results’ (Schmidt), or the ability of GIS, and other technologies, ‘to manage large data sets and visualize the results of spatial analysis […] making data visual spurred intuitive interpretation […] that remained hidden in statistical analyses.’ (Bodenhamer, p.17).

Along with these useful considerations, I found of particular interest the link between postmodernism and digital humanities suggested by Bodenhamer’s article, who argues that our understanding of the world is socially constructed (p.6), which in turn denies in some way, its objectivity (as some important scientific theories do – Heinsenberg uncertainty principle, quantum theory) and therefore implies that a narrative of the world must be ‘fragmented, provisional, contingent understanding framed by multiple voices and multiple stories.’(p.29) Clearly this kind of interpretative approach seems more adequate to a digital rather than a traditional narration.

The specific example examined in the reading, GIS, lacks many of these features, privileging a quantitative analysis rather than a qualitative one. The fact that GIS emphasizes physical and geographical space rather than an emotional or metaphorical one and does not take in account the observer’s perspective makes it an analytical tool of limited use for humanists.

On the other hand, the still under-construction project On The Line seems to have the potential to integrate the analytical tools of GIS with the interpretative approach of humanistic studies.

The core of the project is the dynamic analysis of the schooling and housing boundaries that have divided the city of Hartford, CT, during the last century in order to tell the story of the families and the civil rights activists who fought against those boundaries. I found this project particularly interesting because it implies an idea of space that is not static but fluid over time, and a conceptualization of the space itself (the boundaries) that has a strong metaphorical implication. Furthermore, the “objectivity” of the boundaries is dialectically juxtaposed to the “subjectivity” of the interviews and memories of the city residents, therefore creating a narrative that is multi-perspective and multi-layered (here). On The Line is, in my opinion, a good answer to the question of ‘how do we as humanists make GIS do what it was not intended to do, namely, represent the world as culture and not simply mapped locations?’ (p.23)

 

Week 4 – Alessandro

At the end of his article, professor Lubar illustrates many different ways in which a typical timeline could be improved and suggests that enhancing the complexity of a timeline, while keeping its power, is a goal that should be pursued.

Looking at the most popular interactive timelines from the web, it seems to me that a common characteristic amongst them is the visualization if the link between time and place, the combination of timelines and maps (historical maps but also Google Maps). I am looking for example at website like histrodamus, myhistro, historypin and neatline. Visualizing a place is clearly a way to expand the information of the “time data” (when and where) but also a way to stimulate a deeper understanding of the events (why X happened there and not somewhere else). Furthermore the immediacy of the geographic representation can help the user to better connect the events with his own experience (swiping the screen of Google Maps, Siria’s massacres seem to be much closer to Providence) and maybe overcome the emotional distance between the user and an event lost in the past.

Along with the massive use of maps, all these timelines allow the users to interact, uploading pictures, video, music but, maybe more important, to share (myhistro is also an App). Sharing is the backbone of today social networking of course, but I suspect that allowing to share a timeline, therefore allowing continuous changes and different prospective, mainly engages the user because in a way overcomes the absence of choices of a standard timeline, “The exhibition timeline eliminates the choices that were made. It suggests that there were no alternatives; timelines have no branches for ‘paths not taken.” (Lubar, 171).

Analyzing how popular websites try to go beyond the “straightforwardness” of a timeline (or the strategies used by videogames designers to complicate the game linear narrative while maintaining it) can help to find new ways to organize museum timelines too.

(WW2 Tweets from 1941 is another interesting and popular example – almost 300,000 followers on Twitter – of a different prospective and a different way to experience a timeline).

 

 

Alessandro- 2nd week

Most of this week’s readings try in some way to define the nature of “digital humanities”, their peculiar approach, their weaknesses, their being part of a ‘continuum’ in the evolution of humanities, their being a tool and/or a discipline. These reflections are clearly of great importance for us as students who are acquiring skills in visual literacy and as (eventually) scholars who need to elaborate and transmit this literacy (Jessop, 289).

Besides Martyn Jessop’s rigorously demonstration of the value of digital visualization as a scholarly methodology, it seems that through all the readings – particularly Anne Burdick, Tara Zepel and Ian Foster’s – a new idea of being human, of being human in a digital era, emerges.

The influence that a digitalized environment has on the human being is and continues to be well documented by researches in the fields of social science, psychology and neurobiology. In this regard it is also worth noting the great diffusion of apps aimed to toddlers and infants:

 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dokdoapps.mybabybubblesgame&hl=en

(The idea here, is that the infant becomes familiar with and learns to “analyze” the “data” on the screen by touching it with his fingers. Digitalis=digitus+alis)

The digital environment as a factor in re-shaping the human being is strictly correlated to my research on new media and storytelling, where storytelling is considered as a way in which people try to make sense of themselves. Burdick writes that “Digital media have become the meta-medium par excellence, able to absorb and re-mediate all previous forms in a fluid environment in which remixing and culture jamming are the common currency” (15). The way people make sense, therefore recognize and shape themselves, was certainly different when storytelling was oral and fluid (such as in the Heroic Age described by Homer) than when first the manuscript and later the print started to codify and in a way solidify the content of storytelling itself (uni-version). This said, what about the possibilities offered nowadays by digital media?

Is transmedia storytelling a new way to make sense of ourselves, a way in which the original definition of self remains unaltered, or is it accompanying the modern man as he discovers and adopts newer and more modern definitions of the self?

If this is true for storytelling, and in a broader and more complete sense for the humanities, then it is maybe possible to attribute another peculiar characteristic to digital humanities that goes beyond their fundamental role in translating the past and interpreting the present: that of guiding and informing our future.

1st week reading

Hello everybody, I am Alessandro, a first year PhD candidate in Italian Studies. I have a professional background as screenwriter and story editor in Italy (mainly in television). My research interests focus on the relation between politics and media (hegemony and identity) and on the development of transmedia storytelling not only as a way to  “translate” a story form a media to another but to expand the meaning of the story itself.

The readings for this week made me reflecting on the relationship between data and their visualization, or, in other words, between information and image. As a newcomer to “Visualization in the humanities” I was very surprised to discover how this topic is closely related to my professional experience. A script (for a movie or a television show) could in fact be considered as a sort of textual information (with its own code and patterns) that must be translated by the director and the cinematographer in a visual representation. The dialectic relationship between text and image is the most important one, both in terms of (inevitable) loss of information and (possible) gain of meaning.

In his writings Nathan Yau underlines the relevance of a specific image as the best tool to understand a specific data and the importance of “discovering the unexpected through pictures” (Yau, XVI). The idea of discovering new meaning through the process of translation between data and its visual representation is also considered by Barbara Stafford, who furthermore states that information cannot be separated by the way it is displayed (Stafford, 476). This raises questions about the possible independent nature of a visual representation in regard to the original textual or visual data. Can an image develop its own meaning as far as it retains the information of the data? Are there other limitations? Or, perhaps, there are not limitations at all if the visual representation is able to produce a new and valuable meaning?

I found the anlysis of three project presented in the readings as good starting point to further develop these questions:

1. Cinema Redux (http://brendandawes.com/projects/cinemaredux) as a peculiar strategy of representation – projecting time into space
2. Writing Without Words (http://www.itsbeenreal.co.uk/index.php) regarding the aesthetic value of a representation
3. We Feel Fine (http://www.wefeelfine.org/index.html) regarding the use of a less analytical tool (emotion) in order to convey meaning.

I look forward to further develop these first thoughs and  to investigate possibilities and limits of the relationship between data and its visual representation developing a more complex version of the project “Sumedicina (http://kimasendorf.com/sumedicina/).