What you see is what you beget.

This blog is just a short post on the subject of my own review of the Dariah Teach videos ‘My Digital Humanities’- a series of videos introducing key ides underlying Digital Humanities and raising some of the issues around the field.

In my review I struggled to separate the message from the medium, an area where Digital Humanities  are striving to create new methodologies to do just that. As someone who spends their time wrapped up in the visual world I find it impossible to separate what we see from the way we see it, almost like seeing a signpost and being so struck by its appearance that I don’t see what the sign says.

There have been many experiments where the visual has either confused or obscured the verbal, the textual or in another sense the meaning. John Ridley Stroop’s 1935 thesis ‘ Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions‘ contains one of the more famous examples of the effect on perception when the visual and textual are in conflict, or at the very least out of sync with each other.stroop-effect-test-from-math-unt-edu stroop-effect-test-from-math-unt-edu So as we move towards a world where the presentation of data can be delivered in ever more varied ways, across ever more varied devices and with ever more varied contextual supports, how do we frame this new world in a way that is not only sympathetic to the data but also to the human being absorbing it.

To those who have spent decades involved in this discussion it must appear that these are questions that can never be answered fully, as the context, i.e what is the digital is constantly changing. Which begs the other question, is there a reason to ask the question, or should we just go with the flow and let the digital data flow take us where it may?

Hello world!

To begin at the beginning, this is the beginning of a series of blog posts based on my learnings around the subject of Digital Humanities.

This was a static unchanging post, but now I have changed it by adding to the initial line, is this the same post, or a new post entirely. This is probably what goes to the heart of issues surrounding Digital Scholarly Editing: when a draft is amended, in this first simple case just by addition, which version is the true version.

Intuitively it would seem that the latest version must be the truth as this is closest to the context in which it is being read, but perhaps the truth is closer when we use a ‘versioning’ system, to display the amending, changing document in a timeline. This kind of argument seems quite simplistic when the document is amended in a linear, chronological and additional manner – but what about when subtraction enters the picture and deletes the initial meaning, the original context from the blog.

If the ‘Hello World’ blog post as initially constituted gets re-written so fully that the initial post disappears, where does the truth lie in retaining it as part of a version timeline if the author obliterates it fully.

Perhaps I shall find out when future self posts again