Comments on: Defining the Digital Humanities

By: lustro piotrków trybunalski

lustro piotrków trybunalski — Mon, 18 May 2015 13:43:41 +0000

lustra na wymiar piotrków…

See this lustra na wymiar for yourself.Glass furniture,building and much more in Piotrków Trybunalski…

By: Kathryn Skutlin

Kathryn Skutlin — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:55:36 +0000

Most definitely! Even having taken Technoromanticism and Book 2.0, I feel like I’ve barely skimmed the surface of what DH could possibly be. I’m excited to learn more in this class, and find new and innovative ways to collaborate in order to create projects that can thrive outside of the academy!

By: Practicing, Building, Doing | Introduction to Digital Humanities

Practicing, Building, Doing | Introduction to Digital Humanities — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:32:35 +0000

[...] entered the program, which is probably a good thing since our degree requirements are so broad. As Kathryn intimated below, I am not a heavily theoretical person, especially as my interests have always been [...]

By: Cliffie Hichar

Cliffie Hichar — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:47:30 +0000

I truly agree with you. While I do feel that there are some things essential to DH–like as I wrote in my post, the creation of things–I think part of the beauty of DH is there really isn’t a hard and fast rule of what one must produce to belong. One could reinvent an e-reader in an effort to reexamine “book-ness,” create a story written using Google maps, “hack” a book to find a new method for story telling, or design a program to understand literature and still all be in the realm of DH. In a really fascinating way it allows an English major to walk the line between the English department and the sciences. One could look at code–1s and 0s which would usual belong to the engineering, math, or science field–as a language and storytelling medium all it’s own. The possibilities that arise from so broad a “definition,” if it can even be called so, for DH, are numerous and that makes it all the more inspiring.