The title of this post was generated by AI.
In most introductory classes at BYU, I have sat through many a lecture that discuss the title of whichever class I am in. In Anthropology we spent a day figuring out what exactly Anthropology was (the study of humans and culture) and what it wasn’t (psychology, sociology, religion, etc.) In one of my fundamental Art classes, we had repeated discussions about what is considered art vs what is considered design or something else entirely. In my World Religions class just the other week I had an assignment to write a paper on what qualities I believe are necessary for a religion to be a religion as opposed to merely being a social group, etc.
This article, The Humanities, Done Digitally by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, feels similar to many of those discussions I’ve had in those introductory courses. Whenever discussing a topic it is important to make sure that all those in the discussion have the same base understanding of what they are talking about. That way a lot of confusion is cleared up before it can even begin. She spends the first half of her article doing this- defining what digital humanities includes.
Halfway through her article, she begins to discuss an important clarification within this definition. She speaks, within the realm of digital humanities, about how creation and synthesis on what’s been created are different aspects of the field, but they are equally important. When speaking of this theory-practice divide within humanities, Fitzpatrick says, “the best scholarship is always creative, and the best production is always critically aware. The digital humanities seems another space within the academy where the divide between making and interpreting might be bridged in productive ways.”
I am no expert on digital humanities. That is why I am taking this class. I am however becoming more of an expert on art and art making as I get through my degree. I thoroughly enjoy comparing and contrasting my own field with others. The fact that the digital humanities embraces both the synthesis and creation aspects of its discipline (according to Fitzpatrick) is exciting to me. Within my own major we focus mainly on art making and just a little bit on art synthesis and theory. We learn what is needed to get by and understand the centuries conversation we are joining by becoming artists.
This article claims that digital humanities takes a middle ground and embraces both the synthesis and the creation, which is so far how I would describe my experience in class, and I have appreciated it thus far.
The image in this blog post is from Adobe Stock
Leave a Reply