Hailing as I originally do from the museum and library world, I have a particular interest in the more outward-facing aspects of the humanities–and in the digital humanities, the aspects of the field that might particularly be considered “public” or “open.” I’d love to get into a conversation about this stuff. Maybe we can take a look at how audiences are examined in digital projects, or talk about the degree to which digital humanities projects are (or aren’t) by their very nature forms of public scholarship. What makes a scholarly effort “public” in the first place, and is there anything particular to digital work that supports or undermines that idea? Maybe we can talk about crowdsourcing and its role in digital research and scholarship. In short, if the phrase “public humanities” catches your attention, I’d love to chat.
5 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
All text and code on
THATCamp Virginia 2012 is freely available for you to use, copy, adapt and distribute under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License as long as you link to THATCamp.org and the Center for History and New Media. The name "THATCamp" and the THATCamp logo are trademarks of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Theme based on the Furvious theme, by KreativeThemes.
+1 to this session idea/notion/proposal. 🙂
I’m definitely interested in this from a metadata perspective, especially with regard to evaluating your audience. When we have rich content but limited amount of time/labor/money available to describe it, what do you select? If we can leave some of the rest to crowdsourcing, what is the labor (i.e., moderating) associated with that?
I am interested from Humanist v. Fine Arts. Especially Artists like George Bercht and the Fluxist movement. Also, the Spanish “Concrete Poets” in the 1970’s.
Thanks for starting the topic.
– geORge, ORtist
This is such a good idea. I want to participate. Yes, to this session
Yes! Would love to talk about this.