Abstract
I seek to undertake a detailed analysis of the historical perspective of Digital Humanities in a technology oriented media age, and would like to investigate how digitised records (consisting of visual or a textual data) and interfaces defined by algorithmic systems within computational machineries was transformed by informatics within interfaces. As well as the theoretical perspective, my research will continue to deal with the case studies theorising within a media archaeological perspective including the concepts of materiality, medium and dynamics of interfaces in keeping up with the hybridity of digital humanities.
Introduction
It is largely recognised that the frameworks of a system in media-historical principles are based on the perspective of the archivological approach in the sense of Digital Humanities. A media archaeological approach, in an advanced notion of storing data, refers to the idea that historical objects are not possibly constructed by only the media itself. The context of the various media systems from Library catalogs to microfilming have been affected as well as the notions of the historical remains of the archive itself. (Ernst 2013) The traditional understanding of storing data is based on the idea of classifications of inventories. This, however, is replaced by a fluctuating order of information by dynamic access. Thus, it is observed in scholarly research that the archive is redefined by the transformation from being passive storage to an alghoritmically-generated process. (Ernst 2013) In this regard, this article analyses this dynamic transition among data, archive and the digital medium, examining their connections by inspecting interfaces through theorising the historical approach from a critical perspective.
In accordance with the hybridity of the digital humanities, the surrounding research for the article draws on the realms of history and media archaeologies crossing interdisciplinary studies to develop a broader theoretical analysis. The main subjects of the article provides the research questions by giving a brief summary by answering the questions: (1) What is the main reason(s) of the transformation of traditional Humanities and how is Digital Humanities reconceptualised regarding its metamorphosis analysing its context and theory? (2) How and what ways can Digital Humanities be investigated regarding the historical perspective of interfaces? (3) What is the relationship between the narrative and the object as a medium through a close attention to the case studies in a comparative basis in terms of materiality, and how, regarding the case studies, are interfaces and computational archaeologies influenced by the operations of cyber culture?
The centrality of the archivology draws a study around cultural and media archaeology through a Foucaultian concept from the physical concreteness to abstract discourses in terms of storage. In a regular sense, the archive is supposed to be a mileux for storage, preservation, classification and access. (Rossaak 2010b:11; Parikka 2012) In other words, it can be seen that the archive is considered as an abstract concept of storing data of modern culture, which operated as a medium itself. (Parikka 2012) In this regard, the article centralising the studies of multiple disciplines of history and media, hybridised with the theoretical research based on solidification of “intangible cultural heritage” (Laszlo 98; Flanders, Piez and Terras 2007) that aims to demonstrate a critical analysis depending on case studies.
Materiality
It is commonly seen that primary sources of heritage content and resources have been increasingly digitised in arts and humanities. Museum archives and libraries are additionally changing its medium and digitised, yet, changing digital objects are supposed to be considered as collections in their own right, and it is observed that most of the artefacts are documented digitally by mediating its medium. According to Hayles,
“Collection databases with digital images of objects have been augmented by innovative ‘born-digital’ interpretive resources such as themed ‘guided tours’ of ‘highlight’ objects, illustrated timelines, and innovative approaches to object-based history such as the masterful History of the World in 100 Objects: a British Museum–BBC co-production broadcast on radio and podcasts with an accompanying website that extends the programme’s content and interactivity.” (2004)
Most of the museums and sites that express historical significance are proposing multiplicity in angles on a historical symbol offering wireless connections and applications in their exhibitions and permanent galleries. The artefacts that allow interactive usage of the medium are naturally greater in major, especially in well-resourced institutions, yet, the museums such as National Museum of Samoa offer modest options sharing their culturally-significant resources/collections through software based dashboards/platforms. It is obviously observed that the process of spreading cultural heritage through mediums which are defined by protocols and algorithms has been widening its reachability which associates the fact that especially “ethnographic” objects and archives accumulated within networks of colonial power, enables communities and the general public connected with collections which were used to have limited access. As a result of this, it is seen that the attempts to make the information and material as a collection, ‘set within the context of increasing the public engagement with digital technologies in general, are beginning to unsettle the often assumed ‘radical distinction between material and virtual’ (Witcomb 2007: 35; Hayles 2004). According to Andre Witcomb, material/virtual, weight/surface, aura/insubstantiality, authoritative knowledge/popular ideas, and elite privilege/democratic access do not express any division. Digitally defined objects which initiate particular features precise their own materiality and considered to have their own physical presence in an exhibition. With its unique technicality and substantiality, they can be considered as objects themselves which enables matters of distinctions (Witcomb 2007: 36; Hayles 2012). Born-digital objects might confuse the situation since the material itself increases the importance to future historians. (Hayles 2012) Furthermore, Hayles illustrates the fact that the body within postmodern definitions draws an immaterial informational structure by comparing to materiality with perceptional definitions,
“[T]he human body, our body, seems superfluous in its proper expanse, in the complexity and multiplicity of its organs, of its tissue and functions, because today everything is concentrated in the brain and the genetic code, which alone sum up the operational definition of being.” (2004)
David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s work Remediation (1999) demonstrates the fact that media itself expresses a constant change within a repeated movement of resemblance offering a simultaneous form of mediation through the scope of medium specified analysis (MSA). It depicts an alteration in the language of media communications such as text mediating into a digital medium as a vocabulary of screen and page processing in a digital software and analogue interface with the hybridity of code and ink, controllable buttons and images in an algorithmic system. (Hayles 2004) In this regard, a distinctive infrastructure between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media was offered by Manovich to be able to conduct MSA; which are (1) numerical representation; (2) modularity; (3) automation; (4) variability; and (5) transcoding. Emphasizing Hayles’ ideas on transcoding, it is seen that “numerical representation” is considered as the most viable matter in terms of its dynamics and programmability at medium’s specificity.
To be able to investigate these dynamic interactions, Medium-Spesific Analysis (MSA is seen necessary. It constructs an electrifying neocortex of literary criticism into recognising which strands on a traditional emphasis on materiality which are examined paradigmatically emphasising on the literary effects emerging the materiality of the texts that refers to the hypertext commonly used in both digital and print media.
Regarding her cognitive approach on materiality and new media tools, Hayles claims the fact that specifying materiality cannot be possible since it proposes a borderland between physical and mental, the artefact and the user, which provides an ideal chance to investigate the dynamic connection between the artifactual characteristics and the interpretation that materiality embodies. Hypertext proposes a medium by analysing dynamic interactions of the artifacts and their characteristics, and the interpretation that materiality embodies. (Hayles 2004)
Aura
In alignment with the auraic potential of the material outlined by Walter Benjamin discusses the unique existence of the physical object regarding the time and space, and it is claimed that the originality vanishes in reproductions since it tarnishes the ritual of the object through the process of digitisation. In this regard, it is claimed that the originality of physical objects loses its authenticity. In his work “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Benjamin claims that the metarial objects have a one-time experience in terms of their uniqueness. According to him, the aura represents for this experience of unique value which stresses on the fact that objects cannot be multiplied or reproduced. Another similar argument that he proposes is the “aesthetic experience” of the aforementioned one-time experience. An aura can be applied to the original piece of work. Replicas of the objects ruin the authentic aura of the unique experience. In this regard, centralising Benjaminian arguments, the article draws a critical approach of both of the case studies in terms of archivological sense.
For Benjamin, aura itself represents a distinctive dimension through the gaze of human beings: “There was an aura about them, a medium that lent fullness and security to their gaze inasmuch as it penetrated that medium” (SW, 2:515– 17; GS, 2:376; Hansen 2008, 342) In another saying, aura refers to a great structure which authorises the indication of the gaze, developing the capacity of its context. However, it is implied that the post-McLuhanian term with technological mileux should not be merged with Benjamin’s definitions since his understanding of medium aligns with philosophical usage (centralising Hegel and Herder), mentioning “an in-between substance or agency—such as language, writing, thinking, memory—that mediates and constitutes meaning; it resonates no less with esoteric and spiritualist connotations pivoting on an embodied medium’s capacity of communing with the dead.” (Hansen 2008)
History of Digital Humanities: From Hermeneutics to Computation
Traditional humanities which consists of the notions of hermeneutics transforms its form as a meaning and context since the material form text has experienced its metamorphosis in terms of its medium. This change, thus, concluded with the fact that the emphasis of “human” in humanities has shifted through a software-oriented focus by the “second wave” of the digital humanities. (Heftberger, 2012; Berry 2012)
It is observed that the phoenix-born sense of concept in Digital Humanities which documents a quantified algorithmical measuring as a numerical processing construct a distinctive form of humanities by the Berry-sense of term, the “computational turn” (2011). The tools and archives of digital humanities within a computational space, topologically extended by the internet hosting a systematic information patterns, parametric signals and protocols expand the notions of network. Migrating data to a networked space within calculable softwarised machineries reveals a distinct notion in terms of informative qualities and aesthetics. (Ernst 2013)
Archival objects which represent a cultural value in the scope of Digital Humanities, are metaphorically divorced from physicality and transforms into a distinctive form of material as they are stored in computational algorithms that are connected to a protocol. In this regard, this chapter will include a detailed historical aspect of the digital humanities analysing the metamorphosis of the medium by the “computational turn” (Berry 2011), and how digital humanities is mediated through computational surfaces.
The Genealogy of Digital Humanities
This chapter aims to analyse the component arguments connected to its humanistic attitude of the transformation by regarding the genealogical sense of digital humanities focusing on textual medium offering concrete examples in relation to interfaces through the lens of narrative theory, networks and aesthetics in an historical sense.
Unlike many other interdisciplinary experiments, humanities computing has a very well known beginning. In 1949, an Italian Jesuit Priest, Father Roberto Busa, began what even to this day is a monumental task: to make an index verborum of all the words in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and related authors, totalling some 11 million words of medieval Latin.
Historical scope of archives tends to keep the record which was related to Aerarium near the Capitoline Hill during the Ancient Roman administration, considered as a birthof the archives of the state treasury including metals, reserve funds, insignia, senate resolutions and the other administrative papers. (Vismann 2008: 57; Parikka 2012)
It is seen that the frameworks of modern archival theory as preservational practices were articulated through the twentieth century. (Parikka 2012) The traditional understanding of the archives based on the fact that archive as a form is territorial, spatialised and walled which represents a functional symbol as an institution. To borrow Vismann’s words on record-keeping and archaeology of files: “The wall designated to surround the symbolic order of the law once the codification is complete turns everything outside into rubbish and file trash”(2008:64; Parikka 2012)
As Parikka states; “The new archives have to take into account formats, medium specifity, as well as various software related themes such as encoding.” A constructive approach in the dynamic nature of the world was faced in computational culture and softwares and computers were given as samples of the situation, which was also seen as a big future task for such museums of science & technology as, for example, The Science Museum, “building a new gallery of Modern Communications, which will also feature computing and networks (especially World Wide Web).” (2012)
A web novel “The Book of Going Forth by Day” by M.D Coverley indicates how navigation elements deploy an indicative action for electronic hypertexts. Following the spatial composition of prototyped Egyptian hieroglyphs, the interface engages both horizontal and vertical records. To borrow her words in order to employ a genealogical approach, Hayles indicates that;
“The horizontal panels provide the narrative, while the vertical panels give linguistic, historical, and geographic information about ancient Egypt, modeled after the rubrics that in hieroglyphic texts give information on how to interpret the depicted events. The correspondences between Egyptian hieroglyphs and the interface suggest deep connections between inscription systems, cosmological beliefs, temporal orderings, and geographic assumptions.” (2012)
Ancient hieroglyphic inscriptions were documented through any aspects in terms of directions; left to right, right to left, up to down, down to up, edging sideways into margins, or spiraling in a circle, with the order of reading indicated by the direction the figures face. Going Forth indicates a roundabout and unintended way of ancient Egyptian judgements about the “endless geometry” of the world. Additionally, it is signified that Going Forth expresses its inscription incomplex topologies in terms of its message, which allows flowing progression between exposition, narrative, maps, photographs, linguistic information, and historical context. (Hayles 2012) Going Forth proposes that the difference between writing and art was ambiguous in ancient Egypt, which indicates a fact that the worldview and inscription system had correlations. Migrating into a computational environment, the interaction adopts a form of perplexive connection between multimedia elements and navigational functionalities. (Hayles 2012)
Conclusions
This article has far intended to investigate the concentration of theories connecting to database, software, interface and materiality applying the case studies by the analysing of distinctive concepts. In this regard, in accordance with media archaeologies of digital humanities, my respective work represents an exploration in interface analysis of the medium through the scope of archivic objects migrating from a concrete medium to a digital mileux regarding the concept of intangible cultural heritage and materiality of the archive. Along with the aforementioned methodologies and literatures, the transformation of material and the medium was pertained by the most frequently question among digital humanities scholars and historians; “what happens to the archivological material once it is replicated and deported through a distinctive medium?” To borrow Hayles’ words; “as inhabitants of globally interconnected networks, we are joined in a dynamic co-evolutionary spiral with intelligent machines” (2006) referring to the inevitability of machinerised technologies which employs dynamic activities in terms of the association with human as a subject and information technologies.
A computer contains not only hardware but also a digital medium with texts and images as a representation on its screen. As such, interfaces are making an interpretation of the computational procedures into mitigating, well-known or “user-friendly” visuals and metaphors as known from much software, along these lines masking the computer as something surely understood. Through this frequent notion of the interface (as a surface), computational processes and the way we co-exist with computational processes are critiqued, and it is asserted that the understanding of interfaces requires to be subjected. As Dragana Antic and Matthew Fuller argue in “The Computation of Space”, it is indicated that the interchangeable dynamics of computer-interface connectivity regard the space and production of medium. As it is observed that the interface turns into a co-extensive medium concerning its reflectivity on computation through spatial design and experience within a genealogical approach.
Works Cited
Andersen, C. and Pold, S. Interface Criticism. Aarhus [Denmark]: Aarhus University Press., 2011. Print
Benjamin, W. and Underwood, J. (2008). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction. London: Penguin. Print.
Berry, D. The Computational Turn: Thinking About the Digital Humanities. Culture Machine. Retrieved 2012-01-31. 2011
Berry, D. The Philosophy of Software. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 2011
Berry, D. Understanding Digital Humanities. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 2012
Bruton, D. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Information, Communication & Society, 14(7), pp.1077-1078. 2011
Burns, J. Digital Facsimiles and the Modern Viewer: Medieval Manuscripts and Archival Practice in the Age of New Media. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 33(2), pp.148-167. 2014
Deegan, M., McCarty, W. and Short, H. Collaborative research in the Digital Humanities. Farnham, England: Ashgate. 2012
Ernst, W. and Parikka, J. Digital Memory and the Archive. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2013
Greenhalgh, T. and Stones, R. Theorising Big IT Programmes in Healthcare: Strong Structuration Theory Meets Actor-Network Theory. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9), pp.1285-1294. 2010
Halpern, O. Beautiful Data.Duke University Press. Durham and London. 2014
Hayles, K. How We Became Posthuman. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. 1999
Hayles, N. Print Is Flat, Code Is Deep: The Importance of Medium-Specific Analysis. Poetics Today, 25(1), pp.67-90. 2004
Hookway, B. Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2014
Hrionline.ac.uk, London Lives Wiki : Welcome. [online] Available at: http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/londonliveswiki/tiki-index.php?page=Welcome. Web. 2015
Huhtamo, E. Illusions in Motion. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2013
Jones, S. The Emergence of the Digital Humanities. Routledge. 2014
Kitchin, R. The Data Revolution : Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences. London: SAGE Publications. 2014
Kittler, F., Winthrop-Young, G. and Wutz, M. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 1999
Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. 2005
Latour, B. Technology Is Society Made Durable. In Law, J., ed., Sociology of Monsters. 1999
Law, J. and Hassard, J. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford [England]: Blackwell/Sociological Review. 1999
Manovich, L. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2002
Newell, J. Old Objects, New Media: Historical Collections, Digitization and Affect. Journal of Material Culture, 17(3), pp.287-306. 2012
Parikka, J. What is Media Archaeology? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Rodrigues, T. (2008). Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Edited by Fiona Cameron and Sarah Kenderdine. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2007. 465 pp. ISBN: 9780262042352. Online Information Review, 32(5), pp.694-695. 2012
Ramberg, B. and Gjesdal, K. Hermeneutics. [online] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/. Web. 2015
Robinson, A. Walter Benjamin: Art, Aura and Authenticity. [online] Ceasefire Magazine. Available at: https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/walter-benjamin-art-aura-authenticity/. Web. 2013
Shannon, CE. Warren Weaver. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, 1949. ISBN 0-252-72548-4
Schreibman, S., Siemens, R. and Unsworth, J. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub. 2004
Tambling, J. and Hayles, N. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics. The Modern Language Review, 96(1), p.143.
Tidwell, J. (2006). Designing Interfaces. Beijing: O’Reilly. 2001
Warwick, C., Terras, M. and Nyhan, J. Digital Humanities in Practice. London: Facet Publishing in association with UCL Centre for Digital Humanities. 2012
Wilson, S. Information arts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2002
October 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Dear Cansu Topaloglu,
Your text is certainly full of important references that contextualize the main issues of Digital Humanities.
I got especially curious to know more details of your approach to the idea of genealogy and how will you conduct the interface analysis.
You brought briefly some examples at end, but I could not detect if there is any system or framework for further and deeper analysis and the emergence of possible relationships.
Are you going to use, for instance, Manovich’s aspects (numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding) of MSA? Would it be suitable to your purpose or do you plan something else?
Best wishes and see you soon,
Graziele.
LikeLike
October 27, 2015 at 2:14 pm
Drawing together media archeology of Hayles/Parikka with the formal academic category Digital Humanities is an interesting move – and I think allows for it to be examined with more critical awareness than is the case in many uses of DH utopianism.
A really interesting nexus of references around this also.
As the article stands, because the questions you outline in the opening paragraph open up onto such a huge territory – and that this is expanded through the body of the article to include items such as curatorial practices, eliterature, computational – there is something of an overabundance of terminology and ideas. This is useful for the workshop, but regarding redrafting I’d be tempted to for example explore in more detail the hermenutics/computation binary you begin to set up.
Or might the article attend to a more simple question: What is the formal difference between traditional Humanities and Digital Humanities?
For example: for me DH is typified by overviews of massive scope rather than attending to detail and singular instances. DH as an umbrella category and hot-topic subject I think is influenced by the financial associations of Big Data. (I am suspicious of DH for this reason.)
It will be interesting to pick through the ideas in the current text in person and work out a trajectory of argumentation.
LikeLike
October 31, 2015 at 12:46 pm
Dear Cansu, thx for sharing!
I’m especially interested in the interaction between practice of archivology and the concept of a post-modern body you’re referring to in your article.
I think the strange concept of an-archeology might be interesting to explore in relation to the changing nature of the notion of archive related digital technology.
https://michaelgoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/concepts-of-media-anarcheology/
Looking forward to meet you!
LikeLike
November 3, 2015 at 6:53 pm
COMMENTS AFTER PRESENTATION
Nathan: Materialities are lost when digitised? Suggestion to check Lev Manovich on digitalization of paintings
Geoff: archiving in age of big data / how to deal with the concept of excess in this context? What kind of data?
Aideen: about costs and viability of archiving
Graziele: Benjamin maybe is not necessary, since the aura concept is more directly related to the art context.
What in History of Culture is select/elected to become permanent and stored?
Knowledge space > Monika Fleischmann/Wolfgang Strauss on ‘performing data’ (http://fleischmann-strauss.de/)
Focus on the kind of data from those archives you bring as case studies.
Geoff: Also about the use of Benjamin
Foucault as a reference / meta level? Bentham, panoptican, politics of self surveillance.
What about politics behind the archives?
Lyndsay: suggestion to consider embedded learning process instead of seeing an object
Those material are being translated or reinvented?
Bentham? History of below? How does this work with a view from above?
LikeLike
November 5, 2015 at 7:41 am
Hi Cansu, thanks for your presentation. I was very interested in the proposition of a history of below, in reference to Bentham, and the idea of a digitized heritage aiming to mediate ‘aura’.
LikeLike
November 5, 2015 at 10:22 am
ehy cansu, few more thinkings:
– the idea of passive archive becoming hyperactive in relation to its algorithmic nature seems an interesting point to stress in relation to the epistemological status of the archive and its fruition.
– “Media cross one another in time which is no longer history” (Kittler 1999, 115) seems an interesting quote from the paper i linked on my previous post, cause it problematizes the idea of archive in a non linear-end-of-history context. Again in this sense the idea of anarcheology proposed by Rudi Visker reading M. Foucault Archeology of Knowledge seems for you potentially valuable.
LikeLike
November 5, 2015 at 11:51 am
To clarify my comments: like others, I was not convinced by the connection to aura and so suggested going back to Foucault and archaeology in order to draw out the connections to archives and disciplinary institutions (cf. Bentham). This might allow for more a critical take on the relation to digital humanities and datafication as some kind of disciplinary procedure. It might have also been useful to draw in excess here in relation to big data.
LikeLike
November 5, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Thanks Cansu for this rich text. Just to pick up this Benjamin/Aura discussion. Miriam Hansen has written a really good text on this: http://http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/529060
It points to aspects of Benjamin’s notion (beyond the obvious ‘disappearance’ with mechanical reproduction) that perhaps are interesting to you, and relates to his perception of history.
This said, I also recognize that you need to reduce the complexity of the text, and this is perhaps one of the things to leave out.
LikeLike
November 5, 2015 at 4:01 pm
Hi Cansu, and thank you for your interesting paper. There is a lot here and as interesting as the context of your research is, like others I suggest that it would be fruitful to whittle this paper down to a more focused thread of argument.
The politics and power relations of digital humanities/digital archiving particularly interest me, as I approach this topic with a deep suspicion of the capacity of digital/informational technologies to fully account for (or reveal in the Heideggerian sense) the convergence of material world/embodied experience and its representation in language. To me, the digital archive can at best be a illustrative index rather than the archive itself. So, can the ‘multiplicity of angles on a historical symbol’ be reproduced in the digital humanities?
I have a series of rhetorical questions that do not demand an answer, but rather exist as points of reflection.
What are the politics of mediating cultural artefacts through digital and algorithmic means?
What can and cannot be represented in code?
How do we write the meta-data of a digital archive object in such a way a fully represents its histories, its multiplicity of meanings?
What is lost in this process, what is left behind? Is it aura, context, provenance or even patina?
What happens when all of our cultural heritage is mediated through a browser window, in a backlit screen at 1080×740 resolution? Does this imply a flattening of the ’texture’ of these histories as they are framed in a uniform way? Does the ‘interface effect’ render it all surface and no substance?
Do we begin to draw an equivalences between The Book of Going Forth by Day and the Microsoft Word clip art library?
Do the processes of the digital humanities risk what Eve Meltzer writes of as “thinning the work of art…riding it of its affects?”
Do the digital humanties imply an excess of information and a scarcity of affect?
I suggest (reflecting on your presentation slides) that some of this research could work well as a set of diagrams that map (spatially) the connections, overlaps and negations that occurring in the process of transition towards the digital humanities. Archaeology is such a richly descriptive word for this process, as it is something that occurs spatially even if this is in virtual space: digging down, mapping across.
Perhaps our main point of connection is on the subject of the interface? Where I am affecting a critique of the ‘naturalised’ interface you are working on a genealogy of it.
A final thought: where you are considering aura, it may also be useful to also consider affect in relation to the objects/images/ texts of the digital humanities. Perhaps Alexander Galloway’s book ‘The Interface Effect’ or Brian Massumi’s ‘Parables for the Virtual’ would be useful in this regard.
LikeLike