Humans are comforted by the organization of information. After all, the sturdy Tupperware provided by clear definitions, typologies, rubrics, and classifications are intended to allay that most human of emotions: doubt. Our love of knowledge organization explains the enduring popularity of texts like Pliny the Elder's Natural History or perhaps Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, but it also goes a long way toward explaining the enduring obsession with defining what, exactly, the field of digital humanities is or is not. In 2012, when Digital_Humanities was first published by MIT Press, the authors sought to provide a definition and exploration of the digital humanities (henceforth DH) that could, in their opinion, serve as a guidebook, a field report, a harangue, a vision statement, and a tool with which to position new scholarship. To their minds, such a book was an imperative as we continue to experience “one of those rare moments...
Review: Digital_Humanities, by Anne Burdick, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, and Jeffrey Schnapp
Sarah E. Bond, Tom Keegan; Review: Digital_Humanities, by Anne Burdick, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, and Jeffrey Schnapp. Studies in Late Antiquity 1 February 2017; 1 (1): 86–89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/sla.2017.1.1.86
Download citation file: