Figuring out Art History

Schich, Maximilian

doi:10.11588/dah.2016.2.24761

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While one may argue that the humanities were always interested in contexts and the unfolding of events, it is undeniable that several core disciplines, from art history and literature to media studies, still primarily define themselves and therefore remain centred around substance, such as artworks, texts, film, or other forms of media. Meanwhile, unprecedented progress has been made towards a deeper understanding of interaction, with the multidisciplinary science of "complex networks" increasingly permeating all areas where complexity is shown to emerge from local activity, from physics to culture (Barabasi 2016, Schich et al 2016, Ahnert et al 2021).…”

Section: Making Sense Of Cultural Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Science Meets Cultural Data Analytics

Ibrus

Schich

Tamm

2021

Cultural Science Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For developing Cultural Science as a research field and practice it is worthwhile reconsidering the ways to approach the study of large corpora of digital content and data. In this context, Digital Humanities (DH) has been a success story in the academic world. However, we argue that it is better to consider DH as a transitory phenomenon that needs to be developed into more specific research fields, while at the same time it could benefit from being extended towards an even more multidisciplinary science. To achieve this, it is vital to first transcend the artificial division of cultural inquiry into the qualitative analysis of idiographic phenomena and the quantification of nomothetic phenomena. It is furthermore important to surpass the dichotomy of specific versus general as research objects; for example replacing this with the notion of the semiosphere as a research object, defined as the ‘smallest’ functioning element of culture by Juri Lotman. In this perspective, the singular cultural unit is always conditioned by the whole of the semiosphere, while the whole can be always changed by the singular, both in line with classic hermeneutic inquiry and recent notions of complexity science. Further, the label of ‘humanities’ in DH is at the same time both too large and too restrictive. We instead argue for a study of meaning-making practices in human society, but without confining ourselves to traditional humanities scholarship, but rather, learning from new developments in systems biology, evolutionary economics, complexity science and many more. We think that this new transdisciplinary field of study can help define the scope of the Cultural Science Journal. Indeed, it has already found practical application in a variety of ‘post-DH’ collaborations in ‘Cultural Data Analytics’, often with the aim to explore the dynamics of meaning-making practices by computational means and by looking at a spectrum of materials (textual, sonic, visual, multimodal, etc.) both regarding the longue durée and in real-time applications, if not anticipating the future.

show abstract

Section: Making Sense Of Cultural Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Science Meets Cultural Data Analytics

Ibrus

Schich

Tamm

2021

Cultural Science Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Digital humanities in the era of digital reproducibility: towards a fairest and post-computational framework

Joyeux-Prunel

2024

Int J Digit Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducibility has become a requirement in the hard sciences, and its adoption is gradually extending to the digital humanities. The FAIR criteria and the publication of data papers are both indicative of this trend. However, the question that arises is whether the strict prerequisites of digital reproducibility serve only to exclude digital humanities from broader humanities scholarship. Instead of adopting a binary approach, an alternative method acknowledges the unique features of the objects, inquiries, and techniques of the humanities, including digital humanities, as well as the social and historical contexts in which the concept of reproducibility has developed in the human sciences. In the first part of this paper, I propose to examine the historical and disciplinary context in which the concept of reproducibility has developed within the human sciences, and the disciplinary struggles involved in this process, especially for art history and literature studies. In the second part, I will explore the question of reproducibility through two art history research projects that utilize various computational methods. I argue that issues of corpus, method, and interpretation cannot be separated, rendering a procedural definition of reproducibility impractical. Consequently, I propose the adoption of ‘post-computational reproducibility’, which is based on FAIREST criteria as far as digital corpora are concerned (FAIR + Ethics and Expertise, Source mention + Time-Stamp), but extended to include further sources that confirm computational results with other non-computational methodologies.

show abstract

Figuring out Art History

Cited by 2 publications

References 34 publications

Cultural Science Meets Cultural Data Analytics

Cultural Science Meets Cultural Data Analytics

Digital humanities in the era of digital reproducibility: towards a fairest and post-computational framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About