Drucker begins by describing all data as capta - that the act of recording is inherently a process that is constructed in relation to the uses and expectations of the recorder. And relatedly, graphically representing this knowledge is inherently tied to its production. In this piece, she outlines a series of new approaches that use humanities principles to define capta and imagine its display, primarily focusing on graphical representations of experiences of temporality and spatiality. Fundamentally, I agree with her overarching argument and added terminology.

However, I found myself wondering where “validity” fits into this frame. In saying this, I am not referring to any objective validity that would pretend to be “truth,” which I agree is always constructed and relative when referring to data, particularly humanities capta. But I do wonder if there a limit to the degree to which ambiguity can be accepted in regards to these subjective graphical representations in the humanities.

I suppose what I’m trying question is this: by embracing this shift from certainty to ambiguity or performativity in displaying graphical models, by what metrics does an observer judge them? For example, I am looking to Figure 8 in the section on spatiality, where Drucker draws deformations in the standard Cartesian coordinate system to show the transformation of the beach in terms of “attention-getting”. Were this to represent a real event, how might one determine the limits by which one could deform the plane before the representation ceased to represent the actual occurrence? Is that entirely subjective to the viewer or creator? I think that setting limits or having some metrics by which one is to interpret these graphical representations would be useful in establishing their usefulness, as they are meant to have some function beyond an infinitely interpretable art object. Of course, setting any metrics to judge these representations, aesthetic or otherwise, would pose a serious challenge. Who sets these standards? The community of practitioners working in the Digital Humanities?

I hope that in looking for some method for interpreting these graphical representations, I am not misunderstanding Drucker’s point here. But I do think that given that these graphical representations are situated somewhere in between the rendering of statistical information of the natural sciences and the far more openly interpretable of the visual arts. We are taught strategies for reading and evaluating a graph, just as we are taught strategies for reading and evaluating a painting. In this way, if we are to form a new mode interpretable production of capta in the humanities, I think one must propose new strategies for reading and interpreting.