Zucker_Reading 11/18

The reading ‘Archival Media Theory’ begins by introducing the reader to a very important concept I want to open by discussing. The idea that while most people may not actively be engaged with archives but that they are in fact familiar do to language being incorporated in every day tasks such as archiving emails. This notion that we utilize language from other forms or representation without being aware of its origin is important to note as much of how we exist in the world adn relate to knowlege around us is informed by language we have embodied subconciously. The author continues with the exploration via Ernst’s theory of definitions and relation to objects for instance. The author poses ‘a question of where do we want to start?’ which is valid in many instances. One, in relation to archives, being the value of history and bringing past histories, often buried in archives, to the contemporary time where the history may be deemed as irrelevant. In order to understand where we came from and how we came to be it is importnat to understand history and in particular, the histories we are unfamiliar with as they only exist in archives.

In contrast, the reading ‘A Deep History…’ discusses the recent trend of online publishing of out-of-copyright literary editions and the challenges it presents when discussing digital text. It builds on the reading ‘.txtual Condition and the larger topic of what is digital humans as it relates to digitizing archives, text, editions of literature, and ethics behind the action, particularly as it relates to academia. The author frequently uses negatively assosicated words when referencing the subject suhc as ‘digital pollution’ and status of ‘fascimiles’. The mechanics of doing so I feel asserted an opinion in the piece that did not allow me as a reader to come to my own conclusions. To summarize the argument, in my experience, the key argument the author makes is similar to reprints of famous artworks. While the representation and content is the same adn true to the original form/intent, the reproduction calls into question access, intent and purpose behind the original form. Maybe the author was less concerned with the reproduction of a text and more limited by access to technology and funds resulting in less copies or singular additions? One might consider this. While the answer may cease to exist or be answered, the argument posed by the author is a key one I think about in regards to digital humanities and the piece was a concrete example of one application.