Since first watching the movie Jerry Maguire in middle school, I have a fear of manifestos. I understood manifestos to have negative consequences based on the repercussions on the titular character after he wrote one, and anytime I hear the word, I am automatically mentally presented with potential negative ramifications. From my first viewing of the movie, many quotables, that still resound in contemporary evaluations of the best movie quotes, were seared into my brain. However, also seared into my brain were the consequences of an impromptu, stream of consciousness, manifesto. In this regard, contrary to Jerry Maguire, I believe Lisa Spiro is well-grounded as she deliberately identifies what she considers to be to the most pertinent values of DH: openness, collaboration, collegiality and connectedness, diversity, and experimentation.
Each of the projects evaluated this week incorporate at least one of the values mentioned by Spiro. The Torn Apart project is the epitome of openness. The transparency of the financial benefits received by certain entities, and how it is displayed on a distinctly outlined map, is a clear DH representation. The juxtaposition of the Congressional districts, Representatives, and largest profiteers leaves nothing to the imagination. Without question, the cartographic depiction is more effective at illuminating the geographic impact of ICE’s financial entanglements than any other medium. The CCP and ECDA project put an emphasis on access – allowing anyone the opportunity to view obscure exhibits and artifacts that would otherwise be inaccessible in the absence of the digital curation and forum. The ECDA project illuminates collegiality and connectedness by reappropriating contributions by European publishers to aggregate the histories of the Caribbean. Rather than dismiss the European contributions to this collection, the ECDA recenters them in a manner that puts Caribbean experiences, as opposed to European interpretations, at the forefront.
Even after all the reading I completed before this blog post, I am not yet sure how to classify or define Digital Humanities. Unlike ignorance in most matters, I do not yet find this troubling as I am slowly linking the conversation around interspersing theory and practice to my interpretations of DH. Considering the ease and ubiquity of digital access in almost all aspects of life, I am not sure of what does or does not fall into the DH bucket. The “DH community” is referenced often in the readings, but who are the members of said community? Better yet, who are not members at this point? Furthermore, who makes these decisions? Perhaps I will have a better understanding when I enter the social media world and create my Twitter account.