The multidisciplinary submissions including reviews on audio projects
found in Reviews in DH demonstrates a form of this expanded field
that is based off of art historian, Rosalind Krauss’ comparison
to “expanded sculpture”. It is a collection of reviews assembled like sculpture. Similar to the “big tent” metaphor,
the Digital Humanities refers to an expanded definition of academia and
scholarship. In contributing reviews to the arts and niches such
as sound/audio art, the review already appears to be successful in
broadening the public’s understanding of both
the arts and the cultural contexts in which they are placed.

While this periodical centers its content around various projects in DH, it
retains the format of a scholastic journal of reviews and is tied by
a quarterly theme — the theme of the latest publication being sound and audio art and/or work.
This seems to me to fall in line with some sort of model that DH critics are asking for.
Meanwhile, the publication offers a home to a wealth of digital humanity projects out there,
and the reviews themselves, like the one reviewing the DH project, “.break.dance”, is a
beautifully poetic, (although somewhat dense in references) piece describing a very
electric, ever-transforming art.

The first sentence of the review was in a way defining in itself for me of art and the humanities. —
“Form is content in .break.dance, and that form is intentionally errant,
to use Edouard Glissant’s term for intentional acts of wandering that are
retrospectively revelatory of the self and its relations” (Proctor, Brittnay L. Review: .break.dance).

Together with this act of wandering and transforming into varying art forms
that question conventional forms of communication and translation, so too the author’s “meditation on the distance between sound and image. The group of projects reviewed by Reviews in DH exemplifies the growing relationship of the humanities towards and with the digital.