Author: Brittany Russell

Accompanying Song

One more for the road

I’m sure the followers of this project noticed my absence from the #dssf17 tag this week, and that is because I wasn’t there to make the jokes and comments that I usually make to spice up the hashtag while Christina tries to make us look good.

The quick explanation? I went home because I needed some time to collect myself. A sudden blow hit my mental and emotional health that took it down to a solid 1% emotional battery remaining. Honestly, I’ve been riding at a solid 55% emotional battery the past few weeks, but I’ve been afraid to acknowledge it and talk about it under the fear that people wouldn’t want to talk to me, Debbie Downer. It’s easier to hide behind funny jokes and smart comments to try and fake it til you make it, or at least help others not feel the same way. I knew I wouldn’t be able to focus on the work properly, not without breaking down into tears at the slightest mention of anything I associated with the person involved in this event.

When I interviewed for this fellowship, I asked what the best part of the fellowship was. Keira was the only fellow at my interview, and she told me cohort. Lauren mentioned at one point that it surprised people when at a panel about their research, someone asked a similar question and all three fellows answered “Cohort.” R.C. came and checked on me at one point and said we all have to rely on each other because campus really, really is dead right now. I hadn’t understood it, honestly. I’m introverted and anxious, if you met me- and if you found me right now it would be honestly worse. Several years of people I care about hurting me has led to me isolating myself more out of fear of bothering people or looking too needy or inconveniencing them. That wasn’t helping me bond with the other people in the cohort as much as it looked with Keira, Julia, and Lauren.

This weekend changed those feelings. If it weren’t for the cohort, there would probably be some crazier stuff that would keep me from posting, and it wouldn’t be good. My cohort helped get me home and hugged me and told me it was going to be okay. My cohort sent me positive messages and checked on me to make sure I made it safely, and that I was feeling better. Christina’s hashtag documentation was helpful in keeping in the loop, and now I’m back in the house with everyone else after several days at home recharing.

Admittedly, it’s going to take a while to get back to where I was once before shit hit the fan. I can’t describe my feelings about what happened with proper words beyond “aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,” but I guess I’m just going to say the jokes on the hashtag probably aren’t going to be back for a bit. Also, this might be a pretty personal post to put here, but digital humanities are about preserving and appreciating the human experience. All of us are human, and humans aren’t immune to emotions and pain. I wish I was, but I figured this was good to document. For this paragraph and the entire post’s verbosity (this pattern seems to come up often), I apologize.

For everything else, I just want to say thank you. It means a lot to me, more than you think it does.

-Britt

So, this reading about QueerOS by Fiona Barnett, Zach Blas, Micha Cardenas, Jacob Garboury, Jessica Johnson, and Margaret Rhee is dense, weird, and kind of unapproachable. The purpose of the article is lost on me, hidden beneath jargon that requires a WGS and a computer science degree to understand (neither of which I have). If I’m missing the point of the article entirely when writing about this, please do not hesitate to engage with me and explain it to me, because I would love love love to learn more.

I see many issues within the queer community (ahem, biphobia?), and I take issue with the radicalization of the queer community that slips through the cracks of the few parts I could truly understand, and those are things I immediately see as far more pressing concerns than making the QueerOS.  That’s an issue for a different blog post. However, in the meantime, we’ll go back to reacting to the article.

The joke may be lost on me if it is one, but I find it unusual for a scholarly article to crack something like this:

“By offering its flesh to the OS, the user becomes one/multiple/nothing and binds itself in a contract with the OS.The user’s offer of flesh is irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, and sublicensable.”

For a group that advocates for consent and states that consent can be revoked, I find this flesh language to be borderline hypocritical. Perhaps this needs to be fleshed out.

The rest of it is pretty straightforward, mentioning more about trans inclusion and how important it is to include POC as well, which I’m 100% on board for. However, I still end the article thinking: Why? What issues do you take with the existing operating systems? I understand that it was likely designed by a cishet white male, but at this point I think there’s higher priorities that need to be discussed and fixed before you go digging more into radical operating systems that won’t necessarily fix anything and won’t necessarily get you taken seriously, especially if there’s no real benefit to be gained from it and he authors of the article know it:

“We acknowledge that some of these features do not exist as part of present-day operating systems or terms of service. Nonetheless these concepts are repurposed here with performative and disruptive intent.”

I’m always fond of a little chaos and disruption, but the message doesn’t get translated well when others are worried about the chaos. I get that “neoliberals are the devil” mindset is hard to shake, but chaos isn’t going to bring everyone over to your side, and instead will alienate the people you’re trying to translate the message to.

I’m fine with a QueerOS if someone wants to make it. I’m not uncomfortable, and I’ll embrace it if it’s understandable, usable, and not put up too high in the ivory tower for even me to approach. I’m glad that there’s more queer and POC representation in DH, but this didn’t help me understand DH better. It just confused me more, actually. If you want to be inclusive, don’t bury your inclusiveness under jargon and hypocrisy.

This rant turned out longer than 100 words. Oops.

-Britt

This week, we learned about digital tools to make our projects better. Hooray! Of course, one thing about learning a tool is thinking critically about said tool, and that means you have to see both the negatives and the positives about it. One thing we consistently hit was that most of these tools were very Western-centric, right down to the code itself. We kept asking- how would someone else in a non-English speaking country use this? It requires English, and that means you obviously have to learn some of that to use it. That sucks if you don’t have access to a decent education system, and it basically continues to make access to digital scholarship a lot harder than it should be for poorer countries. Once again, we need to reflect on our privilege as Americans that we can afford to be taught the coding and have it be in our native language, and then walk upstairs and pick up a decent paycheck for learning that.

We also discussed how even maps tend to have an agenda. I pointed out that there’s no perfect way to draw a real map since you can’t flatten a globe without distorting it- it’s geometrically impossible. Really, each map has its own purpose, and it depends on what you need to use it for. There’s no such thing as an unbiased source, no matter how hard you try to be one or look for it. However, you can think and admit that the source has drawbacks, and try to compensate for it with a source that builds on those drawbacks to balance it out. It takes time and additional research, but I’m in a cohort of six strong, intelligent women. I think we can do it.

-Britt

song title reference

One of the themes we’ve consistently been discussing is the idea of a Community of Practice when it comes to digital humanities and scholarship. I guess one thing about moving scholarship to the internet means that there is definitely room for more people to come in and engage with us and our projects.  That can be both a good thing and a bad thing- we open ourselves up for internet trolls and criticism, feedback we may not agree with, and more- but it also means that we can ask other digital scholars about problems we may encounter and discuss our experiences so people can learn from them.

Where do I see myself in this? Well, fun fact, I like to give hot takes about issues I have with things. Complaining is part of my modus operandi, but when you give me a chance to sit and lay out my thoughts via text (much like a blog post!), I can make it sound pretty. Also, I believe that criticizing things when you’re still learning about it advocates for fixing problems that held you back when you were still climbing the learning curve. I also find that new eyes who see a problem often can see a solution, while people who are in the middle of it are too jaded to see the solution. Don’t underestimate amateurs- they often see things you don’t. Julia commented at the PALa that even the pros learn along with us. If we break something, everyone learns how to fix it together. That’s what makes it fun!

I don’t know if I made any connections outside of Gettysburg or really in Gettysburg either. We’ll find out as things go on, mainly because I’m fully aware I’m super unobservant. I did get some Twitter followers though, but how much they care about my politics and shitposts- which might warrant an unfollow (and honestly I can’t blame them)? Good question.

R.C. mentioned during the workshop that we need to be comfortable with our online persona, but the people who follow an undergrad’s account know by now what they’re getting into. I’m comfortable with my online persona- I like my snark and memes, and I feel much more confident in that online persona like most people hiding behind a screen do. While it does reflect my internal monologue sometimes, I like to think I make some decent points once in a while. I like discussion about this as well, and discussion does head down the path of generic internet discourse complete with insult hurling. Look at political scientist Ian Bremmer’s twitter. He has this tweet pinned:

If you're not following some people you dislike, you're doing it wrong.

I'm happy to help.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) November 24, 2016

I’ve read his book and I don’t necessarily agree with all points he makes, but I think discussion and debate can reach conclusions about problems (digital scholarship falls under that point) even though we’ve never met. I followed people on Twitter (and got followers back) from the PALa workshop, and I didn’t interact with them at all. I haven’t engaged in any discussion yet, but I’m sure I’ll find some reason to do that.

Side note: I also have a super diverse audience who came looking for different things- some want politics, others want memes, a few want indie music commentary, many are just my friends and internet friends. That’s okay, but that kinda explains why I jump around a lot. That may not be for everyone, but it’s easier than jumping on four different accounts. As if I don’t do that enough:

Now that that tangent is over, back to the criticism part I mentioned earlier- I met with Professor Egan (someone who’s helped me greatly with the art part of my project) and she commented on how a previous digital project from last year regarding art and art history was met with criticism despite her hard work to make it accurate. I responded to that comment by saying that criticism isn’t from ill intentions or designed to make you feel bad- the best you can do is learn from it, fix it if it’s merited, or engage in discussions to see if you can meet at least a compromise. I think this is mainly because different people have different learning experiences, and again, digital scholarship provides a platform to reach those compromises a lot faster than they used to be.

Good lord I went overboard on this post.  Sorry for the rambling.

-Britt

Project Name: Enjoyment of Life: A Look at Culture through Les Maîtres de l’Affiche

(title taken from “joie de vivre”)

Project Owner: Brittany Russell

Project Summary:

            My project will be an interactive analysis of twelve lithographs from Les Maîtres des l’Affiche poster collection using the collection we have in special collections. Each lithograph’s page will have a brief description of the poster and what it was for, a translation of it (if necessary) into English, any history or relevant information to the poster like influences and reference images, and notes about the artist. I would also like to put where the lithographs came from on a map and maybe put some of the information described above on a map instead. My audience will be art historians and people interested in the Belle Époque, but I want it to be more approachable and interesting to the general public as well. If it’s out there on the internet where anyone can access it, it is better to have it be easily understandable.

Deliverables:

• Twelve lithographs from Special Collections
• Secondary sources
• StoryMapJS
• WordPress or Scalar

Timeline:

• Week 2:
  • Visit lithographs in special collections
    • Note questions
    • Note observations about the pieces
  • Gather sources
• Week 3:
  • Research- Gres Emile Muller poster
    • Try to at least finish one lithograph
    • Finish meaning
      • Notations- culture, color, translations, meaning etc.
      • History
      • Artist bio
    • Week 4:
      • Research- Barcelona poster
    • Week 5:
      • Research- Gigolette poster
        • Try to have completed three lithographs by now
      • Week 6:
        • Research- Incandescenza
          • Can you sneak in another lithograph here? We’ll find out!
        • Week 7:
          • Cut research
          • Site building
        • Week 8:
          • Cleanup/editing
          • Site building
        • Week 9:
          • Cleanup/editing
          • Site building
        • Week 10:
          • Touch ups
          • Final Presentation

End of Life/Future Plans:

I would like to possibly continue this project and finish the lithograph collection at the very least. These are incredibly beautiful pieces, and from what I’ve read they’re little researched and not very talked about. Some of the sources about posters I’ve grabbed have only offhandedly mentioned Les Maitres de l’Affiche and did not actually provide any elaboration on them. Once the collection is finished I might expand it to other pieces, but since they’re their own collection I might just cut it there and tweak it in the future

Hi everyone! My name is Brittany Russell and I am a rising junior and political science major and Middle Eastern studies minor at Gettysburg College. I am the music director at Gettysburg College’s radio station, 91.1FM WZBT, and it may surprise you that I’m working with art this summer.  My project analyzes twelve lithographs from Les Maitres de l’Affiche collection from the 1890s, and are currently in Gettysburg’s Special Collections, tracking their journey to Gettysburg and the inspiration. I’m thrilled for the opportunity to be here, and I’m excited to learn more about digital humanities and scholarship!

Digital Humanities is an extremely tough thing to define. Every digital scholar has their own unique definition, and I can assure you that my definition is likely going to be different from those in my cohort and even the senior fellows. I define digital scholarship and humanities as:

the practice of engaging with the scholarly community to collaborate and learn more information to create better, more engaging, and more approachable projects for the education and archival of all.

Even then, that probably doesn’t cover everything involved, and that’s a pretty broad definition. So, let’s break it down:

• the practice of engaging with the scholarly community: What I mean here is that there are no boundaries on the internet, and that makes it superbly easy to engage with other scholars via Twitter, Slack, and more. I can ask questions to other people who have a better idea of what they’re doing, and share my story with other amateur scholars so they can learn from the mistakes I make along the way. That’s the real treasure.
• collaborate and learn more information: Again, I can ask questions about my project and my research from people who are usually too up in the ivory tower to be truly approachable. It levels the playing field in the interest of making sure that knowledge is accurate and shared with all.
• to create better, more engaging, and more approachable projects: The primary goal of scholarship is to learn. One thing that scholarship gets critiqued for is that scholars are too busy being those darned liberal elites to be approachable and engage with others to share their knowledge. Since our projects will be on the internet, anyone can look at them (even Donald Trump or David Hasselhoff). Our projects are meant to share what we’ve learned during our ten weeks here, and that means that they can’t be sloppy, inaccurate, or too complicated to use and process that information.
• for the education and archival of all: Welcome to the internet, where someone somewhere has an archive or screenshot of your website and nothing ever gets deleted. Therefore, people can always learn from your website, but it can also save and archive information that may be disappearing. For example, Laurie Allen at the Pennsylvania Library Association Digital Humanities workshop discussed how she’s working to preserve climate change data and make it still accessible despite those at the top trying to delete it and deny that climate change is real. That’s a separate issue, but her work is important to maintain that learning experience for the world to use and still fight climate change. As far humanities goes, I’m going to use the example of digitization projects that preserve high quality scans of documents, artwork, and more. While that is absolutely not a substitute for keeping the actual piece being digitized as well preserved as possible, it still makes a piece more accessible to the general public so they can learn from it too.

I may have more to add to this at the end of ten weeks. We’ll find out together, shall we?