[Humanist] 23.437 process/product

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Nov 16 09:06:30 CET 2009

                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 23, No. 437.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

        Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:51:15 +0100
        From: Øyvind Eide <oyvind.eide at iln.uio.no>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 23.432 process/product? models for tenure & promotion?
        In-Reply-To: <20091113104651.EA45B4197B at woodward.joyent.us>

Two comments, or observations, based on very broad, very simplified  
views on the history of the world.

One long-term:

 From oral cultures to written cultures, from written cultures to  
secondary orality (Ong). The first one verb/event oriented, the second  
one noun/thing oriented, the third one both?

And one short-term:

 From databases (in cultural heritage, as elsewhere) mainly concerned  
with things (collection databases representing objects and attributes  
of them) towards event-oriented modelling (e.g. CIDOC-CRM).

Kind regards,

Øyvind Eide
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Unit for Digital Documentation, University of Oslo

Den 13. nov.. 2009 kl. 11.46 skrev Humanist Discussion Group:

> -- 
> [1 
> ]------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:39:29 +0000
>        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>        Subject: process and product?
> I am wondering about when we think of process and when of product.  
> To take
> an extreme example, one can sit in a dry riverbed, looking at the  
> stones and
> plants, and imagine (see imaginatively) the rocks and boulders  
> there, as
> well as the trees, shrubs and darting lizards, all in motion at  
> various
> speeds. The way that the water over millennia has shaped the rocks  
> does
> help, of course. The shapes of the trees and grasses are traces of  
> motion
> which evoke kinaesthetic knowledge, if I may call it that. To take an
> example at the other extreme, we can speak of a very brief event,  
> such as a
> nuclear interaction, thanks to the noun "event" perhaps more than  
> anything
> else, as a product, a thing. But I am asking about the in-between.
> I am asking not idly but because the two ways of looking are for  
> computing
> very much in competition with each other, and how we consider them
> consequential for representing our work to ourselves and to others.  
> Do we
> associate what we do with things like bridges or processes like  
> dance or
> musical performance? For a number of reasons, I'd suppose, doing the  
> former
> is easier: things stick around, have a prominent "thud factor" (the  
> sound
> that the book makes when hitting the dean's desk). I'd also suppose  
> that
> associating our work with the latter, though risky, would push it in  
> all
> manner of interesting new-to-us (or perhaps just to me) directions.  
> It would
> also draw more attention than is often given to the psychological  
> moment, to
> the dynamics of what we clumsily call "interaction".
> If I may detain you for a moment longer -- I'd think that  
> programming as
> choreography or more generally as performance would be primarily  
> associated
> with making research tools like legos rather than research products  
> like
> whole applications. Which, of course, gets us back to John Unsworth's
> "primitives".
> Comments?
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty, Professor of Humanities Computing,
> King's College London: staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/

More information about the Humanist mailing list