[Humanist] 29.49 pubs: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30.2; creativity cfp

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Thu May 21 07:56:36 CEST 2015


                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 29, No. 49.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Stanislav Roudavski <srou at unimelb.edu.au>                 (57)
        Subject: Post-Anthropocentric Creativity (Call for Submissions)

  [2]   From:    "oxfordjournals-mailer at alerts.stanford.edu"               (58)
        Subject: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30.2


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 05:02:49 +0000
        From: Stanislav Roudavski <srou at unimelb.edu.au>
        Subject: Post-Anthropocentric Creativity (Call for Submissions)


Just to let you know that the deadline for this has been moved to 22nd May
2015. Last reminder and chance to submit.

POST-ANTHROPOCENTRIC CREATIVITY 
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS, 
SPECIAL ISSUE OF DIGITAL CREATIVITY, 27:1, 1/2016

GUEST EDITORS 
Stanislav Roudavski and Jon McCormack

THEME

This special issue aims to audit existing conceptions of creativity in the
light of non-anthropocentric interpretations of agency, autonomy,
subjectivity, social practices and technologies. A review and update of
these conceptions is prudent in the age when human creativity is credited as
the dominant, yet hugely destructive, influence on the planetary
environment.

The conceptual componentry of creativity is in redesign on many shop floors
including those of new materialism (Barrett and Bolt, eds, 2013; Coole and
Frost, eds, 2010), speculative realism and object-oriented philosophy
(Bryant, et al., eds, 2011), posthumanism (Callus and Herbrechter, 2012),
ontological designing (Fry, 2012), biology (Turner, 2000), science and
technology studies (Knorr-Cetina, 1999), multispecies ethnography (Kirksey
and Helmreich, 2010), deep ecology (Sessions, ed., 1995),
post-environmentalism (Shellenberger and Nordhaus, eds, 2011) and ecosystem
approaches (Waltner-Toews, et al., eds, 2008), to name but a few.

In response, the editors propose two lines of enquiry, aiming to engage and
extend the relevant work that already exists in a variety of disciplines:

The first will consider the agents , recipients and processes of creativity.
With current developments emphasizing the interdependence between human and
biophysical systems, nonhuman entities can be seen as creative agents. How
do such agents differ from the recipients of their creativity? Posthumanism
questioned understandings of humanity but largely continued the focus on
human invention, human freedom and human self-construction through
technology. Can matter, things, nonhuman organisms, technologies, tools and
machines, biota or institutions be seen as creative? Turning from agents to
relationships and processes, are the concepts of embodied or autonomous
agency necessary for thinking about creativity? How can existing notions of
creativity be extended or challenged through the developing understandings
of complexity, emergence, supervenience, evolution and ecosystems?

With the notion of creative agency made more inclusive, the second line of
enquiry will consider the purpose , value , ethics and politics of
creativity. The concept of creativity implies production of desirable
novelty. But is production of novelty always of value? In a finite world,
the creation of the new often comes with the destruction of the old. Should
creativity be judged by the equity of its goals (cf. net-zero or
regenerative creativity)? Can the ethics of creativity be dened through
the characteristics of its processes (cf. slow creativity or resource
recycling)?

Should current power relationships be reshaped (e.g., from mastery over
nature to deep listening and from creativity to stewardship)? Answers to
these ques -tions are interesting because they can challenge established
worldviews by interrogating freedoms, rights, voices, subjectivities and the
imaginations of all stakeholders, human or otherwise.Returning to the remit
of the journal, how can these lines of enquiry illuminate, benefit from,
expand, reinterpret or challenge existing and forthcoming phenomena of
computation or – in other words – of “digital creativity”?

[..]

For more see:
https://www.academia.edu/10836691/Post-Anthropocentric_Creativity



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:53:08 +0000
        From: "oxfordjournals-mailer at alerts.stanford.edu"
        Subject: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30.2


Digital Scholarship in the Humanities is the new name for LLC. 

Read The Journal is dead, long live The Journal! by Editor-in-Chief Edward 
Vanhoutte to find out more.
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/6309/1

********** 

Digital Scholarship in the Humanities Table of Contents Alert
Vol. 30, No. 2
June 2015
http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2?etoc

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Original Articles
-----------------------------------------------------------------

  Towards human linguistic machine translation evaluation
  Marta R. Costa-jussà and Mireia Farrús
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 157-166
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/157.abstract?etoc

  Does size matter? Authorship attribution, small samples, big problem
  Maciej Eder
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 167-182
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/167.abstract?etoc

  Assessing and measuring impact of a digital collection in the humanities:
  An analysis of the SPHERE (Stormont Parliamentary Hansards: Embedded in 
  Research and Education) Project
  Lorna M. Hughes, Paul S. Ell, Gareth A. G. Knight, and Milena Dobreva
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 183-198
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/183.abstract?etoc

  Collaborative authorship in the twelfth century: A stylometric study of 
  Hildegard of Bingen and Guibert of Gembloux
  Mike Kestemont, Sara Moens, and Jeroen Deploige
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 199-224
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/199.abstract?etoc

  Extracting structured data from publications in the Art Conservation 
  Domain
  Suleiman Odat, Tudor Groza, and Jane Hunter
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 225-245
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/225.abstract?etoc

  Comparative evaluation of term selection functions for authorship 
  attribution
  Jacques Savoy
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 246-261
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/246.abstract?etoc

  Exploring entity recognition and disambiguation for cultural heritage 
  collections
  Seth van Hooland, Max De Wilde, Ruben Verborgh, Thomas Steiner, and Rik 
  Van de Walle
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 262-279
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/262.abstract?etoc

  Method as tautology in the digital humanities
  David-Antoine Williams
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 280-293
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/280.abstract?etoc

  Relational data modelling of textual corpora: The Skaldic Project and its
  extensions
  Tarrin Wills
  Digital Scholarship Humanities 2015 30: 294-313
  http://dsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/294.abstract?etoc








More information about the Humanist mailing list