When sitting down to write my reflection on Module 1, I could not help but think of that iconic scene from the movie, Mean Girls. Lindsay Lohan saves the day and wins her math competition by declaring the answer “The limit does not exist.” I bring up this scene as I feel that this quote captures the possibilities of digital history. When it comes to digital history, as demonstrated by Drs. Otis, Seefeldt, Thomas, and Crymble, digital tools, mediums, and resources can be incorporated into the production of history from the photocopying and uploading of eighteenth-century documents to the incorporation of these materials into a virtual exhibition (Seefeldt & Thomas, 1-2; Crymble, 11-14, 161-165).
While Seefeldt, Thomas, and Crymble work to clearly define digital history, the potential of this field is enormous. Even when my lovely group was sitting in class coming up with our own unique definition of digital history, we honestly could have sat there all-night thinking and rethinking definitions as what digital history can accomplish seems limitless as conveyed through Crymble’s “fragments of the whole” model where we see all the impact of and the diverse, interdisciplinary cross-overs that take place in the field of digital history/humanities (Seefeldt & Thomas, 1-2; Crymble, 1-15, 161-170). But is digital history truly limitless? What exactly is the potential of digital history and what are some of its limits or in the words of Lindsay, does the limit not exist?
Think about how a project like digitizing an archive can save historical information from being lost forever and how through the power of technology this information can be dispersed to the whole world via the internet. Additionally, digital history even has the power to take learners back in time via virtual reality through something like The Great Experiment experience (https://www.su.edu/scil/projects/the-great-experiment/). Through tons of dedicated research, programming, and design, all we have to do is pop on a headset and step into late eighteenth century Philadelphia to watch the founders debate policy and procedures.
Looking at the big picture, digital history is truly a tool that can make learning and knowledge more accessible by providing a whole host of educational experiences just through something as simple as a Google Search (Seefeldt & Thomas 1-2; Crymble 1-15, 161-170). While I am a big proponent of digital history and believe its characteristics only benefit the profession of history, I cannot help but wonder what are we loosing if learners predominately experience history in a virtual or digital setting? Will this be the end of class field trips to Mount Vernon or the Smithsonian? Will students simply learn about the iconic brushwork of Seurat and Van Gogh just by staring at it on the screen or will schools give students the meaningful experience of being face-to-face with masterpieces?
Can the digital experience truly capture the exhilarating experience of flipping through historic manuscripts yourself? As scholars, don’t we lose something by not directly interacting with our primary sources and materials in person? Personally, I love nothing more than reading documents from the 1780s or visiting a gallery to closely encounter an artwork in person. One of the best experiences I had during my undergraduate research was interacting with historic materials. Being able to flip through the historic journals and books of the family I was studying honestly made me feel even more connected to them. Yet at the same time these items are falling apart (and smelled HORRIBLE. My allergies were insane in the archive). Additionally, getting access to these documents was difficult due to limited hours and the organizational system used to categorize these works was confusing. Most of my days in the archive were spent (sneezing and) trying to make sense of why documents were organized the way they were. This is where digital history could have saved me a lot of additional busy work if the archival collection was online.
While digital history is an incredibly effective tool for dispensing historical knowledge, there is something deeply profound and humanizing about seeing the work of a past person in the flesh. Wouldn’t it be more meaningful for you to stand where Pickett’s charge took place at the Battle of Gettysburg to appreciate the unhinged nature of this tactic? Can the iconic thick layering of paint characteristic of Van Gogh be conveyed digitally? When visiting the National Gallery of Art, I love nothing more than looking at Van Gogh’s works from their side to see how much paint the artist purposefully built up onto the canvas. Are you able to fully appreciate the scale, depth, and scientific precision of Seurat’s A Sunday on La Grande Jatte via the internet? (https://www.artic.edu/artworks/27992/a-sunday-on-la-grande-jatte-1884).
To quote Crymble, technology has transformed every aspect involved in historiography from “research, collection management, teaching, learning, and communicating” (165). Digital history can save historic material pieces, digital tools can make research more efficient and effective, digital tools like the internet can globalize the classroom learning experience and demonstrate that there’s so much to see, encounter, and experience out in the world. The world can be connected via a variety of technology, therefore making the cultivation, dispensing, and sharing of knowledge truly limitless. Therefore, Lindsay Lohan’s quote is an accurate description of digital history as while the potential effects of this field are positively limitless, digitization should never wholly replace the connections that can be made through real-time, in-person interactions with the multiple aspects of history (Seefeldt & Thomas 1-2; Crymble 1-15, 161-170).
Hey Ally, I really enjoyed your post! I loved the Mean Girls reference because it was such a fun and clever way to capture how limitless digital history can be in terms of topics, niches, and the broad spectrum it covers. I also appreciated how you connected the “fragments of the whole” model to what your group discussed in class on the first day since it tied things together really well.
I share the concern you raised about what might be lost if learners primarily experience history in a digital setting. “Will this mean the end of field trips to places like Mount Vernon or the Smithsonian? Will students only learn about the brushwork of Seurat and Van Gogh through a screen rather than face-to-face with the masterpieces? Can a digital experience really capture the feeling of flipping through historic manuscripts yourself?” Like you, I think this raises important questions about how much is lost when we do not directly interact with primary sources and materials in person.
In that sense, I agree with you that it feels like a double edged sword. Digital access can bring back things that might otherwise be lost, but there is still something irreplaceable about the connection we make when looking at a record physically. (My allergies also act up really bad when I’m going through records. Once I had a paper on Picasso and I ended up with a sore throat).
Great job!
Manuela 🙂
Hi Ally, I really enjoyed reading your post as it stimulated a great deal of thinking on my end. What particularly caught my attention was your discussion of the potential drawbacks to digital history and digitization. It was not something I had really considered. Perhaps like the historians Crymble talks about I was too busy looking forward to consider the potential drawbacks. I relate a lot to how you described the experience of handling primary sources, seeing influential art with your own eyes, or visiting a historic site or hallowed ground like Gettysburg. There is something about that which is lost in digitization. Benefits and drawbacks go hand in hand, and this conversation reminds me of that line from Jurassic Park (I am probably being extreme/dramatic here in comparison) “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
I agree with your conclusion in the end. The possibilities and potential for scholarship and learning with digital history are vast and exciting and we should embrace it. But, not without holding onto the beauty and power of physical place and objects.
I just want to say I love the mean girls reference. And I love how you were able to reference it to this class and the reading. And I agree that even though digital history is more accessible, there is nothing like experiencing a museum in person.