Digital History (and cats).

I have finally uploaded a bunch a stuff to my collection on Omeka. Most of the items that I have added concern the Civil War monument in Derby, Vermont. The items that I uploaded are mostly pictures, except for two newspaper articles. Throughout the next few days, I hope to add more items concerning other monuments. In addition, I need to scan some newspaper articles and pictures. I’m encountering some issues with outdated technology since many of my pictures are on my old digital camera that i received in 2005. The memory card from that camera does not fit into the card reader on my new computer and I cannot find a USB cord that fits into my old camera. My plan to deal with this dilemma is to go to a photo printer at a store and print the pictures out and then scan them into my computer. Hopefully this process will work. These issues that I have encountered made me think about how technology becomes outdated so quickly. How can historians successfully do history using digital techniques when technologies become incompatible? It seems like this is a major issues within digital history that is very difficult to address. How can historians develop digital history methods that do not rely on specific hardware? Is this even possible?

In this Time magazine article, Claudia Himmelreich reports on the methods being used to piece together over 600 million pieces of hand torn records of the East Germany Ministry for State Security (the Stasi). These records were destroyed in 1989 after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1991, 45 civil servants worked to piece the torn documents back together. They were able to reassemble over 90,ooo document, but they had only had gotten through 350 garage bags of documents, out of 16,000 bags.

But now, using technology called the e-Puzzler, scientists in Berlin hope to be able to piece together the rest of the documents. The technology uses a pattern recognition program. Here is how the author describes the process: “a computerized conveyor belt feeds up to 10,000 shreds of paper through a digital scanner. The e-Puzzler software then clusters the shreds according to search attributes like color, texture, typeface and outline — much like a person might start to piece together a puzzle. After processing the information, the machine displays a digital image of the reconstructed document on a screen.” Although the machine does not analyze the information in the documents, it makes it possible for historians in the present and future to study the documents. These records hold a substantial amount of information about both the organization and those that were targeted. Himmelreich writes that “almost two decades after German reunification, hardly a month goes by without a lawmaker, sports coach or newspaper editor being identified as a former Stasi spy. The information revealed in those reconstructed files could end careers, or allow people suspected of having spied to finally prove their innocence.” These documents can help Germany deal with the issues still surrounding it immediate past and hopefully help people understand their own pasts and give meaning to it.

New digital technologies like the e-Puzzler show what is possible within digital history today. Although these documents were essentially destroyed, there is still a way to piece them together to reveal what they hold. It must be remembered though that these are only pieces of paper with information on them. There still is the need for historians to analyze and interpret the broader historical meaning. It might take a few generations, however, before a sense of objectivity can be gain. For many people, the information in the documents has a personal connection to their lives.

This does provide an example, though, of how digital technologies make previous inaccessible information more accessible. It also shows how the past, present and future are all connected. The e-Puzzler is revealing history as well as making history, and in the future these documents could be used professional historians to tell a complicated and interesting part of the history of Germany and the world.

Flickr is used by many people to upload their pictures so that they can share them with people throughout the world. In addition, the site includes a part called “The Commons” where users can tag photographs from different collections like the Library of Congress and the National Media Museum. Another portion of the site is the “Creative Commons” where images are open to use to the public, although some limitations do apply to certain pictures. Flickr provides a good example of “born digital” material. Many of the images uploaded by users probably are never produced in a physical form, but directly moved from the digital camera memory card to the computer.

It seems that one issue with born digital materials and internet archives is longevity because nothing exists in a physical form. Why are some people more hesitant to embrace digital research and works while others view it as a way to improve and democratize scholarship? Are they afraid of change? Or, is it the quickness of the change that is so alarming to some? For example, in Digital History, Dan Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig provide different methods and advice for those interesting in undertaking digital research and scholarship. The book was published in 2006. Many of the examples they use of programs, like software editor or sites, such as Livejournal are out of date. Sites like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter are extremely popular at the moment. Within four years, many of the authors examples are outdated. How does this rapid change influence people’s ideas and views towards digital research and scholarship?

The Tate Online is an example of how a museum can use digital resources to provide greater access to their collections, in addition to a range of digital creations like podcasts and videos. In my study of the Tate’s site, I focused on the Works in Focus section with specific attention to Millais’ Ophelia. The in-depth analysis of the painting is divided into different sections: introduction, working pratice, materials and technique, conservation and technique, Ophelia’s travels, subject and meaning, J.E. Millais, and a quiz. Each subheading provides greater information on the work through the use of primary sources and the knowledge of art conservators. The creators of this online work place the painting in a historical context and show how there is substanial information in both the seen and unseen. For example,the section, Back of the Painting examines how the back of the canvas  provides a history of the work from the canvas shop to the different museums that held the work at one time or another. All the information the different sections provided shows the importance of the work as well as created an interest (for me)  to see the actual physical painting.

In “Visual Velcro: Hooking the Visitor” Peter Samis argues the purpose of interpretation is “to give cognitive hooks to the hookless” to grab and hold the attention of visitors. In addition, he argues that the more you know and understand about a certain work, the more you can learn. Through my exploration of the Tate’s site on Ophelia, I learned a substantial amount of information about the multiple sides of a work of art: the artist, the model, the critics, and the conservators. Although the site is very informative, it does take a good deal of time to read each section and subsection. The writing, however, is very accessible to a general audience even with a limited knowledge of art and conservation techniques. The question that this study raises is how can this information be successfully transmitted to those who are physically viewing the work in the museum? It seems an issue with art is that many people who view the works forget that they were products of a specific time period and  reflect historical trends. By separating the works from the historical context, people can lose a way to connect the work to its broader meaning. Maybe if works of art were placed in a historical context, like Ophelia, museum visitors will have a greater connection to the art and view it in a different way that expands their understanding of the world.

Manipulation of photos is not a new phenomenon. In “Can Photos be Trusted?”, Steve Casimiro provides examples of photo manipulation from the 1870s when spirit photographs were all the rage. In addition, in “Photo Tampering Throughout History,” Hany Farid (who many of the readings cite as an expert on discovering changes in photographs) lists many historical examples of photographs that were changed through different methods. One interesting photo he examines is a famous picture of Abraham Lincoln which is a composite of Lincoln’s head on the body of John C. Calhoun. What this shows is that photo doctoring is not new, but what has changed is the methods that are used. In today’s world, photographs are changed through digital programs like Photoshop. So what does this mean for historians?

Photographs must be analyzed critically, similar to any other sources a historian uses. People understand that pictures can and are easily altered in today’s world. For example, magazines consistently photoshop their cover pictures of celebrities. Rather than worry about the problems of digital changes in photographs, I think historians in the future might ask why these photos were altered. What was the message that the person who manipulated the photo was trying to convey? How do these photos reflect the state and issues of society during a certain time? Why are pictures so heavily manipulated in some print mediums (i.e. magazines like GQ or Redbook?) versus The New York Times? Instead of looking at these photos as a problem for future historians, maybe we should look at them as a interesting source that shines light on ideas about concepts of beauty, diversity, race, and politics in the world today.

Here is an example of the use of digital manipulation that uses cats and is hilarious.

The Civil War is a topic that interests a wide variety of people including those both in and out of the academic realm. Because of this wide interest, this exhibit is designed for those who are educated and intelligent, but not necessarily in an academic or scholarly realm.
The monuments dedicated to the soldiers who fought in the Civil War provide a different angle to studying the impact of the war. Monuments and ceremonies are symbols that represent the direct losses of the war, especially the loss of family and community members. According to John Bodnar, Civil War commemoration can be viewed in the terms of a “cult of sacrifice” that expressed either “the grief and sorrow” over the deaths of loved ones or as an “act of loyalty or a contribution to the salvation of the nation.”* A selected number of Vermont Civil War monuments between the years of 1866 and 1913 will be analyzed through the themes of grief and sorrow or triumph and celebration.
The focus on Vermont Civil War monuments is because I have already done extensive research on the topic. By using previous research, however, I will be able to see the challenges and rewards of converting work into a digital format. The idea for an exhibit and archive on the monuments in Vermont was inspired by the Connecticut Historical Society’s website on Connecticut Civil War monuments which provides information on almost every monument in the state.# The content on the site began as an article in the Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin.** The pages of the CHS site replicated the article published in the Bulletin. Rather than replicate my previous work, I want to use the research to tell a story of change in the monuments and dedication ceremonies by focusing on specific monuments.
The exhibit will focus on eight monuments from 1866 to 1913 that each express a different idea about remembrance and commemoration. Pictures of the monuments and excerpts from dedication speeches will be used to illustrate the ideas of grief and sorrow or triumph and celebration. In addition, links to similar monuments from different places will be used to lend support to the final conclusions. The archive will contain the full speeches, pictures, newspaper articles about the events, and other mementos, like dedication ceremony programs.
The one major skill that I will need to learn to successfully complete this project is how to scan images and text. Although I will try to find sources that have been digitized already, I will have to digitize some that I have in my collection. In addition, I will need to learn how to express ideas and concepts without using a large amount of textual analysis. The images and quotes need to express the ideas and conclusions, rather than my  written analysis.
This project will provide insight on how to use previous research in the creation of a digital work. The final project will contribute general information about Vermont Civil War monuments as well as show how the ideas surrounding commemoration evolved throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. By incorporating the ideas about digital scholarship into my work, I will be able to create an engaging and informative online resource about Vermont Civil War monuments.

# John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992),  28.
* See www.chs.org/ransom.default.htm.
** See David Ransom, “Civil War Monuments,” Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin 58 and 59, (1993-1994).

Note: For some reason, numerical footnotes are not copied correctly from Word into the blog editor, hence the use of hash marks (#) and asterisks (*).

In chapters 2 and 4 of Digital History, Dan Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig provided information on the steps needed to create a functional and accessible historical website. The authors gave many examples of different programs that could be used to create a website and accompanying audio and visual materials, in addition to servers to host the site. A problem, however, is that many of these programs and services are neither free nor inexpensive. Some programs, like Macromedia’s Dreamweaver, are hundreds are dollars (58). Other programs are more affordable, such as EditPlus, which is under forty dollars (59).  In addition, servers cost money. The authors do mention some free servers, however, these providers “surround your material with advertisements” (68). It seems that to efficiently do digital work, people need some computer skills and/or access to specific programs that cost money. There is a contrast between the accessibility of historical websites and the ability of scholars and others to actually produce a website. Although these sites can bring new ideas and information to the public for free, the creation of the website and the continued hosting cost money. Do scholars who produce digital work receive payment for their work, like they would a book? How does this influence scholars willingness to do work in a digital media?

Roy Rosenzweig “Scarcity or Abundeance? Preserving the Past” is a very interesting article because of the lack of certain content which reveals some problems with digital publishing. The author discussed a web site called Bert it Evil, in which Bert from Sesame Street was placed in photos with “villains” like Hitler and Osama bin Laden. In the article, where these pictures are suppose to be, there is a gray box that reads “this image is unavailable for electronic reproduction. Please see the printed issue to view.” What were the issues that influenced the exclusion of the images from the online publication versus the printed publication?  One of the major issues probably was copyright. Maybe the American Historical Review only received permission to published the pictures in the printed version and not the online version. In the article, Rosenzweig mentioned how the producers of Sesame Street “threatened legal action” against the owner of the Bert is Evil website which influenced the owner to delete the site. This incident could have influenced the use of the images in an online environment. The lack of images, for whatever reason, affects the work because the reader does not have the images to refer to when they are discussed. Although the internet has been around for a while now, issues concerning copyright are ongoing and evolving.