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 I’m encountering some issues with outdated technology since many of my pictures are on my old digital camera that i received in 2005.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 These issues that I have encountered made me think about how technology becomes outdated so quickly.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.