Comments on: Curating addendum (ok… “webmapping vs. mapping”) http://moacir.com/donkeyhottie/2010/06/02/curating-addendum-ok-webmapping-vs-mapping/ Revolution! Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:48:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: m http://moacir.com/donkeyhottie/2010/06/02/curating-addendum-ok-webmapping-vs-mapping/comment-page-1/#comment-26916 m Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:54:29 +0000 http://www.1984produkts.com/donkeyhottie/?p=2052#comment-26916 I don't think Google Lit Trips needs to change anything. What you have been doing with it and my own research questions are are very different. What this post and the one before it are doing is trying to find some ground between using a digital approach to the humanities in what I've been calling a "curatorial" form and in an "analytical/argumentative" form. Problem is, they are not mutually exclusive, as arguments are embedded in/grow out of even curated projects. By "whipping boy," I just mean that I use Lit Trips and Gutenkarte in my dissertation as examples of precisely what I'm not doing. The tradition of the literary atlas is strong enough, even when enhanced/improved as in Lit Trips or HyperCities (which I address in the previous post), that I want to make clear for my readers that I'm not following in it. I'm trying to do something different, something for which "geospatial" is an entirely appropriate term. The comment about Steinbeck, finally, is not meant to be taken seriously. My dissertation is on US novels of the 1930s, so it will actually be useful for me to see how your site approaches work from that time. I don’t think Google Lit Trips needs to change anything. What you have been doing with it and my own research questions are are very different.

What this post and the one before it are doing is trying to find some ground between using a digital approach to the humanities in what I’ve been calling a “curatorial” form and in an “analytical/argumentative” form. Problem is, they are not mutually exclusive, as arguments are embedded in/grow out of even curated projects.

By “whipping boy,” I just mean that I use Lit Trips and Gutenkarte in my dissertation as examples of precisely what I’m not doing. The tradition of the literary atlas is strong enough, even when enhanced/improved as in Lit Trips or HyperCities (which I address in the previous post), that I want to make clear for my readers that I’m not following in it. I’m trying to do something different, something for which “geospatial” is an entirely appropriate term.

The comment about Steinbeck, finally, is not meant to be taken seriously. My dissertation is on US novels of the 1930s, so it will actually be useful for me to see how your site approaches work from that time.

]]> By: Jerome Burg http://moacir.com/donkeyhottie/2010/06/02/curating-addendum-ok-webmapping-vs-mapping/comment-page-1/#comment-26915 Jerome Burg Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:30:39 +0000 http://www.1984produkts.com/donkeyhottie/?p=2052#comment-26915 Well, I'm not entirely sure what to make of your references to my Google Lit Trips project. In fact, I really can't tell if this is a rant based upon your assumptions about what you think the Google Lit Trips project is about or a scholarly distinction that you're trying to make that merits serious consideration on my part. However, I must say that I've never used the term "geospatial" at all in reference to the project. I've always thought of the project as an extension of literary analysis and have considered those who simply see the project's purpose as blending geospatial awareness with literary appreciation to be taking the concept at too literal and overly-simplistic level. One distinction I make is that Google Earth is, at least as I try to integrate it, not a map in the traditional or even modern sense. It is an environment incorporating CGI terrain, altered "viewpoint" (tilted and reorienting the map away from the "N" default at the top to the view ahead from the characters' point of view). Many of the views are intentionally set to emphasize the surroundings/setting rather than the "geographical data." You may notice that the pop-up window content rarely has anything to do with geospatial data. Rather, the focus is more upon literary analysis, historical, social, cultural AND geographical extensions to the reading experience. I like to tell people that I'm hoping to create a 3-dimensionalization of the reading process. So, I'm not entirely certain whether the project should be "your whipping boy" in that it is not the intention of the project to be what you seem to be criticizing it for being. It's also a bit disconcerting to read the implication that the Google Lit Trips project might somehow be plagiarizing your other work. But, perhaps, I am misreading the implications of your comments. Well, I’m not entirely sure what to make of your references to my Google Lit Trips project. In fact, I really can’t tell if this is a rant based upon your assumptions about what you think the Google Lit Trips project is about or a scholarly distinction that you’re trying to make that merits serious consideration on my part. However, I must say that I’ve never used the term “geospatial” at all in reference to the project. I’ve always thought of the project as an extension of literary analysis and have considered those who simply see the project’s purpose as blending geospatial awareness with literary appreciation to be taking the concept at too literal and overly-simplistic level.
One distinction I make is that Google Earth is, at least as I try to integrate it, not a map in the traditional or even modern sense. It is an environment incorporating CGI terrain, altered “viewpoint” (tilted and reorienting the map away from the “N” default at the top to the view ahead from the characters’ point of view). Many of the views are intentionally set to emphasize the surroundings/setting rather than the “geographical data.” You may notice that the pop-up window content rarely has anything to do with geospatial data. Rather, the focus is more upon literary analysis, historical, social, cultural AND geographical extensions to the reading experience. I like to tell people that I’m hoping to create a 3-dimensionalization of the reading process.
So, I’m not entirely certain whether the project should be “your whipping boy” in that it is not the intention of the project to be what you seem to be criticizing it for being.
It’s also a bit disconcerting to read the implication that the Google Lit Trips project might somehow be plagiarizing your other work. But, perhaps, I am misreading the implications of your comments.

]]>