Sometimes we should just not care so much.
In a previous post I discussed one of the informal mottoes for my digital history course - it's better to fail in order to learn. The class has divided into 4 smaller groups and in April we plan on putting forth an "exhibit" under the ambiguous title, the Sky.
In my sub-group, we'll be assembling a presentation on comets in history. We've broken it down into four place-specific events: the Jesuits' portents in New France, 1618 and James I, the theorized impact in the age of the dinosaurs, and past interpretations of Halley's Comet. For our presentation, we've decided to create an interface with a globe. Each place-specific comet sighting etc. will have a corresponding touch-point on the globe which will activate a Google Earth display on an accompanying monitor. The display will contain images and text to describe the event specific to the location chosen by the viewer. Professor Turkel has done the leg-work for assembling the hardware that will connect the interactive globe to the computer and explains it here.
For myself, this exhibit is an opportunity to play around with, and develop something that is both new and challenging. Trying to understand what Professor Turkel has done may be out of my league, but learning to develop material for presentation in the xml-Keyhole Markup Format that Google Earth uses will be both new and challenging. But that's the point. This is a chance to work with something new, possibly fail at it, and still pass the course. Traditional forms of presentation in public history still hold merit, but we're familiar with them. This is a chance to experiment with new media to present history. Sure, there will be sound historical content, maybe even a thesis or historical question, but more importantly, not only our audience, but us the creators, will see and work with something new that holds a wealth of potential in our future as public historians. If it ends up looking like a science fair, so be it, that's kind of what it is. If someone asks what we're doing, unable to see a coherent link between the various histories being presented, we'll simply tell them what it is we're doing - learning/experimenting/presenting new ways of interactive history. It's not really about the sky - that just happens to be the historical element that was agreed upon in class - it's about the digital.
Why the quotations around exhibit in the opening paragraph? Well, in my opinion, this isn't an exhibit; calling it such is problematic. We are presenting disjointed histories. By calling it an exhibit, we succumb to a desire to create cohesion, maybe a statement, but this is too narrow for our purposes. We are experimenting. For all intents and purposes, this is a presentation on digital history, not a thesis about the sky and history.
So I say, lose the inhibitions, try something new and be less concerned with the history and more with the medium. Besides, if all else fails, we can slap up some text panels and photos of our wonderful attempt at trying to present history off the beaten path.
6 comments:
Hi Aaron,
Interesting blog!
One thing though, if this is, "a presentation on digital history, not a thesis about the sky and history," why did we need a theme at all?
Just a thought.
I agree, that we need some sort of history to present, but I was never a proponent of the overarching theme. It would have been all the same to me if each group had done something completely different. The content is incidental in this instance.
Well said, Aaron!
I have echoed much of what you have said on my blog, although I am not sure I am as completely against an overall theme as I think you may be.
My hesitation was more that by forcing people to conform to a certain "thesis", it may prevent the kind of experimentation you and I both think is the most important part of this whole "exhibit". I am not sure, however, that once everyone has a clearer idea of what they will be doing, that a specific theme will not become apparent, or if it might become obvious if a little bit of tweeking is applied to the projects.
The worst case scenario that could occur from exploring a central theme, as I see it, is that people will simply be forced to think more deeply about their projects. The best case is that every group's project will fit together and be all the more satisfying.
I like the sounds of that, Patrick.
I'm not against an overall theme, and if it comes together like that, more power to the presentation. I just don't think it should be a priority nor something we need fret over at this point.
"The content is incidental in this instance". Really? Aren't we historians first and foremost?
Sure, and that's why it's safe to assume we'll all present sound historical research. The history is a given, it is the digital manifestation which is priority, to reiterate.
Post a Comment