Often I participate in a list called Fibreculture with the occasional ‘gadfly’. The list’s participants are mostly from the fields of cultural studies and media studies as well as from the broader media arts and activist community.
Dear Fibreculture,
A point that I should make is that the first Humanities Computing archiving project was in 1949. The Humanities have been engaged in computing and archiving since the very first years of computing. Arguably humanities computing is the most important ‘new media’ field within the humanities.
But another point that I should make is that you first need to be able to recognise what is *significant* as well as being able to develop techniques to preserve significant cultural objects. What may be significant to you, may not be significant to broader communities. Historical significance is layered (and politicised) just like human society itself.
Innovation in applied computing techniques may be important to some communities ie. it is very important to the Universities of Technologies (where most of these innovations come from), but it may not be important to other Universities that are stronger in the Humanities or pure research (ie. Woollongong, Newcastle, Sydney and Melbourne). We live in a diverse country and historical significance is not a neutral term. Significance always has external reference points beyond the somewhat parochial declarations that we all bound to make on occassions.
For instance, this is an online digital version of the founding document of the National Library of Australia (Captain Cook’s diaries). Arguably Cook’s diaries are the most significant documents in the history of white settlement in Australia. This project is not only significant for its technical techniques of preservation and interpretation-online but also for its historical significance to the broader Australian Commonwealth. The project, known as the South Seas Project, was produced by the historian Paul Turnbull http://southseas.nla.gov.au/
And here is Lisa Gye’s work at Swinburne University: It is extraordinary sophisticated in technique, but not as significant in content. It is significant in innovation of technique to broad communities, but the content has limited significance beyond (And this is OK I think). http://halflives.adc.rmit.edu.au/
And take Adrian Miles’ work. It is informed and significant in technique to broad audiences but (and I am sure he would agree) it isn’t really that significant to others in terms of content (nor do video web logs have to be). http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/
And my own milkbar work. It is informed and significant in terms of technique to broad audience, but it is not that significant to those who live outside of Fitzroy or the inner cities www.milkbar.com.au
The point is that if you are attempting to argue that a work is significant in terms of technique alone then it has to be a pretty significant technological contribution. Technique accounts for a proportion of the *significance* of any cultural object, but it is usually only part of the overall significane. And not every cultural artefact is significant nor should it be.
Also see: “Significance:” A GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE OBJECTS AND COLLECTIONShttp://sector.amol.org.au/
publications_archive/museum_management/significance