The forensic imagination: interdisciplinary approaches to tracing creativity in writers’ born-digital archives
The forensic imagination: interdisciplinary approaches to tracing creativity in writers’ born-digital archives
复制标题
法医想象力：在作家天生的数字档案中追踪创造力的跨学科方法
DOI：
10.1080/01576895.2019.1608837
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
J. Mann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Gooding;Jose Smith;J. Mann
摘要2013年，Matthew Kirschenbaum倡导加强数字档案管理员和数字人文专家之间的合作，以充分利用数字档案。从那时起，研究人员和档案管理员已经尝试了创新的接口，以访问作家的档案，从个人的研究文化和实践中出现。与此同时，东英吉利大学（UEA）的英国当代写作档案馆（BACW）等档案馆开始收集以创造性数字方式工作的作者的作品。因此，本文将探讨以下问题：如何可能档案工作者，作者和研究人员进行有益的合作，以探索创造性的本质，在数字档案，使数字保存和数字奖学金发生？在这样做的时候，作者期待遗传学批评和数字人文学科的互补领域，以告知档案工具的发展作为“解释学工具”。他们将探讨如何使这些工具可以让我们跨档案层水平阅读，建立在“可能的审美”，以开发一个“jouer avec les fonds”，通过研究人员，档案管理员和作家之间的合作支持。最后，作者考虑了这种方法如何挑战档案实践，并提出了可能解决档案实践和新兴学术形式的合作形式。
ABSTRACT In 2013, Matthew Kirschenbaum advocated for increased collaboration between digital archivists and digital humanities specialists to make the most out of born-digital archives. Since then, researchers and archivists have experimented with innovative interfaces for access to writer’s archives that emerge from individual research cultures and practices. Simultaneously, archives such as the British Archive for Contemporary Writing (BACW) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are beginning to collect the work of authors who work in inventive digital ways. This article will therefore explore the following question: how might archivists, authors and researchers profitably collaborate to explore the nature of creativity in the born-digital archive, so that both digital preservation and digital scholarship take place? In doing so, the authors look to the complementary fields of genetic criticism and digital humanities to inform the development of archival tools as ‘hermeneutical instruments’. They will explore how such instruments might allow us to read horizontally across archival strata, building on an ‘esthetic of the possible’ to develop a ‘jouer avec les fonds’, supported through collaboration between researchers, archivists and writers. Finally, the authors consider how this approach challenges archival practices, and propose forms of collaboration that might address both archival practice and emerging forms of scholarship.