A Collaborative Approach to Urban Cultural Studies
INTERDISCIPLINARITY, URBAN CULTURAL STUDIES, AND THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
A. Gran Vía Madrid Project (including introductory video, syllabus, map interface)
[http://libguides.library.cofc.edu/omeka]
[http://studentomeka.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/granviamadrid]
[http://studentomeka.library.cofc.edu/neatline/show/granviamadrid]
B. DH, Multimedia Production, and Omeka How To Guides [http://libguides.library.cofc.edu/Omeka]
[http://libguides.library.cofc.edu/dh]
[http://libguides.library.cofc.edu/movies]
NOTES
1 Trudi Jacobson and Craig Gibson, “Info. Lit Competency Standards Revision Task Force Interim Report (June 2014),” ALA Connect, p. 3, Association of College and Research Libraries, http://connect.ala.org/node/223580.
2 Rich Stim, “Proposed Educational Guidelines on Fair Use,” Copyright & Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview.
3 Cathy Davidson, “Public Blogs and Video in the Classroom and FERPA Compli-ance,” Cathy Davidson’s Blog, Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alli-ance and Collaboratory (HASTAC), www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson.
4 Omeka, “Omeka: Serious Web Publishing,” Omeka, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media (CHMN), http://omeka.org/about.
5 Anthony Bushong and David Kim, “Omeka,” Intro to Digital Humanities: DH 101, UCLA Center for Digital Humanities, par. 1, http://dh101.humanities.ucla.edu.
6 Iman Salehian, “Neatline,” Intro to Digital Humanities: DH 101, UCLA Cen-ter for Digital Humanities, par. 3, http://dh101.humanities.ucla.edu.
7 Jacobson and Gibson, “Info. Lit Competency Standards,” 3.
8 Josh Honn, “Introduction,” A Guide to Digital Humanities, Center for Schol-arly Communication and Digital Curation, Northwestern University, http://
sites.northwestern.edu/guidetodh.
9 Charlie Edwards and Matthew K. Gold, “Welcome to the Academic Commons Wiki,” The CUNY Digital Humanities Resource Guide, CUNY Academic Com-mons, http://commons.gc.cuny.edu/wiki.
10 Gloria J. Leckie and Lisa M. Given, “Henri Lefebvre and Spatial Dialectics,”
in Critical Theory for Library and Information Science: Exploring the Social from Across the Disciplines, ed. G. J. Leckie, L. M. Given, and J. Buschman (Oxford: Libraries Unlimited, 2010): 221–36.
11 William M. Bowen, Ronnie A. Dunn, and David O. Kasdan, “What Is ‘Urban Studies’: Context, Internal Structure, and Content,” Journal of Urban Affairs 32, No. 2 (2010): 200.
12 See David Harvey, Rebel Cities (London; New York: Verso, 2012); Neil Smith, Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1984); Henri Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, 1970, trans.
Robert Bononno (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2003); Henri Lefebvre, “The Right to the City,” in Writings on Cities, ed. and trans. E.
Kofman and E. Lebas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996): 63–181; Benjamin Fraser, Henri Lefebvre and the Spanish Urban Experience: Reading the Mobile City (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 2011); Benjamin Fraser, “Toward a Philosophy of the Urban: Henri Lefebvre’s Uncomfortable Application of Bergsonism,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26, No.
2 (2008): 338–58; Marc James Léger, “Henri Lefebvre and the Moment of the Aesthetic,” in Marxism and the History of Art: From William Morris to the New Left, ed. Andrew Hemingway (London: Pluto Press, 2006): 143–60;
Lukasz Stanek, Henri Lefebvre on Space: Architecture, Urban Research, and the Production of Theory (Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 2011).
13 Benjamin Fraser, “Inaugural Editorial: Urban Cultural Studies—A Manifesto [Part One],” Journal of Urban Cultural Studies 1, No. 1 (2014): 3–17.
14 Raymond Williams, “The Future of Cultural Studies,” Politics of Modernism:
Against the New Conformists (London; New York: Verso, 2007): 151–62.
15 On important studies of urban culture that nonetheless largely avoid entan-glements with the humanities despite their engagement with culture, see Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift, Cities: Reimagining the Urban (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002); Ben Highmore, Cityscapes: Cultural Readings in the Material and Symbolic City (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); Christophe Lind-ner, Globalization, Violence, and the Visual Culture of Cities (London; New York: Routledge, 2009); Lewis Mumford, “What Is a City?” (1937), The City Reader, ed. Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 3rd ed. (London: Rout-ledge, 2005): 92–96; Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008); Rob Shields, Spatial Questions: Cultural Topologies and Social Spatialisation (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2013); Sharon Zukin, The Cultures of Cities (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995).
16 For example, see Johanna Drucker, SPECLAB: Digital Aesthetics and Proj-ects in Speculative Computing (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2009); Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence (New York; London: New York University Press, 2011); Jerome McGann, Radiant Textuality: Litera-ture after the World Wide Web (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001).
17 See, for example, David J. Bodenhamer, John Corrigan, and Trevor M. Harris, eds., The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Scholarship (Bloomington;
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2010); Stephen Daniels, Dydia DeLyser, J. Nicholas Entrikin, and Douglas Richardson, eds., Envisioning Landscapes, Making Worlds: Geography and the Humanities (London; New York: Rout-ledge, 2011); Michael Dear, Jim Ketchum, Sarah Luria, and Doug Richardson, eds., GeoHumanities: Art, History, Text at the Edge of Place (Abingdon, UK;
New York: Routledge, 2011); specifically Edward L. Ayers, “Turning Toward Place, Space, and Time,” in The Spatial Humanities, 1–13; Denis Cosgrove, “Pro-logue: Geography within the Humanities,” in Envisioning Landscapes, Making Worlds, xxii–xxv; Ian Gregory, “Exploiting Time and Space: A Challenge for GIS in the Digital Humanities,” in The Spatial Humanities, 58–75; Gary Lock, “Rep-resentations of Space and Place in the Humanities,” in The Spatial Humanities, 89–108; Sarah Luria, “Geotexts,” in GeoHumanities, 67–70; Sarah Luria, “Tho-reau’s Geopoetics,” in GeoHumanities, 67–70; Douglas Richardson, “Converging Worlds: Geography and the Humanities,” in Envisioning Landscapes, Making Worlds, xix–xxi; May Yuan, “Mapping Text,” in The Spatial Humanities, 109–23.
18 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence.
19 For an example of interdisciplinary collaboration that required larger-scale fund-ing and plannfund-ing, see Jolanda-Pieta van Arnhem, E. Moore Quinn, and Jerry Spiller, “Teaching Multimodal Ethnography with ‘New’ Media Technologies,”
in Proc. of the 14th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, ed. N. Callaos, K. Eshraghian, M. Imai, W. Lesso, and C. D. Zinn (Orlando, FL: International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, 2010): 242–
47, www.iiis.org/CDs2010/CD2010SCI/SCI_2010/PapersPdf/SA627MP.pdf.
20 See Edward Baker, Madrid Cosmopolita: La Gran Vía 1910–1936 (Madrid: Mar-cial Pons, 2009); Edward Baker and Malcolm Alan Compitello, eds., Madrid. de Fortunata a la M–40: Un Siglo de Cultura Urbana (Madrid: Alianza, 2003); Mal-colm Alan Compitello, “Del plan al diseño: El Día de la Bestia de Álex de la Iglesia y la Cultura de la Acumulación Flexible en el Madrid del Postcambio,” in Madrid.
de Fortunana a la M–40, 327–52; Susan Larson, Constructing and Resisting Modernity: Madrid 1900–1936 (Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana, 2011).
21 “About,” Critical Commons, University of Southern California (USC) Institute for Multimedia Literacy, www.criticalcommons.org/about-us.
22 Paolo Freire, Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare to Teach, trans. D. Macedo, D. Koike, and A. Oliveira (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998); Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. M. B. Ramos (New York: Continuum, 1970); bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress. Education as the Practice of Freedom (New York; London: Routledge, 1994); Hywel Row-land Dix, “The Pedagogy of Cultural Materialism: Paolo Freire and Raymond Williams,” in About Raymond Williams, ed. Monika Seidl, Roman Horak, and Lawrence Grossberg (London; New York: Routledge, 2010): 81–93.
23 “Framework for Information Literacy Appendices,” Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, par. 11, www.ala.org /acrl/standards/ilframework.
24 Leckie and Given, 234.
25 See Henri Lefebvre, “The Sociology of Marx,” trans. N. Guterman (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1982): 22–23; also Andy Merrifield, Metromarxism:
A Marxist Tale of the City (London; New York: Routledge, 2002); Andy Mer-rifield, Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction (London; New York: Routledge, 2006), xxxiii; and Fraser, Henri Lefebvre and the Spanish Urban Experience.
26 See Lefebvre, “The Right to the City,” 95–96; and Julie Thompson Klein, Humanities, Culture and Interdisciplinarity (Albany: State University of New York, 2005): 24.
27 See Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, 1970, 48–49, and particularly 53–55;
and Henri Lefebvre, The Explosion: Marxism and the French Upheaval (New York; London: The Monthly Review Press, 1969), 41.
28 Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, 1970, 50.
29 Ibid., 57. See also “Nor is it reasonable to assume that our understanding of the urban phenomenon, or urban space, could consist in a collection of objects—
economy, sociology, history, demography, psychology, or earth sciences, such as geology. The concept of a scientific object, although convenient and easy, is deliberately simplistic and may conceal another intention: a strategy of frag-mentation designed to promote a unitary and synthetic, and therefore author-itarian, model. An object is isolating, even if conceived as a system of relations and even if those relations are connected to other systems.” Ibid., 57.
30 Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, 1970, 50. In this publication Lefebvre refuses to reduce the urban phenomenon to being merely a system or a semiology. In Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, 1970, 46, he likewise states that the urban is indivisible into subfields due to its “enormity and complexity.”
31 Lefebvre, The Explosion, 156.
32 Ibid., 141.
33 Lefebvre, The Urban Revolution, 1970, 53; Lawrence Barth, “Revisited: Henri Lefebvre and the Urban Condition,” Daidalos 75 (2000): 23. As critic Law-rence Barth has underscored, “the return to Lefebvre is not in pursuit of spe-cific answers, but of his acute awareness of the complexity of problems.” The quotation continues: “One had looked to Lefebvre for a way of handling ques-tions, that is, for a method rather than an answer. In this way, the return to Lefebvre works like a test for the hypothesis that we are now subject to a new urban condition [. . .] How we read Lefebvre will shape the urban condition.”
34 See McGann, Radiant Textuality; Drucker, SPECLAB; Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence; Bodenhamer, Corrigan, and Harris, The Spatial Humanities;
Daniels et al., Envisioning Landscapes; and Dear et al., GeoHumanities.
35 Patrik Svensson, “Envisioning the Digital Humanities,” Digital Humani-ties Quarterly 6, No. 1 (2012), www.digitalhumaniHumani-ties.org/dhq/vol/6/1 /000112/000112.html. See also Anne Balsamo, “The Digital Humani-ties and Technocultural Innovation,” in Digital Media: Technological and Social Challenges of the Interactive World (Lanham, MD; Toronto; Plym-outh, UK: The Scarecrow Press, 2011): 213–25; David Perry, “The MLA, @ briancroxall, and the Non-Rise of the Digital Humanities,” AcademHack,
http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2010/the-mla-briancroxall -and-the-non-rise-of-the-digital-humanities.
36 Paul S. Rosenbloom, “Towards a Conceptual Framework for the Digital Humanities,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 6 No. 2 (2012), www.digital humanities.org/dhq/vol/6/2/000127/000127.html.
37 Helen J. Burgess and Jeanne Hamming, “New Media in the Academy: Labor and the Production of Knowledge in Scholarly Multimedia.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 5, No. 3 (2011), www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/3/000102 /000102.html.
38 Alvin Kernan, “Introduction,” What’s Happened to the Humanities? (Princ-eton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997): 3–13.
39 For the sake of simplicity and in order to appeal to a more generally readable audience, we will not discuss here the other (no-less) significant aspects of the class, those relating more specifically to language acquisition, such as classroom activities and student individual and group presentations. As with the other course components, however, such course components also express the unique fusion of multiple competencies (linguistic, cultural, analytical, and digital).
40 Regarding the former, see, for example, Stuart Aitken and Leo Zonn, eds., Place, Power, Situation, and Spectacle: A Geography of Film (Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 1994); David B. Clarke, ed., The Cinematic City (New York: Routledge, 1997); Tim Cresswell and Deborah Dixon, eds., Engaging Film: Geographies of Mobility and Identity (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Lit-tlefield, 2002); and Andrew Webber and Emma Wilson, Cities in Transition:
The Moving Image and the Modern Metropolis (New York; London: Wall-flower Press, 2008).
179