This openness, an outgrowth of the iterative and (almost) infinitely mutable and expansive nature of digital media, stands in contrast to inherited notions of “writing” or “picture-making” or “printing”—all of which are stabilizing practices with slow refresh rates.
Burdick et al. “One: From Humanities to Digital Humanities,” in Digital_Humanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012), 15.
Though this quote (and the section it came from) refers to the enhanced stability of non-digital scholarly works, I believe it also touches upon the differing speeds and changeableness of physical and digital pieces. This idea around the mutability, increased output, and constant remixing of information in a digital ecosystem instills me with both a hopeful and skeptical reaction. Remix culture and the accelerated output of new creations (artistic, scientific, and inter-cultural creations more specifically) allow for a greater connection and joy to be shared among more people than any other time before the previous decade. The speed at which information flows in the digital space has allowed for much greater access to medical care, legal help, professional counseling, and other vital services than print has. Beyond this, I would argue that though print is a “stabilizing practice,” errors made in a digital format are more rapidly caught and corrected than in a physical one.
This said, the creation of and practices associated with physical media are, in my mind, of equal importance to that of the digital interface. As a writer, painter, and photographer, this quote rings true: it can be fairly slow to create in a physical space and that time does allot for a ‘steadiness’ in the craft. However, looking at the twentieth century and the relatively rapid evolution of different artistic styles, I remember that more tangible modes of expression are fairly mutable when given enough consideration and attention from many people. The assertion of physical creation as having “slow refresh rates” may depend more upon the creator than the mode.
This idea of mutability also relates to the growth of (and my interest in) AI. Mistakes, corrections, ideas, and fully-fledged implementations are now being made by AI and prompt engineers. The ever-accelerating growth of AI use makes me nervous for the continuation of tangible, traditional creation. The arts — writing, drawing, photography, etc — may be more accessible and enhanced with this advent, but the consistent use of AI also threatens the care and attention of natural work. Without the “stabilizing practice” of art and scientific progress made by humans, we stand to lose our ability to create as a whole. Understanding how learning-models work, how both AI engineers and everyday people use them, may help me in advocating for and against AI in different scenarios.
I think the quote you chose is really interesting, especially with the added context of AI, as you pointed out. As someone who draws both on paper and on an iPad, I definitely agree that the speed of individual creation does not always align with how fast development happens in a medium. I also wonder if we’re not only sacrificing our ability to create, but also our ability to appreciate the process as AI becomes more powerful. Overall, you’ve given me a lot to think about, and I think you have some great questions and ideas!