The act of digitization has implications for both how we experience an object aesthetically and what kind of information we can gather from an analysis of that object. The kitchen item digitization project spoke very effectively to the former, as one example. Uploading pictures and 3D visualizations of an orange (despite being a rather mundane object) drove home the realization that we use all of our senses to interpret an object, not just our sight. Thus, what is lost when digitizing is the way in which an object acts upon our other senses. Yet, our vision can still activate our other senses, and high-quality digitization should involve consideration of how well the newly-created image captures features which engage our sense of smell, taste, hearing and touch. In the case of the orange, I wanted to ensure that the 3D visualization adequately rendered the small speck on the fruit that looked like it was beginning to rot. This gives the viewer a sense of its taste even without it being physically there to bite.

Many of the benefits of digitization as described in the readings — such as OCR software allowing for searchable documents (Terras 2) and greater accessibility/viewability (Drucker 164) — seemed fairly self-evident (though this could be my own generational bias which causes me to take these benefits for granted). Admittedly, I found Terras‘ and Drucker’s discussions of the drawbacks to digitization to be more compelling and surprising, as they were points which I had not considered previously. Drucker’s assertion that digitization can separate an object from its cultural context resonated with me (166-167); in conjunction with her later example of the Caligula statue, the point made me reflect on a course I took last fall on Roman art in the Augustan period. Several times during that class, the professor stressed the importance of context when analyzing archaeological finds. Just as important as the object itself is its findspot relative to other objects. This is perhaps the most critical aspect of an object’s cultural significance that can be obscured or lost when only engaging with it digitally. This, along with Terras’ reminder that a digital collection is a result of deliberate choices of inclusion/exclusion which can contain bias (259), should not stop us from relying on digital materials but rather force us to engage them more critically.