Reading all the different pieces to “Robots Reading Vogue,” I was impressed by how many tools there were at the digital humanists disposal. Every new piece we read had at least one new tool for looking at and ordering data in large chunks. It made it really easy to see parts of vogue. I’m a little disappointed that these parts (at least the parts we read) did not draw any conclusions from the data, but rather just presented it.

I wonder if that was because they wanted the readers to draw their own conclusions. I’d do that, but honestly I can’t say I know much about Vogue. I have a vague idea that it’s a women’s magazine about makeup and fashion, so it makes sense that the covers seem very woman- and face- centric. I’m unsure as to what ordering the covers by saturation tells us though, except for showing us that the 80s like to get real close to their models’ faces.

Perhaps they weren’t doing this to find any conclusions about Vogue. Perhaps they simply wanted to order it and leave it there, as deformed humanities if you will. Perhaps they simply wanted to practice with all the tools at their disposal.

I always try to read into these things, to try to understand the original meaning of the author. I think that’s been hardwired into me as an English student. I suppose I need to learn that things can just be left up to the viewer to interpret, or things can just be deformed for the sake of deformity, or things can just be done for practice.

Either way, don’t I look good on the cover of Vogue?

This was made here: http://funny.pho.to/vogue-magazine-cover/