[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Baker's lecture last night.



Thank you to Thomas Robinson for the report on Baker's lecture...as someone
who has read Baker's 2000 New Yorker piece on libraries and microfilm...
this is how I see the issues.  A critic like Baker is great-he forces you to
rethink your assumptions and provides an opportunity to see or do things in
a new way or to assure yourself why you do what you do.

1.  The Library/Archives/let's throw in Museum curators too shall we?
professions have not done a good enough job of explaining to the general
public what we do.  This opens the door for critiques like Baker's.  I do
not see these professionals as those who keep everything.  That is
warehousing/logistics.  The point as i see it is to use accepted
professional methods (and not an indivdualized personally/culturally biased
"i know better than you" opinion) to identify that portion which should be
saved and to committ resources to that which can be saved.

If we overuse the message "We Save It" as a group, it makes it easy for
someone like Baker to say-no you don't.  Truth is that different materials
are saved for different reasons and are important for different lengths of
time...  Maybe the message should be "We Save the Important Stuff..."

2.  Keeping everything is bad because everything is not important.  The
attempt to keep everything endangers the ability to keep anything.
Each decision to commit resources to item/project/collection A is ALSO a
decision to not commit those resources to B,C,or F.  Keeping resources
ignores the fact that there are professionals who can help thresh out the
wheat from the chaff.

Think of the effort to preserve the 1812 flag at the Smithsonian.  Should
every object get this level of preservation? Even if the resources were made
available? No

3.  One thing I will look for when I do read the book is any attempt by
Baker to address how to go about saving everything.
-paper/information explosion and the volume question
-what is an "original" newspaper in 2001?
-what role should industry/publishers/authors even- play in preserving their
work?  Baker's current book is published by Random House, part of media
giant Bertelsmann AG.  See here for info on their media empire with an net
profit of 600 Million + per year
http://www.hoovers.com/co/capsule/1/0,2163,40661,00.html

Interested in all your thoughts...


        [Heard, Thomas]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Robinson [SMTP:hpa@TELEPORT.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:08 AM
> To:   ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
> Subject:      Baker's lecture last night.
>
> Last night in Portland, Oregon, Nicholson Baker addressed a SRO crowd and
> explained his book and ideas.  If any archivist or librarian has an
> opportunity to hear for yourself what the man has to say, let me assure
> you
> you will not be disappointed.  Baker has been widely maligned and
> misrepresented on this list (mostly by people who have not read the book
> and
> have no idea what the basic issues are.)
>
> His main point is that the "double fold" test applied by libraries is a
> poor
> measurement to judge book deterioration.  the test is an exaggeration of
> the
> so-called poor condition.  Microfilming is a good way to access fragile
> originals, but is not a substitute for them.  Now that digital imaging is
> likely to replace microfilm, the films themselves are not good enough (in
> many cases) to produce a quality digital file.  When microfilming, it is
> not
> necessary to destroy a book or newspaper in order to preserve it.  In the
> foreseeable future, a new generation of librarians will want access to the
> originals so they can be copied again with the best available technology.
> His point is KEEP THE ORIGINALS.
>
> Baker has written about how the microfilming industry has manipulated
> libraries in a scandalous fashion.  Now, Bell & Howell owns the microfilm
> negatives, the originals have been destroyed, and they have a monopoly.
> THe
> book also discusses how false deterioration data has been used by
> libraries
> to get funding for microfilming. If you examine his math, you may find
> that
> preservation of the originals is more cost effective than microfilming
> them
> in order to discard them.
>
> Read the book and hear him speak, and make up your own mind for yourself.
> Many of the people who have posted critically of him based solely on the
> book reviews will find they may have been hasty in their judgement.  A
> good
> reading will at least prepare you to field the inevitable inquiries that
> your patrons will ask, expecting you to be familiar with the basic issues.
> This is a popular book and is selling well.
>
> --
> Thomas Robinson
> 441 NE Jarrett
> Portland OR 97211-3126
>
> visit my website at
> www.HistoricPhotoArchive.com
>
> A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
>       In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
>                     *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
> To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
>
> Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
>
> Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>