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

Re: Baker's lecture last night.



I know I promised to be reticent from here on out, but.... It seems that most of us, in our calmer moments, agree that microfilm has its negatives and pluses, that microfilming was (or seemed to be) the only feasible preservation and distrubution option available to many of us in the past (and, for many, this is still the case), and that if possible, originals should be kept, but we can't save everything, so we have to make choices. We seem to agree, but we are not hearing each other.  
 
I'm not sure, but maybe the Baker debate has reopened an older, deeper wound.    Unbenowst to Baker, maybe his book raises questions about how we define ourselves/our work, and how we educate future archivists/librarians.  For some years now, there has been a strain/divide between those in the profession who see themselves as "information managers" and those in the profession who see themselves as the keepers of cultural and social history and as history educators (through exhibits, educational outreach programs, etc.).  The following is a gross generalization - it probably isn't this black and white.  Info managers place emphasis on informational and evidentary value. "Keepers" are concerned about informational value, but they are also likely to be concerned about artifactual value of objects, whether they be manuscripts, flags or ledger books. 
 
There is definitely more emphasis placed on the informational value of books, journals, etc. in today's library schools. Certainly, this makes sense for those who will not be responsible for historical collections.  For those who will be responsible for historical materials, does this makes sense even in the era of the P.C. and the Internet?  I would argue that medium and artifactual value are still important today: for example, you would not want to preserve a website for future generations by printing it to paper, just as in past years, you would not want to "preserve" a Van Gogh painting for future generations by taking a picture of it. Some how a balance must be struck between our need to preserve the "information" and the medium - because both pursuits are important aspects of preserving history. 
 
I have never been an advocate for archival studies, but the Baker debate has led me to believe that such programs are needed.  We need (and have) archival studies programs that strike a balance between information management and the "preservation of medium" perspectives through inter-disciplinarian programs that incorporate history, museum studies, conservation/preservation training, information science, and records management. 
 
I highly recommend folks read Richard Cox's comments regarding Double Fold.  I may not always agree with Dr. Cox, but I think his comments are thoughtful and not defensive.  Cox states: "No one today will not acknowledge that mistakes were made with microfilming, especially in producing poor images, or even that some of the arguments for preservation decisions were overstated, but it is one thing to criticize and note problems and quite another to simply denounce all the intentions of what librarians and archivists were doing".  
 
Now that's something we can all agree on (I think)....
 
 
Heather Willever-Farr
Electronic Records Archivist
American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal Medicine
190 N. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1572
hwillever-farr@mail.acponline.org
(w) 215-351-2470
(h) 215-481-0962
 
>>> "Heard, Thomas" <Thomas.Heard@AIG.COM> 04/24/01 10:07AM >>>
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 >