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 > |