Section II of Mike Wallace’s Mickey Mouse History and other Essays on American Memory focuses on Disney and its possible contribution to the display of American History. The first article primarily looks at Disney’s Main Street and EPCOT and raises some questions about the type of history presented and also the influence of corporate sponsors on those historic presentations. It is not so much historic material that is being displayed for the public, but more of an ideal past, smooth, romantic and almost uniquely positive. Reality is not often the dominant element of those presentations and, if it is, it is mostly in its non-controversial way. Wallace presents the case of Main Street, supposedly a reproduction of Mr. Disney childhood home but not really. He then goes on with the Hall of Presidents, the Carousel of Progress and, finally, EPCOT. The latter being his primary focus, as he lengthily describes the different thematic journeys (transportation, communication, etc.) sponsored by big companies (AT&T, General Motors, Kraft, etc.). According to Wallace (once again, I have not been there, so it is a little harder to comment thoroughly), all of those journeys focus foremost on “investors and businessmen”, praising the evolution of capitalism and leaving peace-disturbing elements in the silence. Of course, no Wallace’s article would be a true Wallace article without references to social classes and social inequalities. As a conclusion to this first study, Wallace explains that the vast majority of visitors coming to Disney World are middle-class people and that, therefore, the history presented in those entertainment parks is some sort of “self-affirmation” of their social status. As a conclusion, Wallace wonders if a more controversial history would be boring for those people and also explains that this “entertaining history” produced by Disney blurs the frontiers between reality and fiction.
Wallace’s second essay is called “Disney’s America” and elaborates on the Disney Company project to create a new theme park, which would focus on the history of America. The project was entirely cancelled, but Wallace describes the plans, the oppositions to the project and why it was eventually set aside. Once again, this essay raises the question of “educating with entertainment”. It is rather obvious that making materials more lively will make it more appealing to large audiences, but there surely is a limit. The transmission of history to the public should not be a dry and boring one, but it also does not necessarily imply creating a commercial- and Disney-based approach to history. Wallace does raise a very valid point when he mentions that Disney theme parks are utopian spaces (p.171), so the question is how to introduce historic reality in such a type of institution. How can we be sure that Disney’s America would have presented a more realistic and academic history to its public? Historians would have to work with Disney if they ever had a project of creating a consistent history museum, but the question should maybe be looked at from another point of view.
Maybe it comes from my European background, and maybe I am not that accustomed to American culture yet. I cannot help but wonder why Disney should be considered as museums and, as such, as valid contributors to the transmission of history. Disney Worlds are entertainment parks. People go there to relax, have fun, and forget about everything else. How serious can it therefore be? Isn’t it a little ironic to go to an amusement park, hoping to learn more about one’s history? Is it all that is left for Americans? Go to Disney World to learn about their past? Let’s say that I am a very optimistic person, and I still believe people can make the difference in content and quality between a museum and Disney; they go to one place or another for different reasons, with different ideas in mind. Going to Disney with the serious hope and expectation to live a history museum-like experience is close to considering that Las Vegas will one day host so many miniature reconstitution of famous worldwide places and buildings that it will replace traveling around the world and discovering different cultures.
Call me old-fashion or conservative if you want… But I still believe Disney should focus mostly on entertainment, instead of trying to propose a shallow/pseudo and disneysized history of the United States.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
“Cinematic History: Where Do We Go From Here?” by Robert Brent Toplin
After focusing on a French movie about Martin Guerre and documentary films, this third article brings us into the world of Hollywood and the use of history in the Hollywood movies. The main emphasis of this article is not so much on the historical content of those movies, but more on the interpretation of the use of history in the films. Toplin chooses to reflect on the “choices and challenges” facing cinematic historians, wondering how the situation will evolve from there on. Even though studying and analyzing experimental films is interesting, Toplin starts by encouraging historians to keep looking at the blockbuster ones. Indeed, as they usually are the ones attracting a wider and more general public, turning away from them would be turning away from a way to reach out to broad audiences. Toplin then ponders on the possible interrelation between the historic period used in the movie and the present time of its making. He does not defend one extreme or the other, but rather suggests that the present may influence part of the way the past is represented in the movie, without it being all about the current times. Finally, Toplin suggests that cinematic history should not focus on the political aspects of movies. According to him, it is an interesting challenge to research how those movies can give us an insight into other aspects, such as cultural, intellectual or social.
If historians can study mainly the technical characteristics of a movie, or focus on its historical context, Toplin suggests that a deeper level of study would be more contributing to the field. The research should be lead further after those two first levels, and cinematic historians should also investigate the “production histories behind the movies” (p.86). He encourages historians to also study different types of sources related to the production of the movie. This can bring a more accurate understanding of the historic content of the movie and of the context of its making.
In Toplin’s opinion, cinematic history is a genre of movies for itself and, as such, deserves to be researched, analyzed and talked about, above all by cinematic historians.
Therefore, Toplin’s contribution raises a central point that was also mentioned in one of the other articles: historians should not turn their back to commercial and mainstream movies, letting other people be experts on so-called historic movies and historic debates. To the contrary, they should engage in that field, contribute in one way or another to the making of those movies or documentaries, or at least comment on them, accept to debate about their accuracy, etc. It should not be considered as a “not good enough field” to invest time in, because it is not their familiar “purely academic world”. If historians want to convey their knowledge, share their work with others, they should accept to sometimes reach out and dip their toes in different kinds of waters.
If historians can study mainly the technical characteristics of a movie, or focus on its historical context, Toplin suggests that a deeper level of study would be more contributing to the field. The research should be lead further after those two first levels, and cinematic historians should also investigate the “production histories behind the movies” (p.86). He encourages historians to also study different types of sources related to the production of the movie. This can bring a more accurate understanding of the historic content of the movie and of the context of its making.
In Toplin’s opinion, cinematic history is a genre of movies for itself and, as such, deserves to be researched, analyzed and talked about, above all by cinematic historians.
Therefore, Toplin’s contribution raises a central point that was also mentioned in one of the other articles: historians should not turn their back to commercial and mainstream movies, letting other people be experts on so-called historic movies and historic debates. To the contrary, they should engage in that field, contribute in one way or another to the making of those movies or documentaries, or at least comment on them, accept to debate about their accuracy, etc. It should not be considered as a “not good enough field” to invest time in, because it is not their familiar “purely academic world”. If historians want to convey their knowledge, share their work with others, they should accept to sometimes reach out and dip their toes in different kinds of waters.
A Trademark Approach to the Past: Ken Burns, the Historical Profession, and Assessing Popular Presentations of the Past.
The article by Vivien Ellen Rose and Julie Corley is a strong criticism of Ken Burns’ contribution to the making of documentary films and his lack of historical professionalism in dealing with the past. The authors of this article wonder about the consequences of historical documentaries, which too often end up blurring the frontiers between historic accuracy, legends and imagination. They also reflect on the role historians could have in that field; how they could use their knowledge and transmit it to broader audiences via mediums like movies. According to Rose and Corley, one of the main problems with Burns is that not only is he molding the historical content transmitted to a general public, but he also brings forward a specific definition of what history making is. His history is made of heroes, and it is their stories that he wants to tell. On that subject, the PBS webpage on Ken Burns is quite revealing. The short introduction on Burns ends with those words: “History made them famous, Ken Burns makes them real”. The “invisible makers” of history are therefore quite obviously kept in the dark once more.
In light of the article, it seems that Burns’s major problem is to take only what can contribute to the story he wants to tell. He leaves aside important elements, focuses on certain people only, and does not take into consideration new research on the subjects. He also uses interviews of historians or comments from them only if, and in a way that fits his purpose. Rose and Corley demonstrate throughout their article the mistakes Burns made in his documentary entitled “Not for Ourselves alone”, which focuses on two leading figures of the 19th century feminist movement in the United States. What worries the authors is not only the fact that Burns does not rely on serious scholarship, but that his work is actually treated as serious research and reliable material. People tend to turn to him and his products instead of turning to historians for answers. If Burns’s productions are as lacking as described in this article (and it is hard to comment this without being familiar with his work), then this indeed raises some concerns. Rose and Corley do not necessarily call for a total rejection of works like Burns’s, but they rather encourage historians to reinvest a field given up to non-professional historians. Professional historians should keep working with documentary makers, but they should also learn to better communicate to broad audiences via different technologies. In addition, they should be more productive in commenting and reviewing those films, not only in savant opuses, but also in newspapers, magazine or on television programs.
A down side of the article however, is that even though most of the points made seem very pertinent, it feels at times too much like a personal vendetta. Is Ken Burns the only person doing historic documentaries? Is he so popular as to embody the entire profession just by himself? Is there anything positive going on in the historic film-making industry nowadays? Those are some of the questions that just kept running through my mind after reading this article…
In light of the article, it seems that Burns’s major problem is to take only what can contribute to the story he wants to tell. He leaves aside important elements, focuses on certain people only, and does not take into consideration new research on the subjects. He also uses interviews of historians or comments from them only if, and in a way that fits his purpose. Rose and Corley demonstrate throughout their article the mistakes Burns made in his documentary entitled “Not for Ourselves alone”, which focuses on two leading figures of the 19th century feminist movement in the United States. What worries the authors is not only the fact that Burns does not rely on serious scholarship, but that his work is actually treated as serious research and reliable material. People tend to turn to him and his products instead of turning to historians for answers. If Burns’s productions are as lacking as described in this article (and it is hard to comment this without being familiar with his work), then this indeed raises some concerns. Rose and Corley do not necessarily call for a total rejection of works like Burns’s, but they rather encourage historians to reinvest a field given up to non-professional historians. Professional historians should keep working with documentary makers, but they should also learn to better communicate to broad audiences via different technologies. In addition, they should be more productive in commenting and reviewing those films, not only in savant opuses, but also in newspapers, magazine or on television programs.
A down side of the article however, is that even though most of the points made seem very pertinent, it feels at times too much like a personal vendetta. Is Ken Burns the only person doing historic documentaries? Is he so popular as to embody the entire profession just by himself? Is there anything positive going on in the historic film-making industry nowadays? Those are some of the questions that just kept running through my mind after reading this article…
“Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective”, Natalie Zemon Davis
This short article by Natalie Zemon Davis entitled “Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective” commences with her experience in the making of the French movie “Le Retour de Martin Guerre” and then leads on to a reflection on the possible contributions of historians in historical movies.
As an early modern historian, Natalie Zemon Davis saw in the story of Martin Guerre an opportunity to show the lives of French peasants in the 16th century. She thought it would be a very interesting way of reaching wider audiences that would know nothing about this time period and those people under other circumstances. She was ready to work on that movie when she learned that a French director had already started working on the film script. Because of her notoriety as a historian, and especially as a 16th century France historian, Jean-Claude Carrière and Daniel Vigne were thrilled to work with her on the script. That is how Zemon Davis became the “historical advisor” for the movie.
One of the more intriguing interesting aspects of this experience is that Zemon Davis chose not to limit herself to working on the script, but she also chose to write a book on the story of Martin Guerre. The movie-making had its limitation and some changes were not possible as time went by, therefore she decides to use her research for a contributing book. Consequently, her book became a complement through which she was able to convey additional or more precise information to the public.
Zemon Davis’s article leads to a reflection on how historians and movie directors should work together when preparing a historical film. She calls for the taking into consideration of both cinematic and historical criteria as a way for the movie to be plausible and “historically understandable” for its audience. Her last example about acceptable and misleading historical errors in the Martin Guerre movie is very interesting. She considers as acceptable that the judges’ robe to be of the wrong color, but she is very critical about the choice to make the trial public whereas it was something closed in Old Regime France. Indeed, if the error of color might not be particularly misleading, the erroneous representation of the judicial life in the Old Regime conveys to the audience an inaccurate portrait of life in the 16th century; and criminal justice was an important aspect of life in that period. For Natalie Zemon Davis, such elements should not only reinforce the contribution of historians in the making of historical movies, but it should also encourage them to write about and comment about the historical events depicted in the movie, whether they have participated in the movie or not.
I think Zemon Davis’ article is an excellent reflection-basis for public historians. Indeed, historical movies are a great way to connect with a broader public and public historians should therefore find new and creative ways to contribute to and interact with this sort of history making.
As an early modern historian, Natalie Zemon Davis saw in the story of Martin Guerre an opportunity to show the lives of French peasants in the 16th century. She thought it would be a very interesting way of reaching wider audiences that would know nothing about this time period and those people under other circumstances. She was ready to work on that movie when she learned that a French director had already started working on the film script. Because of her notoriety as a historian, and especially as a 16th century France historian, Jean-Claude Carrière and Daniel Vigne were thrilled to work with her on the script. That is how Zemon Davis became the “historical advisor” for the movie.
One of the more intriguing interesting aspects of this experience is that Zemon Davis chose not to limit herself to working on the script, but she also chose to write a book on the story of Martin Guerre. The movie-making had its limitation and some changes were not possible as time went by, therefore she decides to use her research for a contributing book. Consequently, her book became a complement through which she was able to convey additional or more precise information to the public.
Zemon Davis’s article leads to a reflection on how historians and movie directors should work together when preparing a historical film. She calls for the taking into consideration of both cinematic and historical criteria as a way for the movie to be plausible and “historically understandable” for its audience. Her last example about acceptable and misleading historical errors in the Martin Guerre movie is very interesting. She considers as acceptable that the judges’ robe to be of the wrong color, but she is very critical about the choice to make the trial public whereas it was something closed in Old Regime France. Indeed, if the error of color might not be particularly misleading, the erroneous representation of the judicial life in the Old Regime conveys to the audience an inaccurate portrait of life in the 16th century; and criminal justice was an important aspect of life in that period. For Natalie Zemon Davis, such elements should not only reinforce the contribution of historians in the making of historical movies, but it should also encourage them to write about and comment about the historical events depicted in the movie, whether they have participated in the movie or not.
I think Zemon Davis’ article is an excellent reflection-basis for public historians. Indeed, historical movies are a great way to connect with a broader public and public historians should therefore find new and creative ways to contribute to and interact with this sort of history making.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Website - Work in Progress
I have put online all the papers that I have received so far. I am still missing Esther's and Shannon I believe, so just send those whenever you can :)
As soon as I'll have pictures, I'll add them.
Also, don't hesitate to send me comments, remarks, or others, so I can keep working on the website.
Btw, what do you all think about having a "picture gallery" where we can put more pictures of our sites (more than just one, that is).
here is the current address: http://www.modoux.com/aroundnorthflorida
As soon as I'll have pictures, I'll add them.
Also, don't hesitate to send me comments, remarks, or others, so I can keep working on the website.
Btw, what do you all think about having a "picture gallery" where we can put more pictures of our sites (more than just one, that is).
here is the current address: http://www.modoux.com/aroundnorthflorida
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Comparing Websites: The Reformation
The four history websites that I have chosen focus on the history of the Reformation in Europe. Three are in English, and one is in French – I thought it would be interesting to compare American websites and European ones. Finding websites that actually focus on that history is not as easy as I thought it would be. What one mostly finds when looking up “history of the reformation website” or something similar, are websites offering primary sources.
So, here are a few observations and comments:
I. Memo: La Reforme
It is a very "teaching" website; lots of information on the Reformation, basic ones mostly, but that gives readers a good overview on the subject. The hyperlinks can be located in odd places (and do not always work), but most of them are interesting ones that enables the reader to get some information about bordering subjects (giving the opportunity to look at a context in a more global way). It covers a variety of aspects on the subject of the Reformation.
It has pictures, maps.
Constructed like a book, with different chapters and sub-chapters. It enables the reader to either read everything at once, or select a subject they want to focus on.
II. The Reformation Page
This website is on the same subject (of course), but offers a different type of data.
It is made of lots of different links, most of them point to primary sources. There is some biographical information also, but this is not the majority data.
The design of the website is very basic, and not very easy to navigate. It is a long document, listing all kind of different subject or people; the color or the design has nothing appealing. There is also nothing homogeneous about this website, as it mostly redirects people to other sites where they have primary sources or other info.
III. The Crawford Reformation Guide
There are some texts within the website, but it also focuses a lot of links.
Example of Heinrich Bullinger, which has his own essay on the website itself (source from the Swiss Historic Lexicon - a reference for Swiss historians).
Then, there are many links to a website called "forerunner", which - to me - does not seem particularly historical (after further investigation, it seems to be a Christians website, publishing articles from students around the world). So I would not be sure of the quality of the documents.
Or going to the website of the Irish Presbyterian website will not really help in a historical approach.
The design, however, is not very appealing. It is kind of "old'-fashion looking" for a website, and some of the links do not exist anymore. The website has probably not been updated for quite some time. As some kind of educational website, it surely should be more "attractive" and not look so old-dated. Unfortunately, it does not really encourage surfing at the first look, even though they do have interesting things around.
IV. History World: The Reformation
The website covers the process of the Reformation over the centuries and also presents it in some major countries in Europe.
This last website is very “modern” looking, well organized and well structured. Like the Memo website, this one is constructed in different chapters and sub-chapters, but those are accessible from a menu on the left, which makes it very easy to use and know where one is, and how to quickly access another theme. The downfall is that each chapter stands on one single page, which can make them rather long (even though there is a handy “up to top of page” button.
A few thoughts:
Maybe it is because it is an "old" subject ;-) but I must say that few of those websites had a very user-friendly and interesting design interface. The Memo website was rather good, even though it still has a few glitches, and the navigation or change of chapters is not always simple. Those first three websites clearly had nothing revolutionizing. The historyworld.net was surely the most modern and user-friendly designed. Without talking content (because it is not my intent here to thoroughly discuss the academic content of those websites), it would be the best of the four. I would even say that the other websites should work towards that kind of interface.
I know it is not always that way, and it can change depending on the type of subjects, but it made me wonder how historians and scholars can try to better combine interesting and serious information with an appealing interface. Of course, history websites should not become like tv-adds and try to attract people with funny, weird, or very empty, messages or "stories". But it also should not mean for them to remain in the area they are talking about... The internet and website designing have made so much progress in the past decade, that history websites should not grow to become the "prehistoric websites" of the web. Adapting to new technologies and designs might actually encourage more people to visit, read and use them. Even though as I am writing those lines, I cannot help but wonder how prevalent history-websites should or can become. How could they be used, structured or designed? What should be their primary use? Should they maybe try to bring another type of information and view point than the nowadays so common Wikipedia? An example of more thorough and academic work that would yet still appeal to a general public?
So, here are a few observations and comments:
I. Memo: La Reforme
It is a very "teaching" website; lots of information on the Reformation, basic ones mostly, but that gives readers a good overview on the subject. The hyperlinks can be located in odd places (and do not always work), but most of them are interesting ones that enables the reader to get some information about bordering subjects (giving the opportunity to look at a context in a more global way). It covers a variety of aspects on the subject of the Reformation.
It has pictures, maps.
Constructed like a book, with different chapters and sub-chapters. It enables the reader to either read everything at once, or select a subject they want to focus on.
II. The Reformation Page
This website is on the same subject (of course), but offers a different type of data.
It is made of lots of different links, most of them point to primary sources. There is some biographical information also, but this is not the majority data.
The design of the website is very basic, and not very easy to navigate. It is a long document, listing all kind of different subject or people; the color or the design has nothing appealing. There is also nothing homogeneous about this website, as it mostly redirects people to other sites where they have primary sources or other info.
III. The Crawford Reformation Guide
There are some texts within the website, but it also focuses a lot of links.
Example of Heinrich Bullinger, which has his own essay on the website itself (source from the Swiss Historic Lexicon - a reference for Swiss historians).
Then, there are many links to a website called "forerunner", which - to me - does not seem particularly historical (after further investigation, it seems to be a Christians website, publishing articles from students around the world). So I would not be sure of the quality of the documents.
Or going to the website of the Irish Presbyterian website will not really help in a historical approach.
The design, however, is not very appealing. It is kind of "old'-fashion looking" for a website, and some of the links do not exist anymore. The website has probably not been updated for quite some time. As some kind of educational website, it surely should be more "attractive" and not look so old-dated. Unfortunately, it does not really encourage surfing at the first look, even though they do have interesting things around.
IV. History World: The Reformation
The website covers the process of the Reformation over the centuries and also presents it in some major countries in Europe.
This last website is very “modern” looking, well organized and well structured. Like the Memo website, this one is constructed in different chapters and sub-chapters, but those are accessible from a menu on the left, which makes it very easy to use and know where one is, and how to quickly access another theme. The downfall is that each chapter stands on one single page, which can make them rather long (even though there is a handy “up to top of page” button.
A few thoughts:
Maybe it is because it is an "old" subject ;-) but I must say that few of those websites had a very user-friendly and interesting design interface. The Memo website was rather good, even though it still has a few glitches, and the navigation or change of chapters is not always simple. Those first three websites clearly had nothing revolutionizing. The historyworld.net was surely the most modern and user-friendly designed. Without talking content (because it is not my intent here to thoroughly discuss the academic content of those websites), it would be the best of the four. I would even say that the other websites should work towards that kind of interface.
I know it is not always that way, and it can change depending on the type of subjects, but it made me wonder how historians and scholars can try to better combine interesting and serious information with an appealing interface. Of course, history websites should not become like tv-adds and try to attract people with funny, weird, or very empty, messages or "stories". But it also should not mean for them to remain in the area they are talking about... The internet and website designing have made so much progress in the past decade, that history websites should not grow to become the "prehistoric websites" of the web. Adapting to new technologies and designs might actually encourage more people to visit, read and use them. Even though as I am writing those lines, I cannot help but wonder how prevalent history-websites should or can become. How could they be used, structured or designed? What should be their primary use? Should they maybe try to bring another type of information and view point than the nowadays so common Wikipedia? An example of more thorough and academic work that would yet still appeal to a general public?
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Book Review: Baker's Double Fold
If digitizing records or documents of different types is, overall, a good thing in today’s society, Nicholson Baker, in his book Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper surely gives us some sort of warning about the consequences that can take place when people stop thinking. Indeed, his narrative about how some major American Libraries have gone to destroy tons and tons of newspapers and other books, in the name of preservation and lack of shelving room, is quite frightening.
Starting with his discovery that the British Library was about to weed a large amount of foreign newspapers, Baker goes on to describe his struggles to save the American ones, and then weaves a narrative combining his attempts to save those newspapers, with a journey through the situation in the United States. Baker describes how the main philosophy in the United States Library world has been to microfilm so-called too old and too brittle newspapers (and even books), and then destroy the original. If the official reason seems to usually be the preservation of records (they have become too fragile to be used), a disturbing under-lying cause of this destruction was the lack of storage space. Baker mentions that it is more a question of choosing one’s domain of investment, rather than a lack of money. Indeed, microfilming, testing different methods, etc. can be quite expensive, akin to building an additional storage facility for a library. Baker lists several names, describes what they have done, and how they have contributed to the loss of so many newspapers and books. He openly criticizes their methods, their conceptions of preservation and conservation, as well as their continual assault on paper. His explanation of the “double fold test” is quite impressive. I must admit that I could not resist performing that test on my book, however silly it felt. Indeed, Baker asks the right question when he wonders what readers ask of their books and the paper used. They do not ask that the pages survive so many foldings of the corners, but that the pages can be turned, and therefore the books read. It was at times rather startling to read about the different tests or methods invented to “preserve” books; the rule of “reversibility” (you must always be able to undo what you did to a document) does not seem to have been part of those people’s preoccupations.
Baker surely does have a very straightforward and polemical way of writing about issues. Yet, this should not divert our attention from his main concern: What is the point of microfilming documents, and then destroying the originals? If it is in an effort to preserve newspapers, books, or other types of records, that they are microfilmed, this should not lead to the tossing of the paper format. What will happen when microfilms will not be a readable format anymore? What happens when the transfer has been executed poorly and some (or all of) the data has been lost? What will happen when digitization will be more common and projects will come up to digitize those documents? How will the microfilm be transferred to digital?
Those questions will remain present and relevant for a very long time, especially with the growing importance of digitization. Should microfilms or digital formats replace original documents, or should they truly fulfill their “preservation mission”? If they are preservation formats, then the originals surely should not be destroyed. One of the examples I know of is the audio preservation program at the Florida State Archives. What they are doing is transferring into digital format all of their audio collection, making a “preservation copy” in a very high quality, and then making a lower-bitrate copy for the patrons to have access to. The originals are never destroyed, but some of them are in too poor condition to be used on a regular basis, and others are using formats that may be hard to read in a very near future (reels, cassettes). Those audio records are being preserved digitally and in their original form. The care is not only given to the transfer, but also to keep the actual records in the best condition possible.
Starting with his discovery that the British Library was about to weed a large amount of foreign newspapers, Baker goes on to describe his struggles to save the American ones, and then weaves a narrative combining his attempts to save those newspapers, with a journey through the situation in the United States. Baker describes how the main philosophy in the United States Library world has been to microfilm so-called too old and too brittle newspapers (and even books), and then destroy the original. If the official reason seems to usually be the preservation of records (they have become too fragile to be used), a disturbing under-lying cause of this destruction was the lack of storage space. Baker mentions that it is more a question of choosing one’s domain of investment, rather than a lack of money. Indeed, microfilming, testing different methods, etc. can be quite expensive, akin to building an additional storage facility for a library. Baker lists several names, describes what they have done, and how they have contributed to the loss of so many newspapers and books. He openly criticizes their methods, their conceptions of preservation and conservation, as well as their continual assault on paper. His explanation of the “double fold test” is quite impressive. I must admit that I could not resist performing that test on my book, however silly it felt. Indeed, Baker asks the right question when he wonders what readers ask of their books and the paper used. They do not ask that the pages survive so many foldings of the corners, but that the pages can be turned, and therefore the books read. It was at times rather startling to read about the different tests or methods invented to “preserve” books; the rule of “reversibility” (you must always be able to undo what you did to a document) does not seem to have been part of those people’s preoccupations.
Baker surely does have a very straightforward and polemical way of writing about issues. Yet, this should not divert our attention from his main concern: What is the point of microfilming documents, and then destroying the originals? If it is in an effort to preserve newspapers, books, or other types of records, that they are microfilmed, this should not lead to the tossing of the paper format. What will happen when microfilms will not be a readable format anymore? What happens when the transfer has been executed poorly and some (or all of) the data has been lost? What will happen when digitization will be more common and projects will come up to digitize those documents? How will the microfilm be transferred to digital?
Those questions will remain present and relevant for a very long time, especially with the growing importance of digitization. Should microfilms or digital formats replace original documents, or should they truly fulfill their “preservation mission”? If they are preservation formats, then the originals surely should not be destroyed. One of the examples I know of is the audio preservation program at the Florida State Archives. What they are doing is transferring into digital format all of their audio collection, making a “preservation copy” in a very high quality, and then making a lower-bitrate copy for the patrons to have access to. The originals are never destroyed, but some of them are in too poor condition to be used on a regular basis, and others are using formats that may be hard to read in a very near future (reels, cassettes). Those audio records are being preserved digitally and in their original form. The care is not only given to the transfer, but also to keep the actual records in the best condition possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)