After reading our various blogs on the wonders of Bird Library’s Special Collections Research Center from last week (my last blog included) our professor wanted to bring us a different perspective on archives and preservation. On Wednesday night’s class, he pointed out to us that although our visceral reactions to the antique books and documents in the archives are important, the items themselves do not actually have any intrinsic value, but are only appreciated and preserved because of the value we place on them.
I completely understand Professor Lankes’ argument. He comes from the relatively newer school of thought in the library world that argues against libraries as “places full of books.” From previous classes, I have come to understand his view in this way: If libraries are merely places used to house books (basically, places full of things) then what will happen when these books/materials/things are no longer valued? The answer: Libraries will no longer have any value. This is why he stresses for future librarians like myself to view libraries not by what they contain but by the mission of librarianship. In my professor’s opinion, archives will no longer have any value in the future either, since they are completely defined by the objects they contain.
While I understand Professor Lankes’ argument, and agree with his view of libraries, he seemed to be taking an extreme stance in regards to the value of archives. I think it is true that we are the ones that place the value on the illuminated manuscripts and first editions of Alice in Wonderland that are archived at Bird Library. Without us, these objects would have no value in and of themselves. However, I think you could make the same argument about any physical objects, or even people for that matter, which makes his argument a little weak to me. For example, does your cell phone have any real value outside of the value that you and others place on it? In reality it is just metal and plastic, but if you lose it you panic and feel as though you have lost your connection to the world.
The point that I am trying to make is that people will always place value on things. Just because those values might change someday is no reason to abandon all the library archives of the world. Nor is it any reason to abandon all desires of becoming an archivist. I'm sorry, professor. Even though I know I only like them because of the value that myself and others have placed on them, I still like archives.
Actually what I mean is that the value of archives and the items within them comes from the community, not the things themselves. If you value the item, then the item has value. Our history, our materials, these are valuable - in so much that the communities they support see it and agree upon it.
ReplyDeleteTake the prototypical collection of National Geographics. A collection of National Geographics used and worn over the years may be valued very differently. To the market place their value is low. They are used and there are plenty of other copies available because they were mass produced.
To public libraries they may have little value because it duplicates information they already have in physical and/or digital form.
To National Geographic they have no value because they are duplicative, and they got their money when they were purchased.
To the owner, they may be immensely valuable because of the memories they contain, or the act of collecting.
The skills it takes to keep or restore these items are valuable as well, that is a rare skill.
So please don't take away that I find no value in archives or physical artifacts. I simply see that value as an agreement of the community that choses to keep them or use them. To make things more complex, that view and agreement will change over time. As the community changes, the culture and technology change the value of artifacts will likewise change.
Wow, thanks for commenting on my blog, Dr. Lankes! Sometimes I feel like my mom is the only one reading this :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the value of archives changes over time as the community changes. I certainly don't think that archivists should be elitists who ignore the opinions of the community. Archives are maintained for the benefit of the community, after all, so they should have a say in what is being archived.
My blog was not only in response to our class discussion, but also directed in frustration to a lot of my classmates. Many LIS students I spoke to after class, the same people who had sung the praises of archives a week before, had completely changed their minds after your lecture and had all of a sudden decided that archives were useless.
I work in the Belfer Audio Archive and Laboratory and know for a fact that many students (mostly in the music department) use the recordings housed there all the time for different projects and for research. Several of my classmates had decided that archives should all go to museums, but if the Belfer's records went to museums then the music students wouldn't be able to access the materials as easily.
I was just frustrated with my classmates a little, and wanted to challenge the "archives are pointless" idea I kept hearing from some of them.
Yes, I also have some thoughts on my blog (shameless plug). I know where you are coming from, Tessa. I'm one of those silly Humanities majors that wants to keep everything. Except the Twilight novels, of course ;)
ReplyDeleteThe community is important, but I think there's a limit. As you pointed out in class, Dave, it's a balance. But is it acceptable to say that, in an archive situation (and not general collection development), if literally ANYONE like a scholar can benefit from the books, that is enough to keep an archive going?
There has to be some way for an expert to make the case for an object that is seldom used, but still has historical significance. I really don't see this as a community event. Rather, we take the community and culture's view into account. Is this a good way of looking at it?
Also, it smacks of hypocrisy that students are so enthusiastic about gardens, games, cataloging dogs to check out, etc., but turn a critical eye on actual books. If we are open-minded about non-books, it seems we should still be open-minded about actual books, no?