Cross-blogging with Loculamenta.

It has been graciously pointed out that my last post regarding the Grateful Dead collection at UCSC may have been barking up the wrong tree. In part, this is due to the relatively small amount of audio material that is contained in the acquisition in question; the bulk of the collection appears to be paper based. Ok, I can live with that. My questions regarding the digitization facilities still stand, but that's more attributable to my over-protective audio-visual archival tendencies than UCSC's own in-house capabilities.

Still there is something bugging me: this "social component." Does an academic institution have any place meddling in the world of open-source tagging? Again, I'm jumping ahead, but I'm comparing the type of social component that is supported by projects like Steve.Museum. I would argue this method works well for orphaned museum artifacts, but does this method suitably fit the academic institution's model for housing (and making available to researchers) archival material.

In a nutshell, is not the penultimate difference between museums and archives the genesis of the concept of context and provenance? In museums, artifacts re-discover old and new contexts in exhibitions; in archives context and provenance are carefully guarded against the affects of entropy through the maintenance of intellectual control. Where does social tagging fit into intellectual control? Or does it not, instead only finding a suitable fit in the realm of access? If the later is the case, then are we not at risk of repeating a pattern that we have already condemned as a "no-no": when digitization projects became so prevalent, the original argument from the profession was that these projects should be supported as a means of alternate access. The practicality of that notion having been shot down, the new method is to use digitization as a means to support preservation and thus access as well.

I'm all for getting the public involved in the "behind the scenes" of archives especially because any chance to get the public interested in archival material, research, history, culture... the list goes on. But if the cost is potentially alienating certain documents or items while others' status is raised over the rest, then the entire exercise is counter to traditional archival methodologies. I don't see how this could be beneficial in the long run.

The Grateful Dead Rise Again

Cross blogging with Loculamenta.

(Author's note: Alex, can you post some of the links to the original announcements re: this collection and its funding donation? See the comments to my previous post on this subject for the reason why).

User populations and policing of content are always of paramount importance to an archive, because if only for the most simplistic of purposes, your users and your content are why you exist, and why you will continue to exist. If you don't support your user's needs or appropriately manage your content, your archive will cease to function, and soon cease to exist. But getting to the point where we can focus on user populations and the policing of user-updated content skips over a few key steps in the process of digitizing any cultural artifact, whether for preservation or access (or ideally both!).

I'm curious if the questions that guide the first analysis of the Grateful Dead funding and digitization project should be focused more on ... well, the digitization!

The problem with this kind of simplified approach is that it is at risk of cutting out the sexy social component, which is pretty much the buzz word (or phrase?) in the profession right now. But I wonder, with approximately 1.25 million dollars available and backing a name like the Grateful Dead, to what extent should this particular user group have an increased social component, particularly when discussed within the context of the rest of UCSC’s holdings? For example, I was curious what kind of audio preservation resources are available at UCSC already; operating under the assumption that the facilities must in some way exist for this material to be properly and best handled at this specific institution (else, why wouldn’t this material have gone to Stanford?) I did a basic Google search using the words “audio”, “preservation” and “UCSC.” Not only is there no facility that comes up within the first three pages of Google’s produced results (which is farther than your normal Google search-user will look), but the first link that shows up was this article: "UCSC receives gift of rare audio interviews and photos of late '60s jazz and rock icons".

Considering that both collections are liable to house un-published information on a variety of overlapping themes, issues, concepts, people and events (to name a few!), my immediate reaction to this is: Why shouldn’t some of this funding include bolstering access for both collections? Wouldn’t this constitute a social component? When we look at the “social component” and we skip right to our users as a primary source of key information, I argue that we are not only taking the professional responsibilities out of our own hands, but we are de-valuing those professional responsibilities we have on a broadly reaching scale.

I say “kudos!” to UCSC for getting an un-thinkable amount of funding to handle one collection; but you now want me to agree that a critical part of this funding must be dedicated to an un-controlled, un-known, un-attached “social component” that will in no way directly link to any of the rest of the institution’s mandated responsibilities? Good luck with that.

My searches so far have yielded very little information on the actual facilities available for audio preservation of original recordings into digital format. I am aware the UCSB has some formidable audio preservation resources, but I am also aware that these resources are largely dedicated to wax cylinders and vinyl discs, and I doubt that many of the Grateful Dead recordings were ever done on wax; though a large portion was likely recorded to vinyl. If you're outside the business, then you'd assume that the two UC campuses would work together on this - lending the resources of one lab to the collection resources of another archive. You would assume wrongly, for two important reasons: 1) Academic environments in the public sphere are always under-funded and over-worked - if the money isn't going to UCSB, then UCSB isn't about to take on the risk of wear and tear on their machines for records that they will not be owning; 2) archival material does not travel off-site! EVER!

This means that the entire collection will arrive to UCSC and sit there, awaiting the proper machines to not only digitize, but to playback the original records. The field of audio recordings is arguably more complex than that of moving images (ok, I mostly just make this statement to piss off the film buffs out there that are paying attention. Kudos, you're paying attention. Now accept that audio records are just as if not more unique than your own precious film holdings.). Take for example the Harvard Audio Preservation Studio. Their listing of equipment is nice to see, but its far from extensive. The University of Toronto's Media Archive boasts a similar listing of equipment on their site; again it is far from complete. Part of the budget for each of these institutions must include continual efforts to purchase playback machines which will properly play audio recordings (failure to use proper playback equipment of any audio-visual record will result in the destruction of the content and/or physical record, which is counter-productive in the most primitive of situations).

Throughout all of this, the point I’m trying to make is: how do we look at this “social component” realistically? Do we apply the concerns for a social component only to one collection? Now that the collection is officially an acquisition, I want to know that its existence will be in harmony with the rest of the institution’s holdings, instead of its existence being paramount to all of the holdings (and the resources dedicated to them) that came before it. To be sure, if it weren’t for the institution’s pre-existing collections and their collection mandate, then this new acquisition for UCSC would have had no archival social component that would have brought it under their management in the first place.

Canadian Pop Culture as a matter of historical record

The University of Toronto's Media Commons' Archive is Canada's home for popular culture and mass-media archival records and documents; everything from television and film productions, journalists and great journalistic achievements, recording studios and rare vinyl records, media production companies, advertising companies and prolific members of this vast Canadian media culture are all represented there in one form or another.

To my understanding, there have been a few direct influences that have come from the archival and cultural fabric of Canada which can be identified as the reason this archive exists at all. The proliferation of a/v records and documents (which is inherent to the nature of a/v materials) coupled with technology's endless appetite for discovering the next market-swaying recording format, has resulted in archival collections which are physically large with respect to box count or surviving record. Sadly, there is never enough room to house this material indefinitely; especially when the statistics on access are less than ideal.

The Canadian government has slowed its acquisitions to a near standstill, while in the meantime, Canadian popular culture is still producing valuable, culturally-reflective products. The CBC as well has moved away from long-term storage of original a/v document formats: their current goal is to digitize everything they can in their storage in order to reduce its size, and ultimately the rent they are paying (or inversely to regain their own precious real estate which is dedicated to helping old archival records collect dust).

The Media Commons' Archive is actively going after archival material, but their real estate can't last forever. In the meantime, there are one or two collections which come to mind as fitting nowhere in any of the preceding collecting (or digitizing and destroying) mandates. These collections would be those that are not old enough to be considered historically or culturally significant; archival materials generally have to be at the very least 3-5 years old before they can be assessed to have significant, lasting impact on Canadian culture. There are also those collections which fall between the collection mandate cracks because they are in part produced by CBC, which is government funded (and we've already discussed the current situation there), or by American broadcasting/production/distribution companies, such as Show Time.

In the meantime, valuable collections are ... where? That's really the crux of the problem, isn't it? Media magnates are highly incestuous: pre-distribution copies of productions in whole or part are frequently passed around between companies for a variety of reasons, resulting in the existence of these documents in disparate ways and numbers, sprinkled throughout Canadian recorded history. But where are the bulk of these collections that parented these odd orphaned records? And what are the plans of those who currently are responsible for those records?

The two collections I have in mind while I monologue these concerns.... "Kenny v Spenny" and "Trailer Park Boys". Individually, you may love, hate or have never heard of these two productions. But, nationally and arguably more significantly internationally, these two productions have exposed contemporary Canadian popular culture across the globe. And yet, in light of the current collecting mandates, acquisition complexities and cultural appraisal methodologies, I do wonder what will be available for research and study in 100 years, when the mass-market dvds are digital leftovers and the 'how' and 'why' become of paramount significance.

The scenario so far: UC Santa Cruz has received a grant that is to be used to focus digitization efforts on their newly acquired collection: The Grateful Dead Archive.

At first blush, this is pure excitement. Possibilities seem endless. Original sound recordings that have never before been migrated from their original format that will finally enjoy playtime to whatever audience is available through digital information highways. On second thought, and after a little research, boundaries appear out of nowhere and constraints become a bit more than prevalent.

For example:

1) The Internet Archive already has an extensive listing of Grateful Dead material that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. Thus the question becomes, what is there in UCSC's collection which is not already available via the Internet Archive? Perhaps more to the point, how does anyone get an idea of the differences in unique audio records without getting to look at the listing?

2) If UCSC's collection contains duplicates of the IA collection, how can the UCSC material be presented in way that brings more traffic to UCSC's site, and equally more research traffic to the UCSC archive in its totality. Would a comparison between proposed metadata and that metadata which is used by IA bring to light enough discrepancies that would warrant an entire digitization project? Aren't the funds being geared towards digitization, and not data entry? Yes, we're dealing with unique material; that doesn't mean a highly qualified, expertly skilled information professional will be needed for the entire duration of the project, ... or does it?

Without delving too deeply into related material, these are the 'shoot from the hip' reactions. Time for a little further investigation.

Re-visiting an old thought

This is an article abstract that a colleague and I wrote together almost one year ago, in an effort to get our perspective published in a special printing of Archivaria, which was to be focusing on Queer Archives. To date, nothing more has been done with this article abstract. All that this abstract represents are the thoughts and casual debates between two Information Professionals (one an archivist, the other a librarian) who happen to be very passionate about concepts of scholarship and the definitions of pornography; and the overlap between the two.

In the history of archival scholarship, numerous studies have focused on the specific function records and documents in society, such as medical records, legal dockets and architectural drawings; however there are no equivalent studies in quantity or breadth that focus on sex – those documents which are created to record the act of, the discussions about or social perspectives on sex and sexuality. This article focuses on the relationship between archival theory and practice and pornography.

We begin with an examination of available archival scholarly research focusing on alternative sexualities within mainstream sexual studies; then note the differences in primary source materials available for both alternative (LGBT, etc.) sexualities and mainstream sexualities (specifically in terms of quantity, accessibility, and quality of resources). This leads to an examination of archival theory and practice in relation to what are considered erotic or pornographic records and materials, which are often not recognized as significant cultural artefacts in their own right, and thus may be removed from a fond or collection as an ‘irrelevance’.

We will demonstrate that there are inconsistencies in archival values and practice by examining a sexually explicit collection. Our discussion thus focuses on the ways in which pornographic materials, and by proxy, alternative sexual records (LGBT, BD/SM, etc) are assessed, appraised, and made accessible within archives, and how such materials are addressed by current archival theory. The collection in question is the Max Allen collection, which is owned by the Center for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto. We will discuss the nature of the collection with respect to archival science/theory; examine the history of the collection; and look at the acquisition of the collection.

The collection presents a number of interesting contradictions such as: the paradox between the potential for pornographic material to be the most prevalent form of record creating genre while being the least prevalent form of record keeping genre with respect to a society’s cultural and heritage institutions. The collection also presents a number of commonalities between archival studies and sexual studies such as the fact that both scholarly fields have a strong sense of marginalization within democratic societies, albeit for vastly different reasons. By this method of analyzing differences and similarities, the article exposes the censorship and bias that affects pornographic collections (for example, the classification of materials as “pornography” generally stigmatizes them, and thus equates them with records of no redeemable value).

Finally, the article reaches two conclusions: First, that the potential for primary resource research in the field of queer studies would be positively affected by re-examination of how pornographic materials or sexually explicit materials should be viewed as cultural materials in their own right allowing sexuality studies to occur within a context – not as an isolated factor; and second, with respect to sexual diversity studies, and thus queer studies, there is a pressing need for further archival scholarly research into stated values of context, democracy, and uniqueness.

The MMORPG and Me.

Argument:
An MMO RPG is a strong contemporary example of a library, archive (and museum?) and IS coming together to create a universe within which a user operates & interacts with both the content and other users to create a unique experience grounded in a functioning universe with its own set of rules, ethics, moral codes, vocabularies, languages and forms of personal expression.

And:
We know this model works/functions in a concrete example: there are "cultural centers" which incorporate a library, archive and museum all in the same physical building in order that the activities of one "institution" are supported by (or support) the activities of one or both of the other two.

Question:
To what extent does the model actually work in real life? Are there statistics that support the argument that this model is better than the stand alone version of an archive, library or museum?

Question:
In what ways can a study of an MMO RPG through the lens of an information professional offer new perspectives on fairly old concepts of information management, i.e. librarianship and archiving. (N.B. this assumes that the only real advances in the management of information in libraries and archives (and museums?) has been the implementation of database systems, both relational and 'flat file', which alone have arguable positive influences on how any of these institutions functions within the breadth of society. Example: as the book ceases to be physical and continues to move toward the digital, how are libraries dealing with new opportunities, if they even know they exist? Could MMO RPGs offer perspectives that would enable the understanding of new opportunities?)

Archival irony - pt 1

Digital is everywhere. The book is no longer a physical object, and print, while not yet dead (imagines a faint British accent crying out "I'm not dead yet! I'm gettin' bettah!") has most definitely seen better days. Where does the future of archives fit into all this mess?

On the one side, global economies are in flux which means old markets have to be streamlined and re-vamped, while new markets have to be discovered and allowed blossoming time. Niche markets are where archives are headed, whether they realize it or not. Film archives, photograph archives, digital archives, culturally/ethnically/religously/genre-oriented archives... utilizing one central concept as a source of strength is certainly a reasonable marketing stragety.

Consider, though, how each and every archive operates, in one way or another, completely independantly from all the rest. The most important individualizing characteristic: budget. "Its our money, ergo we'll spend it how and where we like." This is a reasonable statement.

And yet, I am left wondering, what happens to all of the unifying historical information and data that is segregated and celled in separate locations, with separate governing policies, separated by staff, by priviledge, and by geography.