- Cloonan, Michele Valerie. (2007) "The paradox of preservation." Library Trends, 56 (1), 133-147.
- A "Dig Deeper" article from Today & Tomorrow
- Accessible online at http://bit.ly/2mONZy5
I was drawn to this article because it immediately made me think of the Digital Libraries class that I took last semester. One of the major discussion points in that class had been the issue of preservation. That sounds obvious, but there were several angles to it that I hadn't considered. How does a library choose what to preserve when funds are low and shelf space is tight, yet server space is also limited?
"For had they remained buried, we would not know of them; thus the important information we have gotten from them would not be ours." Cloonan writes this in regards to the Nag Hammadi bindings--codices that were sealed in a jar underground, eventually dug up by farmers. In a variety of ways (including the farmers' mother using one or two to light her stove), these codices were damaged after being discovered. Was the information contained on these scrolls worth this destruction? Cloonan does not make an argument either way, merely points out the paradox. I thought of it like Schrodinger's cat, almost. We wouldn't know what was on the codices until we unrolled them...and what good do they do history if they are never read again? Rather than be scared by mishandling or too much handling, we should take such anecdotes as evidence of the need for better digitization methods, and more funding. (Digitizing an item would then allow it to be stored safely, with minimal further handling.)
He also uses politically incorrect/offensive cartoons as an example, to raise the issue of when do librarians and curators deem something "useless"? I didn't find this particularly original, but did agree with one of the Islamic center librarians he spoke with--preserve, as "everything is grist for historians," but do not display. I did find, however, his case for the Holocaust concentration camps fascinating. I've never questioned why they were preserved, or how, nor did I ever think how that preservation of a physical site coincided with what we librarians do. It does, on paper, seem almost wrong that Jewish organizations raise so much money to preserve these camps, which were meant as temporary sites, but it is important. It can be horrifying to visit, but the sites will mean different things to different people. Which of course raises the question of how to do so, such as with Cloonan's specific example of physical remains of hair samples taken from prisoners. Some want the samples preserved for as long as possible, as a stark reminder of the people who suffered, but some want these remains buried as a sign of respect. This is an extreme case most librarians may never deal with when preserving material, but it did make me think.
"For had they remained buried, we would not know of them; thus the important information we have gotten from them would not be ours." Cloonan writes this in regards to the Nag Hammadi bindings--codices that were sealed in a jar underground, eventually dug up by farmers. In a variety of ways (including the farmers' mother using one or two to light her stove), these codices were damaged after being discovered. Was the information contained on these scrolls worth this destruction? Cloonan does not make an argument either way, merely points out the paradox. I thought of it like Schrodinger's cat, almost. We wouldn't know what was on the codices until we unrolled them...and what good do they do history if they are never read again? Rather than be scared by mishandling or too much handling, we should take such anecdotes as evidence of the need for better digitization methods, and more funding. (Digitizing an item would then allow it to be stored safely, with minimal further handling.)
He also uses politically incorrect/offensive cartoons as an example, to raise the issue of when do librarians and curators deem something "useless"? I didn't find this particularly original, but did agree with one of the Islamic center librarians he spoke with--preserve, as "everything is grist for historians," but do not display. I did find, however, his case for the Holocaust concentration camps fascinating. I've never questioned why they were preserved, or how, nor did I ever think how that preservation of a physical site coincided with what we librarians do. It does, on paper, seem almost wrong that Jewish organizations raise so much money to preserve these camps, which were meant as temporary sites, but it is important. It can be horrifying to visit, but the sites will mean different things to different people. Which of course raises the question of how to do so, such as with Cloonan's specific example of physical remains of hair samples taken from prisoners. Some want the samples preserved for as long as possible, as a stark reminder of the people who suffered, but some want these remains buried as a sign of respect. This is an extreme case most librarians may never deal with when preserving material, but it did make me think.
No comments:
Post a Comment