Memory loss?

So, last night I got out of class early. What to do? I didn’t really feel like going straight home, so I met a friend for a beer. Finding this out of the way place we settled in and before long these people sat down next to us. As usual at bars (especially out of the way ones on Tuesday nights) we all got to talking. This one guy, turns out, was a collector of old movie reels. Really old ones. He told us that many of them were in either disrepair or beyond repair. First question out of my mouth was “do you plan to digitize any of them?” Hmmph. So this class has affected the way I think about things. He told me he has not, but he has sold a few to some art school in Sweden (for big bucks). I can almost guarantee that they will (digitize them) and will the movies will somehow show up in some art student’s project. Interesting.

This of course leads to the importance of digital preservation. Once things are lost, they are lost forever. So even though i spend a lot of time in this class whining about how much i like books, or how authorities have to have the last word, I really believe that it is imperative to save the past and if the only way to do that is to get things digitized, then I am all for it. The readings (Cohen and Rosenzweig) spent a fair amount of time espousing that historians have to get on the same page as archivists, librarians, and computer scientists. They really do in this case. I know that there are a lot of “old” historians out there that are not willing/able to get on board with the digital age, however, there’s a new breed coming out (us) that are. This, like everything else will not be an easy task. The same problems arise in these cases as with all problems in the humanities: money, time, resources, bodies. There are also other problems, as well. Here we get into ownership, copyright laws, authenticity, and finally, the actual preservation of documents/media. Seems to me, though, that there’s enough hoopla, and enough people that believe in this ‘new’ form of preservation that it might catch on, on a grand scale. Hopefully resources will become available (with our shiny new administration-sorry, Chip) and we can avoid large chunks of memory loss.

i wish…

that my grandfather talked about his experiences in WWII. I know that he received a purple heart and that his leg was a little bumpy due to the schrapnel that resided there. But that’s it. He died in 1997. He never told my dad, my grandmother, or any of my aunts and uncles. Nobody knows. All we know is that he was a really cranky old guy. *sigh* So for me, oral histories could help me to understand what he went through without actually knowing what he went through. Get it?

Although oral histories might not meet all the criteria of IRBs or research standards, one thing holds true (for me)… from a social or humanistic approach they could uncover the true ‘emotions’ of the people who were actually in the situations. Standards aside, is there a better primary source?

Arrgh…

If there’s one thing in this world that I really love, it’s art. So this week’s readings frustrated me more than anything. I know that I should have an open mind, and I try, but when I think about art being ‘interpreted’ by the masses, well, I feel slightly nauseous. Don’t get me wrong, I think that getting art out there for many to appreciate is a great idea. But I also think that it’s not the casual viewer’s prerogative to interpret it and tag it and maybe change the work of art’s very nature. In the readings for the week it says that the museum’s goal is to encourage user engagement and interpretation and that’s fine. It goes further to say that art has the capacity for multiple readings, and that interpretation should incorporate a “wide spectrum of voices and opinions from inside and outside the institution.” Why bother spending all those years and all that money on schooling if anyone could simply log on and start the interpretation process???? Yikes, I didn’t know I’d be this bitter, but I guess I am. So much for that open mind. I could be totally off the mark here, but I just can’t fathom the idea of an ‘amateur’ possibly changing the canon of the art world. Seriously, shouldn’t  there be an authority in there somewhere? Sure, it might be fun to do an interpretation, get in online, and let others see what you’ve done. But what if your wrong? What if your opinions are just not accurate? Just like physics has formulas, art has terms. These terms are there for a reason. The AAM said that museums present one version of the “truth” but there are more stories to be told… and this is where the public comes in… hmm… I’m not sure I buy that.

I like to peruse museum websites, go through the collections, find out about upcoming exhibits. But that’s the extent of it. I don’t want to read someones opinion, and I don’t want them to read mine. Learning is great, everyone should do it, but it should be taught by an authority on the subject.

in regard to last week’s discussion…

the future of the library?…

I love libraries. and from a totally non-academic standpoint, I love the town library. As a child my mother would take my sister and me every Saturday to get books for the week. One time, she left the books on the roof of the car and drove off. This was a bit traumatizing for us, seeing the books splattered all over the road after we realized that when we arrived home we had no books with us (we retraced). But I digress…

I love the academic library, as well. Even when you know what your looking for, you sometimes hit the jackpot unexpectedly while looking for your chosen book. This happens to me often, as I tend to dawdle in the shelves. Now, digitized libraries do much of the same for me. When researching something in particular, I tend to find things ‘by accident.’ However, this does not replace the feeling of being around the actual books, but it makes it easier. For one thing, time is always an issue these days. And the fact that you can peruse the catalog from home makes it much easier to do research in the hours (usually late-night) you have free.

Therefore, I think it’s important that libraries digitize their collections. In the readings they talked about losing the library in the traditional sense, and I think that is a real possibility. I don’t think, however, that will happen any time in the near future. It’s true that we’re in the digital age and in order to keep up, certain institutions must make concessions in order to be included. As Jensen says, in his keynote speech, they must become ‘risk-takers’ and leave traditional thought behind to some extent to keep up with the growing number of places that are becoming digital. He also says, and I think this is important, that digitized collections are allowing people to actually read again and to research and become interested in things they wouldn’t necessarily be interested in, in the first place. The trick is to stay positive to change: money and funding are always an issue and grabbing the attention of a fickle and transitory audience is another issue. Myself, I think that anything to make information more accessible to the public is a good thing, however, I think that balance is important, as well. Perhaps one can look it up online and then go find it in the shelves. It’s like watching a movie on TV and going to seeing a play. One is easy, the other can be an effort. But once you’re sitting in the theater, experiencing something live, you’re glad you’re there. It’s the same with the internet and libraries: you just can’t beat the real thing.

Libraries have been around for thousands of years (think Alexandria). Sure, the modes of communication have greatly changed and they continue to do so, but the fact is the library as an institution has withstood the changing times, and will continue to do so. It just takes people who want to keep earning and exploring.

P.S. At close, I’d like to add that digitizing a collection can also be a means of preservation. Again, think Alexandria: they burned it. When I attended SCSU, the old library suffered greatly from water damage. Leaky roof? And a lot of their stuff, including art and over-sized books were lost. Part of the library was closed for months with buckets between the shelves to catch the water and plastic tarps everywhere. I think that it wasn’t repaired because the new building was in the process of being built, but it was sad to see something so accessible become so inaccessible.

We all have really good ideas!!!!!

First of all, presentations are nerve-wracking, but I think today’s presentations were really interesting and everybody did a good job. The array of projects, not really the ways of employing them (I think everyone is either doing a wiki, website, or podcast) but the content and ideas were really diverse and I think they suit each of us. Yea!!! Now we just have to get them done. Hmmph. Second of all, I want to say thanks to everybody who showed an interest in mine. I was a little weary of my idea when I got to class although it seemed like a great one at 1am last night. I thought to myself “the evolution of kitchens??? Everyone will laugh at me” but… no one did and it was well received. I am now pretty amped to get going, so thanks. And thanks for your input. I will be harassing some of you in the very near future, so watch out.   As far as building a website, I looked at iWeb on my mac, but I think its a little cheesy. Dreamweaver seems like the best choice, it’ll be something I’ll look into and then I’ll have to justify it somehow. We’ll see…

i think i finally get it!

On Monday, my classmate Michael and I attended the CLHO’s Out and About program in Waterbury. The seminar was about planning and installing a permanent exhibit. We were the only students there and it was slightly awkward, but it was still really interesting and informative. I mention the program because in addition to designing the space, planning the layout, hiring the workers, etc, etc, the museum allotted a (big) chunk of money to digitize a large portion of the exhibit. This is when a light went on for me. As it was explained to us, a huge amount of information could be ’stuck’ into a computer, and by utilizing a touch screen, the viewer could navigate around, looking at pictures, reading stories, and enhance their visit by seeing things the room held and learning more about them on the computer. The ladies on the panel commented that when they were giving the information to the techs, they kept asking, “do you really need all this stuff?” Of course, the answer was yes. And it really was needed. Think of museums and the amount of stuff that sits in basements, or where ever because there is just not enough room to display it. Through digitization, many of things that might have been overlooked are now prominently displayed on a computer screen. And more interestingly, during the planning phase, they were told that the average person would spend about 30 seconds at a computer kiosk. Undaunted, they went ahead and now, with the exhibit up and running, they have found that people can spend up to 40 minutes exploring the databases. When we finally got to peruse the exhibit, we played with the computers and one could literally spend an hour just navigating the program. So that’s how i finally learned the importance of the digital age in a public space (Of course, the physical stuff in the room was interesting, as well).

Now let’s get to the case studies. I’m no computer whiz and I proved this to myself tonight as I tried to navigate the podcast websites. I downloaded this, downloaded that only to find that I didn’t know what to do with it once it was downloaded. Hmmph. Call me a dummy, I don’t care. I’ll stick to itunes if I want a podcast, I guess, or keep doing what I do: listen to the Metropolitan’s various podcasts if they seem interesting, or tool around NPR looking for interesting soundbites. It’s probably my lack of patience with technology, I don’t know. I will say one thing; homework for this class really does not seem like homework when suddenly you look up and an hour has gone by because you’re so absorbed in these sites. That’s a good thing, but it doesn’t mean that I know what I’m doing.

As far as the readings, I like good-looking websites and I think aesthetics are important to spending time at a website (I’m shallow?). But as they say, accessibility means more information and more people utilizing it to get to that information. With Cohen teaching the non-computer people to set up their own history websites, I think the balance of aesthetics and accessibility can be achieved, but probably not by me.

five.

For week 5 I looked at the Probate records in Virginia and Maryland. This was more interesting than I thought it would be. For those of us that like material culture, these records could prove invaluable. Full inventories were included as well as the facsimiles and transcripts. It is amazing to see what people had in the 18th and 19th centuries, right down to the nutmeg in their cupboards. But apart from the wow factor, the creators of the sight did a really good, thorough job in researching, organizing, and presenting the material. The audio describing how the project worked was informative, although a bit choppy at times. However, the New Media Center is doing great work getting this and other information out there for people to utilize.

My mind (and my printer) is reeling.

First of all, for a digital history course, I’m sure using a lot of paper. That is entirely my fault, however. I like to read things on paper, mark them up and go back to them, if need be (sorry, trees).

Now, wikipedia. Hmm… As an undergrad we weren’t allowed to cite anything at all from wikipedia. If we did certain professors would refuse to grade our papers. I cannot say that I disagree. The information can at times be sketchy, and for proof, I offer a classmate’s comment today in class. She said that one of her students (high school ) edited a site which stated that he was the father of democracy. I didn’t bother to look, I just believed. However, after reading the assigned readings, I’m sure a ‘wikignome’ has gotten in there to correct it. On a very basic level I really think that the people who write, edit, and moderate wikipedia are truly loyal to the integrity of the site. However, I also believe that the information can indeed be faulty. This is not to say that I have never used wikipedia, I have found it a good jumping off point for certain things. For example, In Spanish classes in the past when given a topic to explore and then present, I have found good information about leaders in South America, environmental and cultural issues that I could not easily access by searching google or some other search engine. Another example is watching ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?’ Not that I sit there everyday, computer on lap ready to key in before a contestant gets to answer, but i have found some fun and interesting things (I now know what a fata morgana is) by perusing wikipedia. And after reading Schiff’s article in The New Yorker, I now understand the dedication and work that goes into keeping the site up and running. I also learned that there is a lot of drama that goes along with that, as well. The fact is that anybody can add, edit, and contribute to the site and it gives a lot of ‘buffs’ the chance to show their wares, so to speak. This very topic was debated in last week’s class, and some believe that the buff and the true historian are on very different planes. While I don’t quite disagree with this, I think Wikipedia is an outlet for all different kinds of minds to meet and contribute to the ‘greater good’ as the site remains, for the most part, anonymous and allows for collective thought, regardless of titles and degrees.

Now for the dreaded scantron. Geez, can filling bubbles with a pencil really gauge one’s intelligence? If I were to answer this question, I’d say no. From personal experience, many people, myself included, simply stink at that kind of testing. I think, as Cohen and Rosenzweig do, that it just allows for rote memorization of things: dates, names, places and in order to really learn something one must put things in context and absorb the bigger picture being presented. Again, as an undergrad, students would whine to professors why they did not put multiple choice questions on tests. The answer across the board was always that the department did not allow multiple choice questions, only short answers and essays. To this I was always glad for I would, given the choice, choose the wrong answer.

The way teachers teach and the way students learn are forever–and quckly–morphing due to the digital age. Computers are in many classrooms, and if not in the classroom, at least in the bedroom–or in the cell phone. To truly teach ( and learn) today there must be a blending of old ways and new. I’ve had classes that did not require any computer class time and others that did. Both worked for me, and will continue to do so. However, please don’t make me fill in any bubbles.

But I like books!!!

I have an open mind. I even like technology and computers. However, more than that, I like books. I like the way they look, the way they feel, even the way they smell when they’re new. I also like stuff: there’s nothing better (in my book..no pun intended) than seeing an old letter or diary right there in front of you, even if it is behind glass. It sends shivers up my spine. I don’t think I’d get the same reaction seeing it load on a computer screen, but that’s just me. However, I do understand the ease and accessibility of digitized books/archives. For research it’s a needed and necessary tool. And a huge time saver. And you can find things you’d otherwise never come across, making research more thorough and concise. Kelly (in Scan This Book! NYT) mentions the linking of books, footnotes and other useful tools to further research and writing, and there, I agree with him. But like everything else, this ‘universal library’ is just another business, making people (and not always the right ones) wealthy while others (namely authors and publishers) continue to go unnoticed (I may be off the mark here, but it always seems that big business eats up the arts and humanities). Regardless, what I like about Kelly most is when he says that so far, the universal library lacks books. Yeah!