"Marie O'Connell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Why would I, as an archivist, waste my time on undocumented material as
> opposed to documented? If there is documentation with the item that is
> relevant to our archive, then yes, I will. But a random tape with nothing
> written on the box, no notes or anything becomes a lower priority. Some
> our accessioned tape may say one word on it.....I look it up and go to
> lengths to find anything to link it, and if it does I move on. afterall, I
> am one person dealing with hundreds and thousands of hours of accessions
> with very little documentation.
> Unfortunately we do not have funding for mass analogue tape presently. If
> had my way we would do it all regardless, but I have constraints with
> management who seem to think content is more important than fragile media.
Because all too often this "undocumented" material is the only extant
audio copi of an event...which MAY be vital in retrospect! My personal
cassettes (which I HOPE I still own, after my ars**ole "landlady's" efforts
to "clean up the house")...
(may she die slowly and painfully...!) are AFAIK the only extant evidence
of the very popular efforts of my/our blues band to entertain the half-vast
folks of Toronto & district...!
The point is this...EVERY "document" of ANY sort is (and may be the
ONLY extant?!) a record of something that happened...that is, a part
of history which to some extent defines our current existence!
Sadly, we live in a world where objects are defined as:
(1) New enough to be current...?!
(2) "Old," obsolete and thus worthless...?!
(3) A "valuable antique"...see my eWotsit posting
and bring a LOT of money...?!
It is only us pack rats that save things in stage 2 until they
reach stage 3!!
Steven C. Barr