Print

Print


"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 
> of
> our accessioned tape may say one word on it.....I look it up and go to 
> many
> 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 
> I
> 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