greenstone project profile

Digital collections are an excellent way to make information easily accessible to people regardless of geography. They are also becoming increasingly necessary as people come to expect information of all kinds to be available online. The goal of our digitization project is to publish on the Internet several collections of photographs, ephemera, music recordings, as well as transcribed and recorded oral histories. In order to do so, we will require software that is capable of handling various forms of digital media and create an easy to use, searchable database for users to access the collections. Unfortunately, our budget does not allow us the luxury of entrusting the project to paid professionals, so we must make do with existing software that is simple enough to use so that our staff can use it efficiently. Greenstone Digital Library software appears to be our best option, as it comes free of charge and is of a high caliber of software design with relative ease of use. As I am not an information technology professional, I am unable to evaluate the finer points of the software from a technical standpoint; instead, the criteria I have used to evaluate the software are the following: its suitability for our particular archives and the multimedia collections we wish to digitize, its ease of use for the non-professional of web design (i.e., us) in developing the collection as well as for the end user, and the overall cost of implementing the project.

technospew

The field of web technology is rife with sexy buzzwords and ephemera, and any article co-authored by a self-professed “Technology Evangelist” is sure to be no exception. As discussed in the article Do Libraries Matter? The rise of Library 2.0 by Ken Chad and Paul Miller, the very term “Library 2.0” invites hesitation. What is Library 2.0? It is not evident from the article, which makes no effort to define it in any way. Nor does it differentiate it from Library 1.0, whatever that may be, but from the principles of Library 2.0 that Chad and Miller define – that the library invites participation; that the library has no barriers; that the library is everywhere; and that the library uses flexible best-of-breed systems – it appears that Library 2.0 according to Chad and Miller is a transposition of Web 2.0 principles on to the library. If that were to simply mean a more interactive library driven by users’ needs, then Library 2.0 is to be embraced, not disdained. However, not only does the article avoid a definition of Library 2.0, it avoids a definition of what it considers the library to be in the first place – its uses, its function within a community, the purpose it serves. Chad and Miller advocate a library that exists primarily within virtual – not physical – space. The article infers the library to be, simply, an information resource, and one that is quickly becoming archaic in the age of the Internet.

Under the heading “The library has no barriers,” Chad and Miller wax philosophic about the Internet and the democratization of information. Democracy, however, appears to be used in this context as a buzzword and little more. Democratization of information within the context of a public library does not mean posting information across the Internet; it has far more specific connotations related to class and power. Indeed, one of the truly wonderful aspects of the public library system is its widespread availability to all, especially those who most greatly need the removal of barriers to information such as linguistic, financial, and others erected by marginalization. To turn a library’s resources away from the physical space of the library and towards the Internet would be to erect yet another barrier to the resources of the library for those who cannot or do not participate in Internet culture.

basura, part 1

What do these have in common: the junkshop, the blog, the shoebox of broken things and stones and treasures the child keeps under his bed, the mixtape, the archives?

One thing you notice walking down my block on Queen is that there are a lot of "antique" shops. They're neat to spend time in. Usually, they're run by small cranky grizzled old men who fixate on your every movement as you bump into haphazardly stacked boxes of junk or trip over the box of old soda bottles on the floor. Sometimes you'll find something interesting to take home only to have it snatched from your hands and angrily declared IS NOT FOR SALE when you try to purchase it. Everything smells vaguely of cat pee and dust.

I'm sure that with a good eye somebody could go in one of these stores and find something that is Shabby Chic or of interest to a collector of 1947 lacquer kitchenware and resell it on Ebay for a small fortune. Mostly what is distinguishable about most of the things in the junk shops is their very indistinguishability. When looked at individually, these bits of ephemera and furniture sometimes acquire the hallowed feeling of relics, but collectively, they just resemble a huge room full of junk. Until you look a bit closer.

You'll see that the pricetag reflects some kind of exorbitant value. It's not material value, because what you're holding in your hands is the same hideous teal and black object d'art ashtray that could be found in every American basement rec room throughout the 1970s. Why does it cost $40??

It's not because some yuppie will pay the money thinking it's Cool Vintage Design. Nobody will ever buy it. It can't even be mistaken for Cool Vintage Design. It is what it is - an ugly ashtray. People don't even really smoke anymore. Its pricetag reflects a different kind of value, inherent to the object but completely independent of financial or material value. You'll also get a sense of it when the proprietor refuses to sell you something. These objects stand alone, removed from original use value, aesthetic value, material value. Indeed, their collectors have imbued them with something far more valuable.

Walter Benjamin: "For the collector, the world is present, and indeed ordered, in each of his objects." (Arcades Project, H2,7; H2a,1)

Like the archivist, the collector looks at each item and sees its context. From the object, he is able to deduce the particular feeling of an era, place, aesthetic, person.. when removed from this context (and placed in another, such as use value), the object loses its meaning. The junk shop caretaker reflects the contextual value he sees in the often absurd price of the object.

Benjamin also notes: Animals (birds, ants), children, and old men as collectors. (Arcades Project, H4,a,2) Children collect because they see the world they dream of in their objects. Old men collect because they see the world as they once felt it in what they find.

blogotypes and archivaria

A question recently addressed in an assignment for FIS 1311: What are blogs and how are they of relevance to the information professional?

Blogs mimic the archive in that they act as a repository of memory of the here and now. Whether its principle of organization is strictly subject-based or more ephemeral, it is an imprint of a certain time and place; a contingent and particular way of looking at things.

Blogs also act as a clearinghouse of information and a forum for discussion. A good one for archivists can be found at archivesblogs.com, which syndicates information from a number of archives-related blogs.

I also like to think of the city as an archive of sorts, and I'll be exploring this idea here. I live right in between two diverse and vibrant neighbourhoods in Toronto, Parkdale and Roncesvalles Village, so you can expect to read about the goings-on of daily life where I live.

so, enjoy! and comment with what you have to say.