Preamble: Art is a Cultural Marker
One of the integral strengths of art is its ability to serve as
documentation of its time. The trickledown effect that social, political
and economic systems of management have on individuals and the public
psyche is evident through revisiting the art of a specific time
period. It is possible for chains of thought and lines of discussion
to open up from the clues laid out through all preserved information
that has been placed in museums and data banks. Taking the concept
further, the public archiving of artworks, artifacts and written
accounts as carried out through institutions, sets its audience
up to hold that acquired work in high esteem, solely by virtue of
its acquisition and preservation. As each increment of revisited
data has an effect on its viewer, that artwork, artifact or written
account has, at least, an assured place in the matrix of the collective
public memory. At best, the place markers set by public institutions
might be seen to represent the collective public memory, in essence,
the past itself.
On the other hand, some of the personal archives and collections
of artists and persons in all fields can, in time, become interesting
to museums and other institutions housing cultural repositories.
This is evidenced through the period objects, photographs, and accounts;
everyday musings and historical records donated to public institutions
such as galleries and museums. The 17th century diaries of Samuel
Pepys [1]
might be one of the most famous to fall into this category. Through
Pepys’ firsthand accounts, it is possible to have insight
into many aspects of life from a British perspective, including
conditions during the time of the 1665 Plague and the Great Fire
of London in 1666.
The keeping of records whether through systems of oral history,
mark making, representative imagery, written language, or through
objects, speaks literal messages. Those direct messages might also
attest to power and subjugation. They might show the sophistication
of research in the fields of the natural and pure sciences. The
messages might reveal mysteries solved according to prescribed paths;
they might educate by revealing benefits, or warn of dangers encountered
in the physical or psychological progress of the biological world.
Stories are relayed for the pleasure of telling them, and they might
also teach a lesson. The message might begin simply as an account
of the beans, seen in the example of Egyptian hieroglyphs. The name
or state seal of the largest stakeholder will always be attached
to such documents. On closer examination, the study of collections
and archives also reveals intricate details about a culture. Cross-referencing
such information offers possibilities for picking up on other meaning
and value. The kind of records kept might even be read as a kind
of public diary; the laying out of what a culture decides to place
in the time capsule, for descendants or inheritors.
The more detailed the records, the easier it might be to gain insight
into a culture. Or would that necessarily follow? In our current
time period, the digital age, we have the tools to reach back and
to alter past historical references. Those same tools can be used
to influence the future. Altering the facts was perhaps less simple
when printed books and newspapers were relied upon for research.
The past was put to rest as records were buried in libraries and
repositories. The search through archives attested to the past with
more certainty. The dawn of modern digital technology made it possible
to make changes to records in an often-seamless manner. In 1949,
George Orwell's novel ‘1984’ [2]
spoke of future society in which state control was so invasive that
past records were systematically rewritten to confuse the intelligence
of the reader, to justify social and economic conditions, as well
as to bolster political support for making war. These Orwellian
predictions were premature when birthed but almost daily, we are
confronted with proof that original records can and are being altered
and, that media spin is playing out its effect. [3]
Sensational news dissemination through television and the Internet
carries the power to influence the decisions and actions of populations
to a far greater degree than in previous eras. By example, the horrific
images of the World Trade Centre bombing on September 11, 2001 so
graphically portrayed actual events that it became easier to influence
the American public of the need to make war in Afghanistan and in
Iraq. We have recently been told that the US went to war with Iraq
based on false information. That example alone brings questions
of who kept the records and who altered the facts. Decisions made
through acting upon such information are irreversible and it brings
forward questions that must be closely examined by democratic civilizations
that advertise their interest in the 'fair play' of opportunity,
and those who propose to do war on the premise ‘to defend
their own nation.’ The question for the spectator in such
a political climate becomes, ‘How can we discern facts from
fiction?’ Following that comes the question, ‘ What
should we preserve of today’s news?’
Thinking about establishing systems of public record keeping
presents many questions. Perhaps the first are; who writes the agenda,
who takes care of the input, and which systems are sustainable in
the digital age. Costs have skyrocketed, making the establishment
of new recordkeeping systems virtually prohibitive. This is the
case, in spite of the fact that the size and the weight of digital
apparatus continue to go through a miniaturization process. Changing
technology continues to adversely impact the ability to review and
to include whole spectrums of cultural activity as playback equipment
becomes obsolete and irreplaceable. The next questions might be:
who steps up to launch the establishment of a repository system
and whose records will be kept. Suddenly we are faced with the obvious
dichotomy of concept: do we entrust this important work to the altruistic,
if eccentric, monk with esoteric tastes and; how will we discern
if it is Machiavelli volunteering his services. If not one of these,
then how many other variations of these two agents are employed
to the task in the battle between subjective and objective representation
of political, economic, scientific and cultural data?
When I started working on this project and talking to people, I
realized that collecting and archiving is widely important to many
people in either, or both of their professional and personal lives.
In seeking the answers to questions surrounding who collects and/or
archives, and why, I have interviewed seven persons about their
concerns and methodologies. In order to form order some links, I
have placed excerpts from those conversations in the following sequence:
1. Archive of Research, Doug MacLeod
2. Archive of Meanings, Robert Woodbury
3. Archive of Family Treasure, Vera Gartley
4. Archive of Conflict, Richard Halliday
5. Archive of Connecting Archives, Tomas Johsson
6. Archive of Odds and Ends, Marc Parenteau
7. Archive of Change, Seiko Karakama
The Reader should feel at liberty to re-arrange the sequence. Following
the excerpted interviews is my epilogue: How do Individuals find
themselves in the database, and notes – mainly comprised of
Internet links.
- Valerie LeBlanc
August 18, 2004
Notes:
[1] The
17th century diaries of Samuel Pepys http://www.pepys.info
[2] George
Orwell http://www.george-orwell.org/
[3] Ben Fritz,
Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan wrote the
book All The President's
Spin: http://www.spinsanity.org/book/
They also edit the website Spinsanity.
Top
|
