So it's been a while. Busy couple of weeks. Not a lot of good news floating around the archives, but on the up side,
March 13 is the first Saturday of four that we'll be open with extra hours (8:30-5pm). Take advantage while you can!
It's contest season for those of you who are interested in the National History Day program, and for those of you who want to participate, they always need people to volunteer, whether as judges or simply to post signs. Odds are that there's a contest in your region, going on now. Or very soon. And of course, there's the state contest here in April. Start looking
here.
Now, onto the zen of archiving. "Zen" being used loosely here, of course.
I've been chewing over the dichotomy of archival work, specifically that of public history. On one hand, as a professional, you're obligated to protect and defend, as it were, the records that constitute the known history of said particular locale (in this case, a state). On the other hand, you are summarily required to provide access to these records. Very often, these two demands are at odds - excess handling, copying, usage, etc. tends to destroy documents over time. But locking them away in a climate controlled, sterile
environment for all eternity is (while perhaps best for preservation) contrary to everything the historical community stands for (knowledge and truth seeking), and in this case, possibly illegal (hence the
public in public records).
Trying to find a happy medium, then, is the best one can presumably achieve. But how does one define balance between destruction and preservation, access and exclusivity? At what point is the line drawn, and a decision made: to prioritize preservation over access, or knowledge over future existence, or worse yet, that no one cares? Is there a way to do it all?