“restoring” history

With the recent news come to light that NASA has admitted to losing or erasing the original tapes of footage from the moon, I could barely contain my shock.  Of all things — of all missions — to lose the footage that was live broadcast from the moon is incomprehensible to me.

NPR notes that

NASA has, however, offered up a consolation prize for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission — the agency has taken the best available broadcast television footage and contracted with a digital restoration firm to enhance it, so that the public can see the first moonwalk in more detail than ever before.

While the restored television footage is impressive, what is more horrifying to me is a (seeminly innocuous) quote from one of the leaders of the restoration:

“We’ve got to be very, very mindful of history,” says Lowry. “If you want to go to the extreme, you could take these images and completely re-create them. You could create a three-dimensional model of the lunar lander, and you could make it look beautiful. But I don’t think that’s the point. I think the point is that Apollo 11 was a very, very special historical event.”

That strikes terror into my heart.  Yes, he admits that history is a priority, but the very idea that you would replace legitimate archival footage with a three-dimensional model that was not there, and clean it up to be unrecognizable is horrifying to me.  Why would this be mentioned, even in jest (purportedly), if it were not an idea that crossed his mind?

These are not the kind of people we want in charge of our archives – and may in fact be why I’m not the biggest fan of restoration, as it were.  Restoration that does things like properly align Technicolor 3-strip, I’m all about, because that’s revealing information that was there all along.  When that’s compared with this “Photoshopping” of films that people think is restoration, it leads us down a path that I don’t see the end of.

academic vs. public history, take I

I have quite a bit to say on this subject, but this will have to suffice for now:

If historians in and out of the academy are trained in the same institutions, if they share an educational mission, and if they produce work that holds up to professional scrutiny, then what is the difference between public historians and more traditional ones?

-Robert Weible
“Defining Public History: Is it possible?  Is it necessary?” Perspectives on History

the necessity of objects

Tags:archives, objects.

late 18th C. coat at the DAR archives

A classmate brought up the new Night at the Museum movie, which is based on the idea that the Smithsonian is removing all their exhibits and replacing them with virtual, digital exhibits.

Interesting.  I’m torn, though.  While I’m a huge fan of exhibits with digital components, I argued that there is still something – some intrinsic feeling — that we get when we see the actual object.  I can’t necessarily put my finger on what exactly it is, but there’s a visceral reaction to seeing an object.   There’s a similar reaction when you can actually touch something, and it’s that type of connection that I think that digital can never achieve. 

That being said, digital can achieve much.  Digitizing collections is fantastic work, and my gratitude to institutions like the V&A in uploading high-res images of their collections is indescribable (even though I think they should have better search terminology!).  I love that it makes collections — like those across the pond — more accessible to those looking for it, but it still doesn’t replace a trip to an actual archives.

I worked in the Warner Bros. Archive for two summers, and for lack of a better term it was the coolest experience.  I helped set up exhibits with the props from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and there was an element of physicality that I couldn’t deny, even if they were “just film props.”  I was holding the Marauder’s Map, Harry’s actual wand, Remus Lupin’s real clothes.  They came alive, and I think that’s to do with the fact that I can touch them, and feel just how real they are. 

The same can be said for museums, and explains some of my fanaticism towards reproductions.  This came about at Colonial Williamsburg, where one realizes rather quickly that the amount of extant 18th C. garments is slim.  On the same note, the amount of accurate reproductions is massive, and it gives someone the chance to have a connection with something like the object, but without damaging the original.  Touch a reproduction pair of breeches, coat all you like — you can inspect stitches, see methods of construction without wearing white gloves, and those little things help history “come alive” as it were. 

Still, there’s something about actual objects that just makes your heart flutter.

freeze tag

Tags:2.0, folksonomy, museums, users.

Just a quick note on a neat new aspect of the Brooklyn Museum‘s tagging initiative.  They’ve already took the lead in user-generated content, creating what they call a “posse” of members, all contributing to add folksonomy (aka descriptive tags) to their works of art.  Turning it into a game makes it so much more fun, and addictive, since you’re constantly compared to other members of the posse.

It’s been a common critique of user-generated tags that there’s no way to moderate — or, you can moderate, but it brings up the issue of whether or not it changes the feeling of, well, user-generated.  What the Brooklyn Museum has done is had some posse members flag tags for removal, and then put those tags up to a mass vote, called “Freeze Tag!”

With this, you’re presented with the object (similar to the regular taggging) but also with the tags that have been flagged.  You can then choose which tags you agree should be deleted — but what I never would have thought of  is that they’ve considered that just because a tag has been flagged doesn’t mean it should be deleted.  There are three options – Keep It!, Trash It! and Not Sure. 

This gives a chance to delete extraneous or incorrect tags, but it also gives the museum some flexibility in which tags are eliminated.  Plus, it’s just as addictive as Tag! You’re it!  Take a gander, won’t you?

connecting the dots of the history web

Tags:community, flickr, social.

Just finished watching this video of a talk Clay Shirky gave at the Smithsonian this past February, and I think it’s fabulous.  My love of web 2.0 and social media is already apparent, but this delving deeper into what exactly it means appeals to me.  

What really appealed to me is this:

“Group action just got easier” -Clay Shirky

Isn’t that what it’s all about?  He talked about Flickr, YouTube, and the communities that they create are formed in rather different ways that we’ve thought about creating communities previously.  This time, the sharing element is key, and things are remixed in new ways instead of just being static. 

I think that’s where some of the popularity of the Creative Commons licensing arises.  CC opens the door – it says use me! remix me!  instead of the firm what are you doing that regular copyright seems to imply.  Not that copyright doesn’t have its place, because it’s an important aspect of intellectual property, but Creative Commons seems like more of an alternate path rather than a direct competitor.  

So Flickr.  It’s interesting, because it’s seen as an alternate Picasa, but there’s so much more community base in Flickr, and it’s integral to the medium.  That’s why Flickr commons is such a success, and most of the reason why having LIFE photographs on Google makes me sad.  No way to comment, to favorite, to group, to collect — not only for myself, but to compare my collections with those of others.  Without Flickr, I would have a harder time pinning down some of the 18th century fashion community, or would have no feedback on my own photos.  My photographs would be static, portfoli0-style, and those connections would never be made.

In a way, it gets back to Dan Cohen’s idea of digital collecting – which I would put Flickr under.

Perhaps the most profound benefit of online collecting is an unparalleled opportunity to allow more varied perspectives in the historical record than ever before.

What is this creation of community, after all, than the creation of a new, networked historical record with perspectives that our precessors could never have imagined?  I love it.

…and so it begins!

This blog is being started for a class on “History in the Digital Age” at American University, but it won’t be restricted to that.  It’ll be a chance to talk about what I love, hate and wonder about museums – especially as we enter this age of web 2.0 and we may have to re-evaluate what we think.  Should be fun!