Comments on: Elitism, AIC, and Blogs: Where is the Love?

By: Push Lawn Mowers – The Perfect Eco-Friendly Choice

Push Lawn Mowers – The Perfect Eco-Friendly Choice — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:00:15 +0000

[...] it releases into the atmosphere every age when you trim your bush is enormous. More information: wii mario games Category: Uncategorized Cancel [...]

By: Ima let you finish

Ima let you finish — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:51:15 +0000

Yo Dude that stole my lunch, Im real happy for you, Ima let you finish,but the Hamburglar is one of the best food thiefs of all time…this is at http://imaletyoufinish.com/kanye-will-let-the-hamburglar-finish/ pretty hilarious!

By: Ellen Carrlee

Ellen Carrlee — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:46:26 +0000

Marc, there are huge new things afoot with the digital venues, and to me the excitement is quite separate from peer reviewed literature. It consists of the precursors to peer-reviewed literature, notes, ideas, and useful documents I produce but never plan to publish. For example, my research on PEG treatments for archaeological basketry. I’ve got a 6″ pile of articles that took me weeks to sift through, and I’ve been grappling with it for quite a while. LO! Dana Senge in Seattle is also trying to work through this literature. My blog has allowed us to communicate and share info easily. An archaeological conservator I’ve never met in Maine sent me 4 WOAM journals in the mail after she saw my blog. It has allowed me to connect with archaeologists who don’t read the conservation literature but have seen (or treated) many baskets and have useful insights. One of them told me that after 40 years working with baskets she is convinced that the freeze-dried ones don’t come out as well. I am not technologically sophisticated enough to make a website, but a blog allows me to share and communicate easily. I find myself wondering, after I finish this research, where I ought to publish it. Such a product needs peer review in order to be valid and trustworthy, and at this point those journals are usually not free online. Many folks who use PEG in the archaeology and museum world won’t easily find the article in a print-only conservation journal. These issues are new territory. As for those locked cabinets at NYU, you should have looked…there was much more than just “junk” in there….

By: Marc Walton

Marc Walton — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:40:45 +0000

What an interesting and viable debate. But it seems almost entirely irrelevant.
On Elitism:
In its position as a professional organization, AIC, by definition, is elitist. Elitism is not a bad term (but has been made so by Republican spin; remember “elitist northern democrats”?). I agree with conservationoccasional, elitism is a good thing and any attempts to reform this quality may result in the undoing of our only umbrella organization for American conservation.
On publishing:
On the front of publishing and the availability of treatment reports, there are already major efforts underway to bring treatment reports online (i.e., the Mellon foundation’s digital initiative). I would say “open-source conservation” is the inevitable way of the future. No more locked cabinets at NYU, Ellen (though I never looked at these anyway, way too much junk to wade through)! This does not mean that a hierarchy will cease to exist in literature, it most certainly will: peer-reviewed articles at the top, gray area post-prints in the middle, and digital media at the very, very bottom. It is nice to think that all the things we need to know will exist in a Wikipedia entry, but this is impractical when considering the volumes of information a conservator must collect and marshal for a treatment. Digital media is simply a portal which may guide us toward the relevant information.
So there is nothing really new here. We still need to publish research on cultural heritage in peer reviewed literature. Blogs and other digital venues (the individual publishing houses at each museum) will not replace the article seriously and critically examined by our colleagues.
So I have to ask, what is all the noise about?

By: La otra conservation: Radical Questions for Conservation « Dan Cull Weblog

La otra conservation: Radical Questions for Conservation « Dan Cull Weblog — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:29:49 +0000

[...] he began this week with a blog post on the Ellen Carrlee’s weblog. In return Ellen Carrlee guest blogged on the IMA blog adding her own take on things. Furthermore many people have commented on these posts adding to the [...]

By: Join the discussion « Conservation Occasional

Join the discussion « Conservation Occasional — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:58:09 +0000

[...] that I would be remiss in not encouraging everyone to read the series of posts that Richard McCoy, Ellen Carrlee, and Dan Cull have up (or are soon to post) to stir up some thinking in preparation for the AIC [...]

By: Daniel Cornwall

Daniel Cornwall — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:05 +0000

Hi Museum folks,

I’m one of Ellen’s colleagues in the Division of Libraries, Archives and Museums. I manage one of three sections of the Alaska State Library.

Ellen’s post and your excellent comments prompted a few thoughts that I wanted to share from “Libraryland”

1) I had no idea there was this gulf between conservators and general museum people. Scott and Ellen appeared to be vital, collaborative members of the Alaska State Museum and I just sort of assumed that it was that way everywhere. But as Ellen says, there is a lot we don’t yet know about one another. I joined the Museum’s docent program this year and its been quite the fun and informative experience.

2) Conservators are not alone in making themselves understood to the public. Librarians are having to constantly explain that they don’t actually read books all day and that everything isn’t on the free internet. I know some catalogers who feel about their libraries that some conservators appear to feel about their museums. But I’m happy to report that we don’t have separate cataloger’s conferences. For the most part, there will be at least one session on all kinds of librarianship at a library conference.

3) I think knowledge/cultural/artifact workers of all stripes will need to do a better job of letting the public know we exist and that getting rid of us is like giving society a lobotomy.

By: Richard McCoy

Richard McCoy — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:56:43 +0000

Mary’s comments on “Research Priorities and Conservation Literature,” is so much more than a comment.

It’s basically at the heart of what we’re talking about here.

What are the research priorities for conservators? For museums? For publishing about cultural property?

These are not only the “big questions,” but they are the *biggest and most important issues* on the table right now for our profession.

When I saw the title of the AIC Annual Meeting was “Conservation 2.0: New Directions,” I assumed that this would be the very topic of that whole meeting. Instead, it seems we are having that meeting here. Okay with me.

I think the #1 research priority for conservation is better understand how are we are creating, searching, and sharing the information that we create around cultural property.

Of course conservators aren’t unique in this situation; it’s an easy comparison to say that we are living in the equivalent of the 1500s, the time when printing presses started mucking up everything for all those scribes and illustrators working inside of churches.

Newspapers are going away, and very quickly not slowly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/opinion/10rich.html
I mean check out that NYT article, and ask yourself what’s the difference between that and Ellen’s “Blog Post.” Fundamentally, I argue the difference = nothing. Both had notable authors, both use words, both use web links, both are expressing opinions, both have exactly the same potential to reach everyone who has an internet connection. They’re just different web links. Sure, Frank Rich gets a lot more hits than this blog, and likewise there are a lot more comments (just under 700 there, we’re just under 20 here). But all of a sudden each conservators, each museum, each whatever has it’s very own printing press.

So, for me the question isn’t if we are going to fundamentally change how we share information (print-publish, present at the AM, e-mail, whatever), but how can we do it to our benefit? And how can we do it is so that we can include everyone?

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:56:18 +0000

I can’t remark on the “elitist” debate, but I’ve found this blog and the comments fascinating and very informative. As a museum and blog mate of Richard’s from IMA security I have always thought that understanding the roles of the other departments (conservation, curatorial, registration) helps me and our officers work in conjunction instead of opposition with staff. Great post, thanks.

By: Mary F. Striegel

Mary F. Striegel — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:20:27 +0000

I keep thinking about this elitism thing. I’ve heard it around AIC before I was on the board and now after. It feels to me like a red herring is some way. I remember once complaining to a colleague that someone was trying to control me. His answer was, “then don’t do it.” If AIC is elitist, then jump in and get involved. Is there really someone that is keeping you out?

Now, if you try to get involved and people disagree with your views or ideas, that’s a different story. Many of the topics we are touching on here have been discussed before. There may be new anwsers. But if you have been around a while and you’ve seen hard work on a topic, sometimes its tough to see it identified as the lastest “new” problem. That’s where real research comes in. What has been done before to address a topic.

Now on a completely different note:

Research Priorities and Conservation Literature:
Since 1989 I’ve been trying to figure out the research priorities needed for conservation. The AIC membership has been surveyed at least three times since then. There are some interesting observations about this effort.

1. The same topics keep coming up.
2. Even if advances have been made in the topic area and published in journals, the knowledge is not being received by the end-user — the conservator.
3. Research topics can be divided into:
a. those that are already answered
b. those that can be answered with research
c. those that technology cannot yet address

This points to the infromation world. If articles are already published in peer reviewed journals, then why aren’t conservators finding and reading the articles. If much of our literature is in gray literature (hard to find no-peer reviewed stuff like postprints), then why? Why do we need our infromation in 400 -600 word tidbits on websites? Some of this may be an exaggeration, but it’s not that far reaching. The problem boils down to time. Who has time to search for and read journal articles while working on the big stuff? Who has time to take their postprint and make it into a peer-reveiwed publication (or a wiki entry on the AIC wiki)? Who has time to do the appropriate research when the artifact needs to be on display in 30 days or less? I don’t think computers and the internet has enhanced our lives by giving us more free time, it simply means we want more information quicker so that we can do more work.

And speaking of work. . .