Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2009 10:59:11 GMT
I agree totally, Andrew. In addition to what you say though, television is uniquely disadvantaged as a medium in that "those above" have totally controlled the fate of the programmes. Sadly, this is still so. If we were talking about music (records / cds) or books, for example, the existence of the material contained within them is not down to the whims of archivists / archive policies; anyone can collect vinyl or books (of even the most obscure groups or authors), and, in doing so, effectively ensure the existence of the work. These items can never "fail to exist" as copies will exist in duplication and total ultimate power is not wielded by one central archive.
Eventually (when a high quality and also reliable visual medium is arrived at) this same situation may also be possible for television programmes. How much more will be junked by archives in the meantime though?!? "Philistine" is hardly adequate to describe how television has been regarded (and continues to be regarded, it seems) by the very organisations that made the programmes in the first place. I don't trust them to preserve this vital material one bit.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 3, 2009 14:47:48 GMT
Quite. However, that doesn't alter the definition of an 'archive'. Strange how, if the written archives are used to describe the BBC's documents and letters department, nothing is knowingly thrown away, and rightly so. I take it you've never been to the BBC's Written Archive, Andrew, because if you did, you'd know that that's absolute nonsense! ;D The Written Archives are far from complete and all files are gone through first by RAPIC to remove and destroy any material not suitable for public release and then the process is gone through again by the Caversham staff when the files are actually requested for the first time. Well, I can tell you for a fact that you're wrong on that one. There are lots of working archives that I know of that review their holdings and submissions and then selectively dispose of material. Richard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2009 16:07:53 GMT
Well, I can tell you for a fact that you're wrong on that one. There are lots of working archives that I know of that review their holdings and submissions and then selectively dispose of material. If that's the case, Richard, then they wouldn't be allowed to be members of FIAF, the international federation of archives. It's also the reason the BBC are not members; theirs is a working library and not a true archive (i.e. re-use comes before perservation of master material). "Working archive" is a paradoxical term. It just means it's a library.
|
|