A review of existing practice |
...an eLib supporting study |
In this context, it is perhaps most useful initially to contrast the different types of physical artefact handled by 'archives', 'museums', and 'libraries'. In an archive we have, say, the hand-written letter; in a museum, say, an example of a Chippendale chair; in a library, say, a copy of a published book. (There are also, of course, 'galleries', with an individual gallery containing, say, a particular painting by Sisley. Galleries do not seem to this writer to raise significant issues beyond those below; but it is worth commenting that at the level of the individual artefact they have more in common with archives, than with their more usual bedfellows, museums.)
All physical artefacts are axiomatically unique objects. But whereas the physical stuff of archives is, or is generally organised to be, absolutely unique, that of libraries has for virtually all library users a uniqueness which is of no interest at all. Unless, that is, the library document has a rarity which then makes it almost, or indeed absolutely, unique. Thus the common practice of combining the management of 'archives' and 'rare books' collections within libraries. Subject to that proviso, since it is the 'content' of books and other published documents, rather than their physicality, that is the only interest to virtually all of us; since, also, that content speaks for itself - it does not have to be 'described' for it to be understood; and since, further, the process of publishing - by definition - results in multiple copies (the more the merrier): all this means that electronic publishing and digitisation and the resulting 'virtual' library collections can be conceptualised as a complete and totally acceptable substitute for print publishing, and print document shelving, and 'real' library collections.
Not so, 'virtual' museum collections: or, at least, not in the same way. A prime reason that people travel to visit museums is to see the actual physical objects (or 'faithful' replicas of the originals of such objects) contained therein: because by doing so they have richer experiences than they would have by reading about the objects - or, indeed, by viewing three-dimensional digital representations of those objects. But, of course, it is more than that. All museums these days within their public galleries provide explanations of the significance of the objects they display: increasingly, these explanations are electronically produced and provided explanations. The explanations frequently act as a link between the object displayed and the 'collection' of which that object is a representative. In the same way, all museums behind the scenes are creating catalogues and visual representations of their objects as aids to scholarly research: again, placing the objects in the context of the collection of which they are components.
But how, then, are such museum collections delineated? Almost always, the collections of 'archives' delineate themselves: they relate normally to a specific person or institution. The collections of 'libraries', on the other hand, should be delineated by the purpose for which the library exists: by the information needs of their user populations. In contrast, the collections of 'museums', are - again - delineated somewhere between those two extremes. They can perhaps best be conceived as a bridge between the collecting desires and interests of specific people or institutions; and the information needs - in the widest sense - of those who might use the resulting collections. Inevitably, in choosing what to collect, and what not, there is a significant tension between the collectors' wish to be comprehensive in coverage of the chosen domain; as against the need to ensure the (future) usefulness of the resulting collection - especially in the context of the resources needed to create and maintain it.
'Usefulness' to whom? It is not just that museums nowadays feel the need to make their collections of physical objects more 'intelligible' to those who would peruse them. It is also that the very relationship between museums and their public is being radically changed so that it is the public - rather than as originally when the idea of museums were first promoted, the museum itself - that is in the superior position. To quote from a recent article: early in the next century it is anticipated that
the Museum's role will have been transformed from one of mastery to one of service'
Further, there will then be:
...a reservoir of possibilities. From that very rich reservoir, it will be the public - voting with its feet, voting with its credit cards, and acting through its elected representatives - which will determine of those many possibilities the combinations best meeting its needs and wants''.
It is then that we can conceptualise using our developing global electronic networks to provide 'the public' with virtual entrees to the best of the physical artefact collections: lenses which focus on representations of subsets of those leading collections. The future collection policy of the museums holding such collections is then increasingly determined not by the responsiveness of the people who visit the museums in person; but by those who visit the museums virtually. In my conception, use of digital artefacts does not ultimately substitute for interaction with the real museum artefacts themselves: in the way that it certainly can for library artefacts, and can also much of the time for archive artefacts. But such digital museum artefact use fundamentally influences what the user perceives to be worth preserving for real, and for what purposes.
Ray Lester, Natural History Museum