Archives

In my opinion, some of the archives that were listed were set up in a complicated way, however; The Modernist Journals Project was set up in a way I connected with. This specific archive gave me the feeling that I was at the library using a card catalog. It was familiar and easier to use because I felt as if I had seen the set up before, even though it was clearly new to me. I could look through the archive by subject, author, or keyword which was helpful, but the most impressive part of the archive was the “limit to” option. As a viewer, we had the option to limit the search to the source most helpful, whether it be periodicals, journals, etc.

Archives have come a long way, and in my personal opinion they have changed in a positive way. It makes sense to quote Voss and Werner here, “technology ensures that the facade of the archive is changing”. No longer are there piles or files of information to sort through but we are given the technology to do the organization and process for our ease. The act of searching through archives has been made simpler.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Archives

  1. In my eyes, the Modern Journals Project had the most “archival” feel to it. It was, as you said, relatively for a novice to navigate, and had a very thorough collection pursuant to what the Project was set up to archive.

    The other archives, the Blake project for instance, on some level didn’t as clearly resemble an archive in the way I see them. While the site still had a thorough collection of pieces by Blake, it took things a step further and had a comment to make on every section, if not most pieces themselves. While I do not draw any objection to the archivist doing this, I believe it changes what an archive in its most basic form really is. Traditionally, the archives at your school or local library would simply be a collection of books or documents used to provide information, and the only work needing to be done by the archivist was collect these documents then file them in a logical order. The Blake project, and i’m sure many others, are not like this at all. After completing the task of archiving the information, it seems they take it a step further and add their own information and even sometimes opinion on the subject matter. Doing this, while it can certainly add a lot of knowledge and perspective, can chip away or even fundamentally change how you view the original work.

    Once this is done is it still truly an archive? If not, does this new form of archiving deserve a new name?

  2. I enjoy and agree with post previous post on this article. While I slightly disagree with what was said in the previous comment stated “After completing the task of archiving the information, it seems they take it a step further and add their own information and even sometimes opinion on the subject matter. Doing this, while it can certainly add a lot of knowledge and perspective, can chip away or even fundamentally change how you view the original work.

    Once this is done is it still truly an archive? If not, does this new form of archiving deserve a new name?” I believe that this would still be a type of archive and even a more effective one potentially. When reading the Cantos for example I would greatly appreciate what a more educated person has to say on the subject as at first read they can seem almost incoherent. Also when adding commentary to the archive it adds a layer of personalization and creativity to the digital as previously discussed in class.

    I particularly enjoy what Voss and Werner had to say when they asked “The Mona Lisa is in France, but where is King Lear” this statement to me brings up some interesting lines of thought. For instance, does it truly matter if the text is an original? Of course, an original manuscript has value, however isn’t the true point of the story simple to present the words and feelings of the writing. Does the original paper that it is written on truly matter if the words are not altered? Now maybe this could be applied to the Mona Lisa as well, however I do not agree in the art world that they would be the same as in the art the original brushstrokes from Da Vinci cannot be truly replicated.

  3. I agree with your following paragraph and strongly agree when you said, “the archives at your school or local library would simply be a collection of books or documents used to provide information, and the only work needing to be done by the archivist was collect these documents then file them in a logical order” because this is how I view archives so the archives were a little more difficult to understand. I also agree when said “add their own information and even sometimes opinion on the subject matter” and how this can change your opinion on what is actually being said. From the previous comment, I do agree on how it can not truly be replicated but you may still for your own opinion on you perceive the reading.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s