Assessment
and Prioritization for AudioVisual Collections top
Assessment
and prioritization of audiovisual collections to date has largely
borrowed from traditional archival methods. Assessment has long
been a tool for overseers of collections to become familiar with
and advocate on behalf of their collections. Sometimes it is used
in order to gain crude information on formats and numbers for the
purpose of projecting necessary resources in the management of a
collection or to get a sense of the number and breadth of materials
held within a region. This is the traditional role that assessment
has played with audiovisual materials. In recent years initiatives
and tools have begun to combine this type of information with policy
and mission information as well as crude information about format
obsolescence and media age to gain a sense of preservation strategy
and prioritization. This is a step closer, but still misses the
primary component of evaluating the object of preservation. I believe
that the concepts and practices discussed here needs to become ingrained
in the conscience of the community as a fundamental understanding
that currently does not exist. While some of these concepts have
been explored via other avenues it is imperative that we as a community
begin to think of assessment and prioritization of audiovisual collections
within this framework.
It is
apparent to all who oversee and work with audiovisual collections
that the physical media object is an integral part of the content.
Therefore it is clear that familiarity with media and the technology
surrounding it is fundamental in obtaining a thorough understanding
of how to preserve the content recorded on the object. The perspective
that digitization brought about is one that helps lead the community
to this new framework on assessment and prioritization. That perspective
is that the object of value is the content rather than the physical
piece of media, and it is one that the field readily embraces. Current
perspectives and tools on how to assess and prioritize objects of
preservation when working in the audiovisual domain have not yet
tapped into this premise.
As a
rough example let's draw a parallel between a painting and audiovisual
object. With a painting the painting is the object of preservation.
The canvas or wood is the carrier and is an integral part of the
artwork, but if it could be removed without effecting the painting
arguably there would be no loss. It would make factors such as authenticity
and materials testing research a bit more difficult, but the mass
appeal appreciation of the piece would remain intact. It is the
same with media serving as the carrier for content, where the media
is the canvas and the painting is the content.
In the
past condition assessment a painting and an audiovisual piece of
media by an archivist would not be all that different. One would
look at that item, handling it to some extent to look for damage
of any kind, funny smells, note material types and storage conditions
and make a determination. What is the difference between these two
items? In the case of the painting we have made an assessment on
its condition with the object of preservation in full sight. We
have exercised the functionality of its exhibition with use of the
light in the room reflecting off of the painted canvas into our
eyes to determine the condition of its presence. With the audio/video
tape we have only looked at the carrier. We have exercised only
an amazingly small fraction of the functionality required to determine
the condition of the object of preservation. Therefore we need to
look at how we can exercise an equivalent level of functionality
with the audiovisual object (content and media) as with the painting.
I have
assigned the terms "static" to items which fall into the
realm of the painting. These are items in which the components required
to assess the condition of the object of preservation are readily
available. Even film could potentially fall into the static domain
because of the user's ability to access the information stored on
the film base with little more than the same components in assessing
the condition of a painting. The validity of this methodology could
arguably be deemed inappropriate, but the point is made about the
distance of access between a film image and a video image. For objects
such as audio and video tape I have assigned the term "dynamic".
These are objects which require the compiling and coordination of
a system of components that are not readily available in the natural
world in order to assess the condition of the object of preservation.
Dynamic objects are inherently more complex in that they not only
require the compiling of system components, but more importantly
depend on the proper functioning (relationships of system components,
including the tape) of all the components including the audio or
video media in order to produce an end product that has integrity
and is a faithful reproduction of the original.
There
are a couple of barriers that have kept proper assessment of audiovisual
materials from taking place. One is the lack of expertise of overseers
of audiovisual collections. Archivists and others charged with the
preservation of audiovisual collections simply have not traditionally
had the education, experience or resources for performing meaningful
assessments of audiovisual collections. Second, are the extensive
resources required to perform adequate assessment. It requires an
infrastructure of equipment, trained staff and a much greater amount
of time than assessment of static objects.
Outside
of supplementing the traditional archivist and technician curriculums
to cover audiovisual preservation and beginning to budget for the
adequate resources and effort required to work with audiovisual
collections there is a simultaneous advancement of technology that
we hope will meet us half way.
One
solution to the lack of skill, time and resources is the development
of tools to perform the job of assessment better, faster and with
less skill required. There have been efforts such as those that
I have been involved with at the Image Permanence Institute. This
is a study to identify a traceable pattern of media degradation
that can be qualified narrowly and quantified to have a significant
causal relationship with the end product. This would allow a mechanism
to be created to detect failure in media. Ideally the materialization
of such a tool would be something that is easy to use, quick and
effective, similar to the AD strip that Image Permanence Institute
developed for the detection of film degradation.
For
the time being though these tools do not exist and to focus solely
on them as a saving grace would be misguided as overseers of audiovisual
collections. The primary point here is that meaningful assessment
and prioritization of audiovisual collections is dependent upon
use of a properly functioning system that grants access to the whole
of the object (media and content). As research and development on
causal relationships advances tools and technology will evolve that
will make the effort much less arduous. Until then though a dynamic
object still must be assessed as such if one is interested in meaningful
information. Meeting this task entails evaluation of the physical
and electronic signal aspects of audiovisual materials in a calibrated
environment. Because the task is arduous and labor intensive sampling
methods should be applied. This in combination with the existing
methods that use mission and policy, obsolescence factors and age
as criteria will lead to a meaningful and effective process for
assessment and prioritization for preservation.
Assessment
and Prioritization as discussed above is a service that AudioVisual
Preservation Solutions currently offers. If you are interested in
discussing this further please contact us.
The
Emerging Role of the Moving Image and Sound Archivist top
In the
past there has been a large gap between theory and practice in the
field of audiovisual preservation. There has been both a certainty
that audiovisual archivists should have hands on interaction with
their audiovisual media and a looming unknowing as to what degree
was appropriate for an archivist. A primary charge of AudioVisual
Preservation Solutions is to fill this gap and help offer a toolset
to the archivist that was previously without adequate tools. Doing
this democratizes the process of audiovisual preservation and also
gives monetary relief by offloading appropriate tasks from an engineer
or technician to the archivist. As well, the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts. The ability of the archivist to adequately
assess their collection brings about greater capability for fund
raising, more meaningful vendor pricing and communication, greater
quality control tools and can even greatly aid processes such as
high efficiency reformatting.
AudioVisual
Preservation Solutions is working on the advancement of this concept
through activities such as working as an Adjunct Professor in the
NYU Moving Image Archiving and Preservation Program; Chairing the
Audio Engineering Society Archiving Restoration and Digital Libraries
Technical Committee and participating in a number of initiatives
and advisory boards. We are continually looking at developing and
helping to develop new tools to add to the audiovisual archivist
tool set. We can advance this concept within your organization in
a number of ways. One way is through the advisement and participation
in tool building projects within your organization. Another way
we can work with you is to help you realize this emerging role of
the audiovisual archivist within your organization and personal
career through on-site or off-site training with individuals or
groups. Please contact us for more information.
