Assignment 7

In class, we discussed many complex and subtle trends in the funding decisions made by major agencies and organizations, including the prevalence of digital resource creation and online projects such as finding aids and databases; projects employing novel technology; projects that reflect current events, politics, and social trends; and national and manmade disasters and their effect on preservation.  An additional pattern, which is glaringly obvious but nevertheless worthy of some thought, is the geographical distribution of the grants awarded; this pattern was especially evident on the NEH and the NSF websites where it's possible to view the grants by state.  Not at all surprisingly given their high population densities and their reputations as cultural centers, states such as New York, California, and Massachusetts showed a high concentration of grants awarded.

However predictable this distribution of funds is, it also bears some consideration in terms of its implications about resources available in diverse locations and the emergence of digitization as such a wildly popular form of sharing knowledge.  As was pointed out during the grant writing portion of the AV conference, grant applications are far more likely to meet with success if they demonstrate their relevance to a broad range of people and institutions; this could make it difficult for custodians of cultural property in remote locations to advocate for their collections.  It would be my hope that, in the long run, digitization could serve as an equalizer to enhance the geographic diversity level of grants awarded, since it would allow for exponentially more people to benefit from all resources, even those originiating in remote locations.

It is also my hope, though, that the prevailing digitization trends will not leave behind cultural resources that are in need of different kinds of care.  As a specific example, I am thinking of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Memorial Society in De Smet, South Dakota, which in 2008 received a small Preservation and Access Preservation Assistance grant from NEH in order to conduct a preservation assessment of the walls of their schoolhouse, which contain (under many layers of wallpaper) the school's original blackboards.  While new technology that Maria described in class, which allows multiple layers of objects (for example mummies) to be uncovered and photographed digitally, would be a spectacular way to showcase these walls and their long history, it would be of no use if the walls had deteriorated due to, for example, mold growth precipitated by lack of climate control.  In this case, while the project has great digital possibilities, the need for elementary physical preservation as a first priority cannot be ignored.  Particularly because its location is remote enough to make physical access a challenge for many,  both physical and digital steps need to be taken in this case.  As I see it, it is very important to examine how the dominant trends affect projects that may not yet be in a position to benefit from them, and to ensure that we keep in mind both prominent and obscure iterations of cultural heritage when considering how best to make them accessible.

Another trend that we did not get to discuss in class is attention to living collections, such as zoos, botanical gardens, or living history museums.  This was mentioned a lot informally (i.e. during break/lunch discussions) at the AV conference, perhaps because the week before Heritage Preservation held a forum on the subject in San Diego.  As Maria mentioned in class, the environment is a "hot" topic right now so it makes sense that interest in preserving natural and living collections would be intensifying.