Touching Betamax

I believe that Congress passed a bill in 1992 stating that every article / news story / blog / etc that discusses audiovisual formats (and ‘format wars’ related therein) must, under penalty of law, mention how VHS won out over Betamax. I recently found this video for the song “Betamax” by the Filipino band Sandwich. It reminded me that, for the most part, the human point of view is narrowly focused. Not sure how I could be so short sighted and forget this truism, but there you go.

In the States, VHS won out as the popular format, and Betamax is lamented as the great whatcouldhavebeen of video freex everywhere… everywhere here. However, in other places, Betamax had a much stronger hold and is looked back on as the format of 80s nostalgia. To wit:

(Rough translation of the title lyrics: “Back then there was only Betamax” [i.e., things were much simpler back in the day])

Wala pa nung, indeed, my friends. Wala. pa. nung.

— Joshua Ranger

Speed Trap At The Crossroads

Were Robert Johnson’s original recordings mastered at an increased rate of speed? A recent Soundcheck episode on WNYC dredged up Guardian journalist Jon Wilde who recently dredged up an old rumor about the Johnson recording speeds. Story goes that either through technical inadequacies or through the producer’s decision to make the recording more ‘lively’ and ‘energetic’, Robert Johnson’s 29 extant recordings from two separate periods were all mastered 20% faster than actuality.

The rumor stops short of claiming that William Shakespeare was the producer on all of the recordings (or should that be that there is absolutely no way Shakespeare could have produced all of them), but the content-hungry nature of the internet demands that such attention-grabbing statements receive attention. I’ll leave the rebuttal in the capable hands of a follow-up show that aired the next week:

Both of these shows produced a lot of good discussion on the concept of what constitutes a ‘faithful’ recording. A number of the responses tended towards the ‘you cannot reproduce reality so this argument is meaningless’ vein. Despite my years of PoMo Aversion Therapy (widely known as FRED), I’m sympathetic to such a point of view, but I’d also like to consider it in a slightly different light.

One that assumes that things actually matter.

Because they do.

What I mean here is that, yes, trying to portray reality is like a one-legged man trying to dropkick a greased pig that is constructed of ghostly straws. However, this unreliability or uncertainty about ‘truth’ shouldn’t be a deterrent to decision or action. In the world of audiovisual archiving, there are any number of preservation practices which will never fall under a single resolved answer as to the correct method. Reasonable, empassioned practitioners are bound to disagree because they care deeply about doing what is best.

I’m reminded of a recent New Yorker article about the detection of art forgeries (“The Mark of a Masterpiece”). Parallel to the narrative thrust of the piece is a comparison of methodological approaches. One favors more vague notions of distinction, expertise, and taste. The other favors a more analytical or scientific approach. These sames sides play themselves out in the Robert Johnson debate — those that say the newly slowed down recordings just sound right, and those that consider the difficulty of obtaining consistently modified recordings over time and location given the technology of the period. Both are convincing arguments…depending on one’s own inherent predilections, that is.

As media archivists and preservationists we are at the crossroads of technology and art, of maintaining the object and maintaining the essence. Assessing and achieving a balance there upon is one of the great challenges of the field. And I’m not so sure a resolution is desirable in this case. Robert Johnson sold his soul at the crossroads to achieve that perfect balance of emotion and skill. All that got us was a sliver of recordings that we’ve struggled to preserve and that have engendered unending arguments about their value and authenticity. I’m not sure if we can afford a step down in generational loss from Johnson’s deal to what our own may result in.

— Joshua Ranger

My Mistress’ Eyes Are Nothing Like The Sun

I had the fortune of studying literature in two distinct ideological periods (or perhaps just in two ideologically distinct universities [or perhaps it is just a sign of my advancing age]). First in a strict socio-political cultural studies milieu that was a reaction to the decadence of l’art pour l’art patriarchal imperialist literature. Second in a material culture-centric atmosphere with a heavy concentration on Victorian aestheticism. This dichotomous education either makes me very well-rounded or extremely useless.

I tend to favor the latter evaluation because, outside of a thesis on the socio-aesthetics of online catalogs, I haven’t had much chance to apply all that book-learnin’. Perhaps that’s why I was excited to read Virginia Heffernan’s recent Sunday Times Magazine piece, “How HDTV Scrambles Beauty Standards”. The problem of HDTV exposing every line, splotch, make-up-covered-blemish, facial hair, and — especially — plastic surgery scar is nothing new. What I found novel in Ms. Heffernan’s article was the discussion of how cultural beauty standards may be shaped in part by available image-producing technology. She suggests that stars such as Katharine Hepburn and Harry Belafonte who were admired for more angular looks (high cheekbones, regal noses) would not have become as well established in an HD world as they were when their star image was viewed in the realm of more contrast-y black and white shot by cinematographers well-versed in established lighting and capture techniques that simultaneously highlighted and softened. She also points out that people with contrasting coloring (dark hair, pale skin, ruddy cheeks) do not look good in HD. Stars like Montgomery Clift and Ava Gardner looked dreamy in Technicolor — their extreme coloring playing to the heightened unreal reality of the color process — but those same features can look garishly unreal in the so-real-it-hurts reflection of HD.

So what does look good in HD? Heffernan’s argument is that the format favors the monochromatic, pointing out Jessica Alba as a potential ideal. The article suggests a positive aspect of this (Alba comes from an extremely mixed cultural heritage; the ‘browning’ of America is becoming an accepted norm) but there is also a subtextual negative in her use of language: the general even-ing out of visual / artistic culture to a middle-of-the-road banality where contrast and originality are subsumed by an overwhelming sameness.

Admittedly, from the ground, that point of view sometimes seems to be the case. They don’t make stars / movies like they used to… The culture is growing dumb and lazy… Nobody cares about skill and quality… These concerns are well known. More well known than one might know. The same complaints about backsliding, the weakening of our character and culture, and the continuing downward spiral of America have been repeatedly expressed since the colonial period, most likely since the second colonizing ship hit shore. (And I won’t even get into the long-standing theories of degeneration from the purity of Native cultures or Buffonian generational decay engendered by the atmosphere of the Americas.)

I’m afeared that I’m starting to sound like a rambling old fuddy-duddy, discontented that they just don’t make ’em like they used to. However, I run at the mouth so because I feel it’s important to be aware of these historical trends and cognizant of technological and aesthetic shifts in modes of expression. Reformatting is a fact of audiovisual preservation, and within that process is the demand to maintain the highest possible fidelity to the originating image / signal / object / etc.

The desire in this process is to keep that original looksound, the aesthetic quality tied to the historical development of the medium and related creative processes. The problem is that, first, these fidelicious attempts have a certain reliance upon human memory and human perception as part of determining the success of reformatting. This fact is what it is. Second to consider is the problem that started this whole post (remember a few paragraphs back?): the fact that technologies change and it is not always possible to capture the same intangible quality from generation to generation.

This is why we at AVPS always recommend that important originals be maintained after a preservation reformatting project — a better technology for image / signal capture may come along later; it is necessary to quality check originals versus new derivatives; etc. — but it is also why we recommend maintaining or achieving the ability, where feasible, to play back original assets. Without being able to see and assess how a particular format from a particular time period presented itself, we lose the cultural knowledge of how that content originally looked and why it was considered of aesthetic value. This isn’t to say that all people must only watch films or videos in their original format, but rather, that that original display be available so that later caretakers reformatting to new presentation technologies can develop means to emulate older styles… Or so that later content creators can learn from and artistically emulate the skills of the past. We see this in the development of .mp3 where the ultimate goal is to revise the format to the point that it can reproduce instrumental music and lower range tones as well as analog formats can. HD is here, and we need to demand that display devices be able to recreate the sharpness, contrast, and range of tones (or limits thereon) that older formats / displays produced, and we also need to expect that creators will become equally skilled with using the new medium.

Things are never the same. They never will be. Until they are, we all have the responsibility to make sure that the way things were remains an accessible knowledge source.

— Joshua Ranger

On PAHR With Expanded Federal Support To Regional, State Archives

** A special Guest Post from Michele DeLia**

In spring 2009, US Congressmen Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and John McHugh (R-NY) introduced a bill that would grant a total of $50 million per year for five years to be distributed among every state, earmarked for local and regional archives and libraries that hold valuable historical material related to the cultural heritage and national identity of the United States.

Right now, that bill, Preserving the American Historical Record (the PAHR Act), is under review in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (S. 3227) and the House Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives (H.R. 2256). Backed by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Carl Levin (D-MI), the PAHR Act has the bipartisan co-sponsorship of 7 US Senators and 59 House Representatives. Additionally, the Society of American Archivists, Council of State Archivists, and the National Association of Government Affairs have partnered in support, and organizations as diverse as the National Genealogical Society, National Coalition for History, American Association for State and Local History, American Library Association, Heritage Preservation, and National Association of Secretaries of State, to name a few, have endorsed the PAHR Act.

In its current form, the PAHR Act would authorize the Archivist of the United States of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to administer monies to states via a competitive formula-based grant program. Each state would receive an equal base amount; the remainder of the full grant award would be calculated based on a population/area formula. On top of this, each state would be required to match 50% of the total funds granted. Over a 5 fiscal-year plan, each State Archives (or other state-level organization designated by the Archivist of the United States) would work with the State Historical Records Advisory Board to manage the local grant program. On a yearly basis, the selected organizations would apply for re-grants and submit documentation on their progress and measured outcomes.

As summarized by the National History Coalition, the funding program has been designed to support the following initiatives through preservation and access to historical records:

• Creation of a wide variety of access tools, including archival finding aids, documentary editions, indexes, and images of key records online.

• Preservation actions to protect original historical records from harm, prolong their lifespan, and preserve them for public use through conservation and creation of avenues for access, including digitization projects, electronic records initiatives, and disaster preparedness and recovery.

• Initiatives to use historical records in new and creative ways to convey the importance of state, territorial, and community history, including the development of teaching materials for K-12 and college students, active participation in National History Day, and support for life-long learning opportunities.

• Programs to provide education and training to archivists and others who care for historical records, ensuring that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to fulfill their important responsibilities.

The PAHR Act would not only provide opportunities for local organizations to carry out diverse new projects of national significance, but would also relieve much of the burden from the current federal grant program, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), also called the “funding arm” of the NARA. The NHPRC, the only private/public grant-making body with the primary mission to fund projects that preserve the US historical record, and since 1964 has awarded grants for a wide range of US preservation activities at the federal, non-federal, nonprofit, state, and local levels. However, the NHPRC is not capable of reaching all archival and records-keeping organizations or funding all necessary projects due to the constraints of their allocated budget and parameters of what activities the granted monies may support. For example, its proscribed guidelines do not extend funds towards conserving archaeological artifacts, museum objects, or works of art — all of which may represent valuable information about our nation’s history. Nor does the NHPRC fund cataloging or preservation efforts of books or other library materials, and as a government institution it is unable to fund preservation of privately owned materials or those held in institutions where assets are subject to “withdrawal upon demand for reasons other than those required by law”.

At the regional or local level it is difficult to find the resources and manpower to properly care for the increasing number of materials that exist on a growing number of (often obsolete) formats. Additionally, the existence of these regional collections is not widely known to the public, which results in a lower level of access and therefore a lower level of regional funding — an issue identified by the Council on Library and Information Resources as the Hidden Collection problem. The strain on one organization to undertake the many faceted projects throughout the United States it simply too great. The NHPRC is currently under review for an increase in their granting authorization level. This would be the first increase in the amount available in almost 20 years. PAHR is a necessary supplement to the NHPRC activities no matter what, but if the authorization increase is not approved by Congress the need for PAHR to address the duty of non-governmental local organizations to preserve and share their records with the general population is even greater. Ultimately, PAHR will contribute to a stronger historical US cultural record about our nation from its inception forward.

On July 1, the House Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives cleared H.R.1556 (the bill to reauthorize NHPRC’s available funds from $10 million to $20 million through FY 2014) for review by the full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Many supporters insist NHPRC needs to increase its funding to meet the demand of maintaining electronic records, and to strengthen best practices at all archival levels via federal/state partnerships. On June 21, the Senate Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee issued a committee report (S. Rep. 111-213) on its version of the NHPRC’s bill (S. 2872), currently on the Senate floor calendar, however it authorized NHPRC at only $10 million.

It is important that this version of H.R.1556 is approved, reaches a full vote before the House and passes, because the increased funds will relieve and enable the NHPRC to fund more US preservation initiatives, and empower organizations to form state/federal partnerships at the local level to build upon and implement best archival practices and standards in their communities. If the PAHR Act is also approved, there would be a total of $60-70 million each year dedicated to the preservation of our nation’s identity, which in part will strengthen the overall security of our country from privacy breaches over time. Contacting your congressmen with respect to each of these bills is a great way to make an impact in passing the PAHR Act.

Despite the high level of sponsorship and endorsement the PAHR Act has built up, it still has a tough row to hoe in getting approved by Congress — let alone just getting to the point of an up-or-down vote. Even in boom times spending on the arts is not extremely popular, and we archivists have not always been able to articulate what we do in a way that incentivizes the provision of adequate levels of monetary support. With the explosion of electronic records, the reliance on the Internet as a primary source for information, and the daily development of new technologies, the greater our need for more trained information specialists and resources to preserve our history. The funding provided through the PAHR Act and NHPRC can save and share with the public valuable records that have been put aside, ignored, or forgotten.

This is where you, fellow archivists, professional small collections managers, librarians, students, history buffs, Americans, or American enthusiasts come in. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has done a great job on their site (http://www.archivists.org/pahr/) of providing a comprehensive list of resources, letter templates, fact sheets, contacts, etc., as a guideline to help support the bill. Here is an abbreviated action plan to show how you can most easily and efficiently help pass these bills:

Little Action Plan (PAHR LAP)

1. Call your senators and representatives at their Washington offices (preferred) or visit their regional offices. Personal contact such as phone calls get a better response than email.

2. Ask to speak with the Legislative Director (or Regional Director).

3. Make a strong case for why the PAHR Act will save and create new jobs, strengthen the nation’s security, and ease the burden on NHPRC’s grant program.

4. Request that your Senator and/or Representative co-sponsor the bill by contacting the offices of the main Sponsors:

(Senators)
Bryan Hickman (Sen. Hatch)
202-224-5251, [email protected]

Harold Chase (Sen. Levin)
202-224-6221, [email protected]

(Representatives)
Mike Iger (Rep. Hinchey)
202-225-6335, [email protected]

Jason Miller (Rep. McHugh)
202-225-4611, [email protected]

5.Go to opencongress.org and compose a follow-up letter online.

6.Let other people know about this by emailing and posting to Facebook and Twitter.

Other Resources:
Society of American Archivists on PAHR
Senate on Homeland Security and Government Affairs
House Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
State Historical Records Advisory Boards (Google List)

— Michele DeLia