Are Archives Not Deaccessioning Enough?

At the Spring MARAC meeting during a panel on digital preservation, a presenter showed a slide of a Post-it note adhered to an inaccessible disc that said “Save in case of miracle.” In archiving we are constantly faced with the decision (or non-decision) point of saving a decayed/corrupted original just in case some future means of reformatting is invented that will allow us to recover it versus the deaccessioning of assets that are of questionable research/resource value. These decisions are complicated by the collector’s mentality many of us possess as well as the creative, problematizing minds we must develop for archival work… I mean, just what if the percentage of a VHS tape used for recording versus its recordable length becomes an important research topic in 40 years?

There were a number of panels that touched on the issue of deaccessioning as part of archival processing, such as the seemingly easy decision to jettison eight cartons of college catalogs that were neither rare nor had any annotations or extra meaning to the collection beyond the fact that they were in the subject’s office (though a researcher did try to stop the deaccession). But there was also the reminder that the urge to save everything justincase (or because that’s what people non-conversant in the struggles over space and resources an institution faces expect) is a powerful force in our decision (or non-decision) making.

This issue comes up for me a lot because while the Save Every Frame ideology sounds nice it is incredibly impractical for the vast majority of archives out there (and not necessarily desirable, either, when truly weighing the curatorial value of all accessioned assets), but also because in my work I must necessarily approach recommendations from a technical aspect sprinkled with what I can glean in regards to institutional values and character. This is the collaborative nature of working with an organization where we combine our areas of expertise to hopefully arrive at an acceptable and realistic prioritization/preservation plan. I factor in valuation as much as I can, but my knowledge is not as deep as those within the institution.

As an outsider in this way (as opposed to the myriad other ways) there are many asset types I wonder about as far as their value to the institution or the appetite for maintaining them. Trims and outtakes from film projects are an obvious area I seen some discussions on, but what I run into more often are what I call courtesy copies — those typically 1-5 minute stories created by an outside news/information program about an institution or event, copies of which are regularly provided to the news story subject.

These may document an event or topic that the institution has not itself documented and may be of value as such. By the same token, they may be low quality versions provided on now obsolete or problematic formats, and very often on cassettes that have a much greater capacity than actual program running time (oh the 1/120th full VHS tapes I’ve seen…).

Though certainly of value to institutional history, these tapes present a great burden to physical storage resources and a great challenge to preservation decisions. Does a poor VHS dub warrant an uncompressed video preservation master, or may a lossy, more manageable format make more sense for digitization? Should the originals be saved, should one rely on the original creator to maintain a high-res version for the future, or should one take on the anticipated role of the de facto archive…Just in case? And, really, what value does a receiving institution place on these copies beyond “Well, we have it, so we should save it,” especially if burdened with formats for which they do not have playback capabilities or content of questionable copyright status? I would guess that news organizations are looking for cheaper and cheaper ways to send courtesy copies, including low-res digital files they can simply email to avoid the cost of media and postage. Where does a low bit-rate MPEG4 fit into a full-on preservation plan?

To be clear, I’m not claiming these types of materials are worthless, but asking colleagues who hold such assets how they view the value, use, and challenges of them. And not just on the content level, but on the practical level of storing, managing, and potentially reformatting (and then storing and managing those copies) those boxes and boxes and boxes of audiocassettes, DATs, VHS, U-matic, DVCam, etc., etc., etc.

***********************************************************************

In the end, these questions matter, are difficult, and point to the many resource burdens of preservation. However, the answers to such questions point to the institutional benefits of preservation and reformatting. No, it isn’t a reliable plan to reformat for licensing and monetization. And, yes, it does cost a good chunk of change to reformat for content that is potentially low quality and not currently unique. But the value to an institution’s character, to be able to say This is our history and This happened here and the world cared enough to document it —— to be able to show employees This is what you’re supporting through all of your contributions to the institution —— to be able to show patrons This is the tradition you’re becoming a part of —— these concepts are evaluated beyond monetary worth. They speak to the value of the mission and the continued support of the organization, and they speak to the value of archives in housing and providing access to that incalculable benefit.

— Joshua Ranger

The Need To Change Our Concept Of Format From A Singular To A Complex Entity

“Words give a sentence its luster, and choosing them deserves intense attention.”
— Constance Hale, “Desperately Seeking Synonyms”

I’ve written before about words I’ve given up on, and though I’m not prepared to move on from my particular bête noire, I do have a new bugaboo after having read the article “Archiving, Preservation Move into 21st Century” in TV Technology. Don’t get me wrong — I’m very happy to see the topics of archiving and preservation addressed in broader forums and within more production and distribution centric venues. And the article in question does hit on many of the major issues facing digital preservation, such as longevity, storage, and interoperability.

Seeing as how I cannot seem to write a paragraph without saying “however”, however, I have to take up issue with the use of the broad term format and the elision of its multiple meanings. In the article, formats morph from original legacy media (16mm, BetaCam, etc.) to file formats/wrappers (though no mention of the complexity of codecs is made) to storage media (LTO, etc.) and on to storage methods that involve media but are not media (i.e., The Cloud).

Yes, these are all formats, but they are not the same type of format and, thus, require different methods of management/preservation and, especially with digital assets, are often found in combinations that create a complex system of storage and asset formats. This is in part why I have written that digital preservation is not a format problem but a communication and a resource problem.

Economics and human nature dictate that there will never be a single file format and file storage solution, so the job of the archivist will necessarily be the selection and management of the various options available. This is also why I have written about the need for archivists to better collaborate with IT departments and other stakeholders in order to find or develop solutions that address the functional requirements of the organization.

This is something that the TV Technology article glosses over — especially when considering storage and use of the cloud. From my experience, vendors offering storage and cloud access are still pricing and designing towards text and photos. Costs are calculated at the per GB level. When an hour of moving image content can range from 100GB to 1TB, this kind of pricing structure and technical infrastructure cannot hold — nor can it be afforded by many institutions.

In the end we have to acknowledge that, just like preservation of physical items, the preservation of digital materials involves a range of informed decision points that may not end in the same conclusions as other organizations. Digital is no more of a format than analog is — there are formats that fit within those categories, but to speak about them as singular entities with singular solutions is an 18th century rather than a 21st century mindset.

— Joshua Ranger

AVPreserve Blogging With Post Magazine

AVPS has been invited to contribute a monthly blog to the Post Magazine website. For 25 years Post has been one of the premiere journals covering issues that interest and affect people in the post-production field, including film, television, videogames, animation, audio, the Web, and more. Based on our experience with production, engineering, and range of commercial and academic archives, AVPS will focus on the archiving and preservation topics that can impact the workflows and long-term usability of audiovisual content beginning at the point of production and following through to distribution and archiving.

The first post is available online now: “Why Is A/V preservation such a nuisance… and necessity” by AVPS Senior Consultant, Joshua Ranger. This is an exciting opportunity to expand the preservation conversation between creators and caretakers. We’re grateful to Post and look forward to working together.

Post Positions: Archive Now For Later

A guest opinion piece by Chris Lacinak featured in Post Magazine on the importance of using preservation oriented workflows in a production environment. Establishing reliable preservation and archival practice makes sound business sense, promoting efficient and cost-effective workflows, providing find-ability and the wherewithal to support premium repurposing projects.

• POST MAGAZINE ARTICLE (Link to Website)