IntroductionRobert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's 1974 publication, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, was a reappraisal of the fiscal sustainability of institutional slavery. Predicated on the scientific method of quantitative data analysis, the work classified the U.S. slave system as a mutually beneficial exchange of services and commodities between plantation owners and slave laborers. Because of its inflammatory statements, the book quickly gained prominence in popular culture and instigated a maelstrom of public and scholarly debate. Economic historians openly questioned the authors' research methods while social analysts castigated the book's reinterpretation of slavery's cultural impact. Traditional historians were hesitantly diplomatic in their responses; professional archivists abstained from the debate entirely. The sustained absence of an archival response and the continued dearth of literature about the case are inexplicable given the book's notoriety and topical relevance to two important archival issues: the need for diverse representation in collections and the public role of the professional archivist.An example of limited historical data used as conclusive social evidence, Time on the Cross is the worst-case scenario for cultural archives that do not regularly appraise their collections or accession materials to present alternative perspectives to the master narrative. Without inclusive acquisition models, historically marginalized groups are precluded from being documented in the cultural memory. Recognizing the social power inherent in the archival record requires archivists to discard the self-appointed role of neutral observer and actively engage in public interpretations of their collections.As intermediaries between the user and the record, archivists are also uniquely positioned to advocate for the legitimate use of archival material as evidence. However, the absence of an archival response to Time on the Cross and the continued contemporary debate about the appropriate degree of abstraction from the Schellenberg practice model indicates that the scope of professional advocacy is still an unresolved issue in the archival community. Should archivists, in fact, bear some responsibility for the cultural impact of their collections?As a public narrative based on historical records, Time on the Cross has strong archival implications, especially in regards to appraisal and its relationship to collection diversity and professional responsibility. This paper explores both of these topics and, based on the case study, examine the relevant schools of thought and literature that address the archivist's role in creating culturally representative collections and the scope of archival responsibility.Time on the Cross: A Brief Case HistoryIn the collaborative effort, Time on the Cross, Fogel and Engerman attempt to bridge the cleft between cultural studies and the hard sciences by contributing an economic analysis
{"title":"An Exploratory Analysis of Time on the Cross and Its Archival Implications","authors":"R. Gibbs","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.99","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.99","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionRobert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's 1974 publication, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, was a reappraisal of the fiscal sustainability of institutional slavery. Predicated on the scientific method of quantitative data analysis, the work classified the U.S. slave system as a mutually beneficial exchange of services and commodities between plantation owners and slave laborers. Because of its inflammatory statements, the book quickly gained prominence in popular culture and instigated a maelstrom of public and scholarly debate. Economic historians openly questioned the authors' research methods while social analysts castigated the book's reinterpretation of slavery's cultural impact. Traditional historians were hesitantly diplomatic in their responses; professional archivists abstained from the debate entirely. The sustained absence of an archival response and the continued dearth of literature about the case are inexplicable given the book's notoriety and topical relevance to two important archival issues: the need for diverse representation in collections and the public role of the professional archivist.An example of limited historical data used as conclusive social evidence, Time on the Cross is the worst-case scenario for cultural archives that do not regularly appraise their collections or accession materials to present alternative perspectives to the master narrative. Without inclusive acquisition models, historically marginalized groups are precluded from being documented in the cultural memory. Recognizing the social power inherent in the archival record requires archivists to discard the self-appointed role of neutral observer and actively engage in public interpretations of their collections.As intermediaries between the user and the record, archivists are also uniquely positioned to advocate for the legitimate use of archival material as evidence. However, the absence of an archival response to Time on the Cross and the continued contemporary debate about the appropriate degree of abstraction from the Schellenberg practice model indicates that the scope of professional advocacy is still an unresolved issue in the archival community. Should archivists, in fact, bear some responsibility for the cultural impact of their collections?As a public narrative based on historical records, Time on the Cross has strong archival implications, especially in regards to appraisal and its relationship to collection diversity and professional responsibility. This paper explores both of these topics and, based on the case study, examine the relevant schools of thought and literature that address the archivist's role in creating culturally representative collections and the scope of archival responsibility.Time on the Cross: A Brief Case HistoryIn the collaborative effort, Time on the Cross, Fogel and Engerman attempt to bridge the cleft between cultural studies and the hard sciences by contributing an economic analysis","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"99-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69755054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Writing for Eternity II","authors":"J. S. Fulda","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"5-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eric Ketelaar (1998) has argued that the primary duty of archivists is to maintain the integrity of the archives. This principle is included in the mission statement of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which reads in part: "[NARA] serves American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our Government, ensuring that the people can discover, use, and learn from this documentary heritage. We ensure continuing access to the essential documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government." The Society of American Archivists (SAA), in accordance with its status as the largest archival professional association in the U.S., declares that its mission is "to provide leadership to ensure the identification, preservation, and use of records of historical value."Some commentators believe that SAA has turned a corner and in recent years has taken more of a leadership role in speaking out on matters of import to the archival profession (Montgomery, 2009a). However, two recent controversies involving NARA suggest otherwise, indeed, suggest that SAA lacks the will to take any role whatsoever in matters involving archival ethics and professional standards of practice. In 2006, an independent researcher brought to light that NARA had entered into secret agreements with several government agencies to pull and reclassify publicly available records from its open shelves; the agreements stipulated that NARA would hide the reclassification program from the public. In 2008, another independent researcher made public his unsuccessful attempts to access NARA's own records, those of the Office of Presidential Libraries. He documented a course of improper handling of the records, unprofessional responses to his requests for information, and inappropriate withholding of these records.SAA's failures to take a leadership stance with respect to these situations were compounded and enabled by the majority of individual archivists who chose to remain uninformed, and silent, about issues raised that were of critical importance to their profession. Howard Zinn commented on this phenomenon thirty years ago, arguing that "professionalism is a powerful form of social control" (Zinn, 1977). He described professionalism as "the almost total immersion in one's craft, being so absorbed in the day-to-day exercise of those skills, as to have little time, energy or will to consider what part those skills play in the total social scheme" (Zinn, 1977). He defined social control as "maintaining things as they are, preserving traditional arrangements, preventing any sharp change in how the society distributes wealth and power" (Zinn, 1977). Zinn's conception of professionalism as social control is played out in the failures of archivists to speak up and take action when confronted with activities antithetical to the foundational principles of their profession.The Reclassification ScandalBackgroundIn 1995, President Clinton sig
Eric Ketelaar(1998)认为档案保管员的首要职责是维护档案的完整性。这一原则包括在美国国家档案和记录管理局(NARA)的使命声明中，其中部分内容是:“[NARA]通过保护和保存我们政府的记录，确保人民能够发现、使用和学习这些文献遗产，为美国民主服务。”我们确保继续获得有关美国公民权利及其政府行动的基本文件。”美国档案工作者协会(SAA)，根据其作为美国最大的档案专业协会的地位，宣称其使命是“提供领导以确保具有历史价值的记录的识别、保存和使用。”一些评论家认为，SAA已经扭转了局面，近年来在对档案行业重要的问题上发挥了更多的领导作用(Montgomery, 2009a)。然而，最近两起涉及NARA的争议表明情况并非如此，事实上，这表明SAA缺乏在涉及档案道德和专业实践标准的问题上发挥任何作用的意愿。2006年，一名独立研究人员揭露，NARA与几个政府机构签订了秘密协议，从其开放的书架上取出公开的记录并重新分类;协议规定NARA将对公众隐瞒重新分类计划。2008年，另一名独立研究人员公开了他试图获取NARA自己的记录(即总统图书馆办公室的记录)的失败尝试。他记录了一系列不当处理记录的过程，对他的信息要求的不专业回应，以及不恰当地隐瞒这些记录。SAA未能在这些情况下采取领导立场，这是由于大多数档案工作者选择对他们的职业至关重要的问题保持无知和沉默而加剧的。霍华德·津恩(Howard Zinn)在30年前就评论过这种现象，认为“专业主义是一种强大的社会控制形式”(津恩，1977)。他将专业主义描述为“几乎完全沉浸在自己的手艺中，如此专注于那些技能的日常练习，以至于很少有时间、精力或意愿去考虑这些技能在整个社会计划中扮演的角色”(Zinn, 1977)。他将社会控制定义为“维持事物的现状，保留传统的安排，防止社会分配财富和权力的任何急剧变化”(Zinn, 1977)。津恩的职业化作为社会控制的概念，在档案工作者面对与他们职业的基本原则相对立的活动时，未能大声说出并采取行动。重新分类丑闻背景1995年，克林顿总统签署了12958号行政命令，要求政府机构在1999年底前解密其所有25年或以上的历史记录。行政令对某些类别的记录提供了豁免，例如与情报来源和方法有关的记录。一些机构，特别是国务院和能源部(DOE)，迅速采取行动遵守行政令在解密许多旧记录方面取得了重大进展(Aid, 2006)。然而，到1999年，克林顿政府处理安全机密问题的方式发生了转变。能源部官员开始担心，执行该行政命令会导致其他机构泄露有关核武器的机密数据;国防部和情报机构也在抵制行政令的强制性解密要求(Aftergood, 2005)。从20世纪90年代末开始，这些机构担心敏感信息可能已根据E. ...的规定被不当解密
{"title":"Seeing No Evil: The Archival Profession's Failure to Respond to the National Archives' Breaches of Professional and Ethical Duties","authors":"K. Eriksen","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.157","url":null,"abstract":"Eric Ketelaar (1998) has argued that the primary duty of archivists is to maintain the integrity of the archives. This principle is included in the mission statement of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which reads in part: \"[NARA] serves American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our Government, ensuring that the people can discover, use, and learn from this documentary heritage. We ensure continuing access to the essential documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government.\" The Society of American Archivists (SAA), in accordance with its status as the largest archival professional association in the U.S., declares that its mission is \"to provide leadership to ensure the identification, preservation, and use of records of historical value.\"Some commentators believe that SAA has turned a corner and in recent years has taken more of a leadership role in speaking out on matters of import to the archival profession (Montgomery, 2009a). However, two recent controversies involving NARA suggest otherwise, indeed, suggest that SAA lacks the will to take any role whatsoever in matters involving archival ethics and professional standards of practice. In 2006, an independent researcher brought to light that NARA had entered into secret agreements with several government agencies to pull and reclassify publicly available records from its open shelves; the agreements stipulated that NARA would hide the reclassification program from the public. In 2008, another independent researcher made public his unsuccessful attempts to access NARA's own records, those of the Office of Presidential Libraries. He documented a course of improper handling of the records, unprofessional responses to his requests for information, and inappropriate withholding of these records.SAA's failures to take a leadership stance with respect to these situations were compounded and enabled by the majority of individual archivists who chose to remain uninformed, and silent, about issues raised that were of critical importance to their profession. Howard Zinn commented on this phenomenon thirty years ago, arguing that \"professionalism is a powerful form of social control\" (Zinn, 1977). He described professionalism as \"the almost total immersion in one's craft, being so absorbed in the day-to-day exercise of those skills, as to have little time, energy or will to consider what part those skills play in the total social scheme\" (Zinn, 1977). He defined social control as \"maintaining things as they are, preserving traditional arrangements, preventing any sharp change in how the society distributes wealth and power\" (Zinn, 1977). Zinn's conception of professionalism as social control is played out in the failures of archivists to speak up and take action when confronted with activities antithetical to the foundational principles of their profession.The Reclassification ScandalBackgroundIn 1995, President Clinton sig","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"157-171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Walter Benjamin laments the loss of the "aura" of the original work of art in his 1936 essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (Benjamin, 1969). Artist Douglas Davis revisits Benjamin's premise in his essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction," suggesting that the mutability of the original has spawned a new era of creativity (Davis, 1995). As digital records quickly replace analog records, archivists are facing new challenges in preserving, describing, and providing continuing access to these new forms of digital multi-media. Traditional archival theory has centered around paper-based records for which archives have physical custody. These records are produced on a stable, human-readable medium. Digital records, however, are technologically dependent, unreadable to the human eye, and do not exist in a physical form. The preservation of these complicated records requires a rethinking of theory and practice and presents ethical challenges for which current codes of ethics provide little guidance.Moving image and other audiovisual archivists have faced many of these same challenges posed by digital documents through their work with analog media. The myriad formats incorporated under the umbrella term "audiovisual media" are also plagued by obsolescence and technological dependence. In addition, as analog formats become obsolete and information must be migrated and reformatted, archivists face a number of ethical decisions similar to those faced by archives preserving digital records.Currently, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) and other similar organizations provide little guidance for archivists working with audiovisual records. For this reason, the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) has been working to develop its own code of ethics to establish a stronger professional identity within the archival profession. The organization provides important resources including The Moving Image, a journal "dedicated to the crucial issues surrounding the preservation, archiving, and restoration of film, video, and digital moving images" (Association of Moving Image Archivists, n.d). The International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) also provides important resources, including The Journal of Film Preservation, and ethical guidelines for moving image archivists. A number of film history and theory journals (Film History, The Velvet Light Trap, and Cinema Journal) also offer outlets for audiovisual archivists to publish their research. Increasingly, audiovisual archivists must look outside the mainstream archival literature, which focuses on text-based records.On an Archival EdgeFilm has historically been marginalized as a distinct and separate medium in archives and other collecting institutions. Examples of this notion can be found at the beginnings of film history. To obtain copyright for their works, early filmmakers were required to submit paper-prints, copies of their films printed on rolls of phot
Walter Benjamin在他1936年的文章《机械复制时代的艺术作品》(the work of art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamin, 1969)中哀叹原作“光环”的丧失。艺术家道格拉斯·戴维斯(Douglas Davis)在他的文章《数字复制时代的艺术作品》(The Work of Art in The Age of Digital Reproduction)中重新审视了本杰明的假设，认为原作的可变性催生了一个创造性的新时代(Davis, 1995)。随着数字记录迅速取代模拟记录，档案工作者在保存、描述和持续提供这些新形式的数字多媒体方面面临着新的挑战。传统的档案理论以纸质记录为中心，而档案有实物保管。这些记录是在稳定的、人类可读的介质上产生的。然而，数字记录依赖于技术，人眼无法读取，并且不以物理形式存在。保存这些复杂的记录需要对理论和实践进行重新思考，并提出道德挑战，而目前的道德规范几乎没有提供指导。动态图像和其他视听档案保管员在使用模拟媒体工作时，也面临着数字文件带来的许多同样的挑战。在“视听媒体”这个总称下的无数形式也受到过时和技术依赖的困扰。此外，随着模拟格式变得过时，信息必须迁移和重新格式化，档案管理员面临着许多道德决策，类似于保存数字记录的档案所面临的决策。目前，美国档案工作者协会(SAA)和其他类似组织几乎没有为档案工作者提供视听记录方面的指导。出于这个原因，运动影像档案工作者协会(AMIA)一直在努力制定自己的道德准则，以在档案行业中建立更强的职业身份。该组织提供了重要的资源，包括《运动图像》，一本“致力于围绕电影、视频和数字运动图像的保存、存档和修复的关键问题”的杂志(运动图像档案工作者协会，无日期)。国际电影档案联合会(FIAF)也提供重要的资源，包括《电影保存杂志》和运动影像档案工作者的道德准则。一些电影史和理论期刊(《电影史》、《丝绒陷阱》和《电影杂志》)也为视听档案保管员提供了发表研究成果的渠道。越来越多的视听档案工作者必须把目光投向主流档案文献之外，而主流文献的重点是基于文本的记录。在档案馆和其他收藏机构中，电影作为一种独特而独立的媒介在历史上一直被边缘化。这种观念的例子可以在电影史的开端找到。为了获得作品的版权，早期的电影制作人被要求向国会图书馆提交纸质印刷品，即用相纸卷印刷的电影副本。今天，许多档案馆收藏了电影和其他视听媒体，但仍然将这些文件与文本记录区分开来。一位早期倡导电影档案的人在杂志上引用的一句话，今天仍然适用:“这部电影既不是印刷品，也不是书，事实上，每个人都可以说它不是什么;但没有人能说出它是什么”(Bottomore, 1995, p. 293)。由于这种边缘化，很少有档案馆有能力适当地储存、描述和提供视听媒体。Nancy Marrellini在她关于鉴定的讨论中总结了对档案视听材料的态度:…我保存下来....我现在没有设备和资源，但总有一天我会的，到时候我会处理它....有些东西可能在某一天对某人来说真的很重要——他们会为使用它支付大笔费用。重新格式化的费用对我们来说太高了。我现在把它们都放在架子上，重新格式化人们要求的东西。．..
{"title":"From Film Restoration to Digital Emulation: The Archival Code of Ethics in the Age of Digital Reproduction","authors":"L. K. Mattock","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.74","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.74","url":null,"abstract":"Walter Benjamin laments the loss of the \"aura\" of the original work of art in his 1936 essay, \"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction\" (Benjamin, 1969). Artist Douglas Davis revisits Benjamin's premise in his essay, \"The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction,\" suggesting that the mutability of the original has spawned a new era of creativity (Davis, 1995). As digital records quickly replace analog records, archivists are facing new challenges in preserving, describing, and providing continuing access to these new forms of digital multi-media. Traditional archival theory has centered around paper-based records for which archives have physical custody. These records are produced on a stable, human-readable medium. Digital records, however, are technologically dependent, unreadable to the human eye, and do not exist in a physical form. The preservation of these complicated records requires a rethinking of theory and practice and presents ethical challenges for which current codes of ethics provide little guidance.Moving image and other audiovisual archivists have faced many of these same challenges posed by digital documents through their work with analog media. The myriad formats incorporated under the umbrella term \"audiovisual media\" are also plagued by obsolescence and technological dependence. In addition, as analog formats become obsolete and information must be migrated and reformatted, archivists face a number of ethical decisions similar to those faced by archives preserving digital records.Currently, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) and other similar organizations provide little guidance for archivists working with audiovisual records. For this reason, the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) has been working to develop its own code of ethics to establish a stronger professional identity within the archival profession. The organization provides important resources including The Moving Image, a journal \"dedicated to the crucial issues surrounding the preservation, archiving, and restoration of film, video, and digital moving images\" (Association of Moving Image Archivists, n.d). The International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) also provides important resources, including The Journal of Film Preservation, and ethical guidelines for moving image archivists. A number of film history and theory journals (Film History, The Velvet Light Trap, and Cinema Journal) also offer outlets for audiovisual archivists to publish their research. Increasingly, audiovisual archivists must look outside the mainstream archival literature, which focuses on text-based records.On an Archival EdgeFilm has historically been marginalized as a distinct and separate medium in archives and other collecting institutions. Examples of this notion can be found at the beginnings of film history. To obtain copyright for their works, early filmmakers were required to submit paper-prints, copies of their films printed on rolls of phot","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"74-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Martin Heidegger, one of the twentieth century's most influential philosophers, left very specific but publicly inaccessible instructions when he bequeathed his considerable legacy of unpublished papers, lecture notes, and correspondence to the Deutsches Literaturarchiv in Marbach, Germany. This essay considers the interesting case study of Heidegger's sequestered writings by examining how issues of archival access and publication are affected by questions of privacy and publicity, history and responsibility, collective memory, the author's intentions, the demands of scholars, and general archival policies.Questions of legacy and of the author's and his or her family's degree of control over the author's own works raise interesting challenges for archivists. Archival institutions may have crystal-clear policies regarding access restrictions, but what archivist would not be tempted to bend such rules to accommodate the special requests of a major intellectual figure? There are numerous cases in which archives have allowed donors and family members to have "undue control" over who is allowed to access collections (O'Toole and Cox, 2006, p. 127). Such, apparently, was the case when Martin Heidegger bestowed his collected works on the Deutsches Literaturarchiv. His son, Hermann Heidegger, became his literary executor, but with only rare and seemingly arbitrary exceptions, Hermann has not allowed any scholars to view unpublished materials within the archives. Restrictions on the Heidegger collection stipulate that no scholar can view Heidegger's unpublished texts until they are published, and the publishing house, Vittorio Klostermann, affirms "the will of the author to bring his life's work into the collected form that he himself outlined": by his own decision, Heidegger's collected works "should be an edition of the last hand," unedited and un-indexed (Klostermann 2009, italics in original). To complicate matters, the publication schedule is incomplete, exceedingly protracted, and prone to long delays. Meanwhile, scholars of Heidegger bemoan the fact that thousands of pages of his philosophy remain "still unpublished, and not even planned for publication, but just gathering dust at the Marbach Archives" (Eldred, 2007).Martin Heidegger may have had specific reasons to want to restrict his own legacy. Although he is widely regarded as a groundbreaking and visionary philosopher, during World War II when he was serving as the rector of Freiburg University he made compromises with Hitler's regime and supported Nazism. Although his publicly available texts suggest that he never explicitly espoused anti-Semitism in writing or endorsed any of Hitler's most abhorrent policies, Heidegger's 1933 address delivered on his assumption of the rectorship of Freiburg University speaks of German students' obligation to create a national destiny, asserting, "it is our will that our Volk fulfill its historical mission" (Heidegger, 1933, p. 38). Heidegger resigned from t
20世纪最有影响力的哲学家之一马丁·海德格尔(Martin Heidegger)在将未发表的论文、课堂笔记和信件等大量遗产遗给德国马尔巴赫的德国文学档案馆时，留下了非常具体但却无法公开获取的指导。本文通过考察档案获取和出版问题是如何受到隐私与公开、历史与责任、集体记忆、作者意图、学者需求和一般档案政策等问题的影响，对海德格尔的隐密作品进行了有趣的案例研究。遗产问题以及作者和他或她的家人对作者自己作品的控制程度对档案工作者提出了有趣的挑战。档案机构可能对访问限制有非常明确的政策，但有哪个档案保管员不会为了迎合一位重要知识分子的特殊要求而改变这些规则呢?在许多情况下，档案馆允许捐赠者和家庭成员对谁可以访问藏品有“不适当的控制”(O'Toole和Cox, 2006，第127页)。显然，当马丁·海德格尔(Martin Heidegger)将他的作品集捐赠给《德意志文学档案》(Deutsches Literaturarchiv)时，情况就是如此。他的儿子赫尔曼·海德格尔(Hermann Heidegger)成为他的文学遗嘱执行人，但除了极少数看似武断的例外，赫尔曼不允许任何学者查看档案中未发表的材料。对海德格尔作品集的限制规定，没有学者可以查看海德格尔未出版的文本，直到它们出版，而出版社维托里奥·克洛斯特曼(Vittorio Klostermann)肯定了“作者将其一生的作品纳入他自己概述的收集形式的意愿”:根据他自己的决定，海德格尔的作品集“应该是最后的版本”，未经编辑和索引(Klostermann 2009，原文斜体)。更复杂的是，出版时间表是不完整的，非常拖延，并且容易长时间延迟。与此同时，研究海德格尔的学者哀叹，他的数千页哲学仍然“尚未出版，甚至没有计划出版，只是在马尔巴赫档案馆积灰”(Eldred, 2007)。马丁·海德格尔想要限制自己的遗产可能有特殊的原因。虽然他被广泛认为是一位具有开创性和远见卓识的哲学家，但在第二次世界大战期间，当他担任弗莱堡大学校长时，他与希特勒政权妥协，支持纳粹主义。尽管他的公开文本表明他从未在书面上明确支持反犹太主义或支持希特勒的任何最令人憎恶的政策，但海德格尔在1933年担任弗莱堡大学校长时发表的演讲谈到了德国学生创造国家命运的义务，声称“我们的人民完成其历史使命是我们的意志”(海德格尔，1933年，第38页)。不到一年后，海德格尔辞去了校长职务，但他一直是纳粹党成员，直到1945年。尽管海德格尔后来声称他支持党的意识形态只是为了缓和弗赖堡大学和政府之间的紧张关系，但他参与这样一个被广泛鄙视和有争议的体系仍然是学者们传记调查的主要焦点。在这些调查中，研究人员经常受到阻碍:“我们可以称之为海德格尔纳粹主义的‘事实’……尽管一小群作家付出了艰苦的努力，但我们仍然无法完全了解……人们正在努力保护海德格尔或他的声誉，通过阻碍已知存在的事实材料的发布，尤其是在马尔巴赫，那里的海德格尔档案仍然对学者关闭”(Rockmore, 1992, p. 374)。但对海德格尔文本的限制并不局限于潜在的诽谤性材料。例如，马尔巴赫档案馆馆长Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann教授多次拒绝学者查看物品，如海德格尔1949年在不来梅发表的关于技术的演讲手稿，理由是这些材料在出版前不打算被看到(Rockmore, 1992, p. ...)
{"title":"The Last Hand: Restrictions on Martin Heidegger's Papers in the Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach","authors":"Eliza Livingston","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.110","url":null,"abstract":"Martin Heidegger, one of the twentieth century's most influential philosophers, left very specific but publicly inaccessible instructions when he bequeathed his considerable legacy of unpublished papers, lecture notes, and correspondence to the Deutsches Literaturarchiv in Marbach, Germany. This essay considers the interesting case study of Heidegger's sequestered writings by examining how issues of archival access and publication are affected by questions of privacy and publicity, history and responsibility, collective memory, the author's intentions, the demands of scholars, and general archival policies.Questions of legacy and of the author's and his or her family's degree of control over the author's own works raise interesting challenges for archivists. Archival institutions may have crystal-clear policies regarding access restrictions, but what archivist would not be tempted to bend such rules to accommodate the special requests of a major intellectual figure? There are numerous cases in which archives have allowed donors and family members to have \"undue control\" over who is allowed to access collections (O'Toole and Cox, 2006, p. 127). Such, apparently, was the case when Martin Heidegger bestowed his collected works on the Deutsches Literaturarchiv. His son, Hermann Heidegger, became his literary executor, but with only rare and seemingly arbitrary exceptions, Hermann has not allowed any scholars to view unpublished materials within the archives. Restrictions on the Heidegger collection stipulate that no scholar can view Heidegger's unpublished texts until they are published, and the publishing house, Vittorio Klostermann, affirms \"the will of the author to bring his life's work into the collected form that he himself outlined\": by his own decision, Heidegger's collected works \"should be an edition of the last hand,\" unedited and un-indexed (Klostermann 2009, italics in original). To complicate matters, the publication schedule is incomplete, exceedingly protracted, and prone to long delays. Meanwhile, scholars of Heidegger bemoan the fact that thousands of pages of his philosophy remain \"still unpublished, and not even planned for publication, but just gathering dust at the Marbach Archives\" (Eldred, 2007).Martin Heidegger may have had specific reasons to want to restrict his own legacy. Although he is widely regarded as a groundbreaking and visionary philosopher, during World War II when he was serving as the rector of Freiburg University he made compromises with Hitler's regime and supported Nazism. Although his publicly available texts suggest that he never explicitly espoused anti-Semitism in writing or endorsed any of Hitler's most abhorrent policies, Heidegger's 1933 address delivered on his assumption of the rectorship of Freiburg University speaks of German students' obligation to create a national destiny, asserting, \"it is our will that our Volk fulfill its historical mission\" (Heidegger, 1933, p. 38). Heidegger resigned from t","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"33 1","pages":"110-125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A Brief History of Clergy Sexual Abuse and the Mandates of Canon LawSex crimes have been prevalent within the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. It is a long-standing, recurring, and widespread problem existing throughout the entire history of the Catholic Church. As early as the 305 A.D. Council of Elvira, official church records document an institution absorbed in regulating the sexual conduct of its clergy-revealing not only immoral behavior, but also criminal (Doyle, Sipe, & Wall, 2006, p. 295). Through the early medieval period to today, the Catholic Church has been regulating sexual behavior and thoroughly documenting the clergy's sexual violations. Despite evidence of violations, there was no official system of law to address this problem within the Church until the early twentieth century (Doyle & Rubino, 2004, p. 562). At this point, sexual abuse continued, but the new mandates of Canon Law enforced an elaborate system of documentation to record allegations, investigations, and other related activities regarding sexual abuse.All cases concerning sexual violations in the Church, recent and past, have been well documented within the records of the institutional church, described as the "single most powerful element in proving its pattern and practice of protecting abusers, concealing offenses from those who had a right to know, neglecting to warn and protect parishioners, and failing to report crimes" (Doyle et al., 2006, p. 217). Not only did the church maintain thorough and detailed accounts of sexual misconduct, the Code of Canon Law enforced a veil of secrecy so great that these records were intentionally concealed to protect the reputation of the Church at the risk of perpetuating patterns of abuse.Canon Law distinguishes between two record types: the diocesan archives and the secret archives. The diocesan archives are considered ordinary, secular, and public by nature. Specific record types include priests' files, containing "seminary records, transfer indications, letters of commendation and complaint, and other related matters" (Doyle et al., 2006, p. 134). Regarding access to these collections, "Canon 487 states that only the bishop and chancellor may have keys to the archives and permission for entry must be obtained from the bishop, the moderator of the curia, or the chancellor" (Doyle et al., 2006, pp. 134-135). Despite these measures of security, it is important to note that the records held in the diocesan archives are unrestricted due to their secular nature.A parallel set of restricted records is kept within the secret archives, and these are "mandated" to be kept "completely closed and locked, from which documents cannot be removed" (Cafardi, 1993, p. 96). For as long as recordkeeping has existed within the church, dioceses were expected to maintain these secret collections, with the practice that the "documents placed in the secret archives have no secular use or existence" (Cafardi, 1993, p. 97). Furthermore, because t
几个世纪以来，性犯罪在罗马天主教会内一直很普遍。这是一个长期存在的、反复出现的、普遍存在的问题，贯穿了整个天主教会的历史。早在公元305年的埃尔维拉会议上，官方的教会记录就记录了一个专注于规范其神职人员性行为的机构——揭露的不仅是不道德的行为，而且是犯罪行为(Doyle, Sipe， & Wall, 2006, p. 295)。从中世纪早期到今天，天主教会一直在规范性行为，并彻底记录神职人员的性侵犯行为。尽管有违法行为的证据，但直到二十世纪初，教会内部还没有正式的法律体系来解决这个问题(Doyle & Rubino, 2004, p. 562)。在这一点上，性虐待仍在继续，但《教会法》的新任务要求建立一套详细的文件制度，以记录有关性虐待的指控、调查和其他有关活动。最近和过去的所有与教会性侵犯有关的案件都在机构教会的记录中得到了很好的记录，被描述为“证明其保护施虐者的模式和做法，向有权知道的人隐瞒罪行，忽视警告和保护教区居民，以及未能报告犯罪的唯一最有力的因素”(Doyle等人，2006年，第217页)。教会不仅对不当性行为进行了详尽而详细的记录，而且《教会法典》(Code of Canon Law)对这些记录实行了严格的保密，以至于这些记录被故意隐藏起来，以保护教会的声誉，以免这种虐待模式延续下去。教会法区分了两种记录类型:教区档案和秘密档案。教区档案被认为是普通的、世俗的和公开的。具体的记录类型包括神父档案，其中包含“神学院记录、转学指示、奖状和投诉信，以及其他相关事项”(Doyle et al.， 2006, p. 134)。关于这些收藏的访问，“教规487规定，只有主教和议长才能拥有档案的钥匙，并且必须获得主教、教廷主持人或议长的许可才能进入”(Doyle et al.， 2006, pp. 134-135)。尽管有这些安全措施，但重要的是要注意，由于其世俗性质，在教区档案中保存的记录是不受限制的。另一套受限制的记录保存在秘密档案中，这些记录被“授权”保存为“完全封闭和上锁，不能从中取出文件”(Cafardi, 1993年，第96页)。只要记录保存在教会内部存在，教区就被期望保存这些秘密收藏，其做法是“放在秘密档案中的文件没有世俗用途或存在”(Cafardi, 1993, p. 97)。此外，因为它们是受限制的收藏，“只有主教才能拥有秘密档案的钥匙”(Doyle et al.， 2006, p. 135)。秘密保存文件的动机可能受到记录本身的权力和权威的影响，这些秘密收集加强了教会的等级权力结构。围绕这些档案的保密气氛是如此强大，以至于“教规没有详细描述秘密档案中应该保存的内容”(Doyle et al.， 2006, p. 135)。波士顿教区的前档案保管员James O'Toole指出，在最坏的情况下，他认为这些秘密记录包含了“问题牧师”文件，可能记录了酗酒行为(O'Toole, 2007)。人们通常认为档案保管员对他们的藏品有充分的访问权，并且“他们会比其他人更快或更早发现非法活动、不法行为和道德失误，这是合乎逻辑的假设”(Cox, 2008, p. 1132)。…
{"title":"Discovering Records Beneath the Robes: Canonical Protection and Civil Resurrection of the Boston Archdiocese Secret Archives","authors":"A. Pike","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.86","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.86","url":null,"abstract":"A Brief History of Clergy Sexual Abuse and the Mandates of Canon LawSex crimes have been prevalent within the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. It is a long-standing, recurring, and widespread problem existing throughout the entire history of the Catholic Church. As early as the 305 A.D. Council of Elvira, official church records document an institution absorbed in regulating the sexual conduct of its clergy-revealing not only immoral behavior, but also criminal (Doyle, Sipe, & Wall, 2006, p. 295). Through the early medieval period to today, the Catholic Church has been regulating sexual behavior and thoroughly documenting the clergy's sexual violations. Despite evidence of violations, there was no official system of law to address this problem within the Church until the early twentieth century (Doyle & Rubino, 2004, p. 562). At this point, sexual abuse continued, but the new mandates of Canon Law enforced an elaborate system of documentation to record allegations, investigations, and other related activities regarding sexual abuse.All cases concerning sexual violations in the Church, recent and past, have been well documented within the records of the institutional church, described as the \"single most powerful element in proving its pattern and practice of protecting abusers, concealing offenses from those who had a right to know, neglecting to warn and protect parishioners, and failing to report crimes\" (Doyle et al., 2006, p. 217). Not only did the church maintain thorough and detailed accounts of sexual misconduct, the Code of Canon Law enforced a veil of secrecy so great that these records were intentionally concealed to protect the reputation of the Church at the risk of perpetuating patterns of abuse.Canon Law distinguishes between two record types: the diocesan archives and the secret archives. The diocesan archives are considered ordinary, secular, and public by nature. Specific record types include priests' files, containing \"seminary records, transfer indications, letters of commendation and complaint, and other related matters\" (Doyle et al., 2006, p. 134). Regarding access to these collections, \"Canon 487 states that only the bishop and chancellor may have keys to the archives and permission for entry must be obtained from the bishop, the moderator of the curia, or the chancellor\" (Doyle et al., 2006, pp. 134-135). Despite these measures of security, it is important to note that the records held in the diocesan archives are unrestricted due to their secular nature.A parallel set of restricted records is kept within the secret archives, and these are \"mandated\" to be kept \"completely closed and locked, from which documents cannot be removed\" (Cafardi, 1993, p. 96). For as long as recordkeeping has existed within the church, dioceses were expected to maintain these secret collections, with the practice that the \"documents placed in the secret archives have no secular use or existence\" (Cafardi, 1993, p. 97). Furthermore, because t","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"86-98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Defining the BasicsIf one wants to get poor teaching evaluations, challenge students with a topic such as professional ethics. This is not to imply that ethical behavior in the workplace or any profession is unimportant. Treating people with integrity and respect, protecting the broader public against wrongful behavior by all kinds of organizations, and having the sense of any professional community's necessary bond to support a broader public good are all attributes we must address in the academy, professional conferences, and public venues (see Allen, 2004; Paul and Elder, 2003). Challenging students about such matters is necessary, but it will not always lead to acclaim by students or professional colleagues. Indeed, it has the possibility of making you a controversial figure. Doing this puts you in the position of needing to make critical assessments of your field and your colleagues (soon to be former colleagues), considering difficult issues that can veer far from the practical nuts-and-bolts matters many students want and expect, and running the risk of making you sound like a pompous ass.There are many ways to consider how to address approaching ethical issues (see Buchanan and Henderson, 2009). We can study beliefs about morality and ethics, making no judgment (descriptive). We can approach ethical matters in a normative fashion, discoursing about how people ought to act. We can consider ethical issues, and this makes considerable sense in a professional community, in an applied manner, investigating ethical issues as they play out in real-world situations. And we study ethics itself, probing into what ethics means and dissecting the language of ethics itself (meta-ethics). Looking at the range of ways we can consider ethical concerns discourages many archival educators and practitioners from contending with the ethical realm. They feel that it is too conceptual, leads them into the murky waters of religion and metaphysics, and drains their time from more important practical matters. Many students agree with this assessment.Not to deal with ethics is, in my opinion, potentially far worse than trying to wrestle with this area. Two commentators on information ethics provide an explanation about why this might be the case: "If we accept the importance of information, the power of information, then, we, as information professionals, are dealing with enormous power on a daily basis. We should know the value of what we've dealing with and be able to defend our actions and positions within these positions of power" (Buchanan and Henderson, 2009, p. 21). Given the nature of records, with both their information and evidence, it stands to reason that such an assessment applies equally to archivists and what they handle.Scholars and commentators considering ethics in the modern information age argue that the rapid advances in information technologies are accelerating the density of ethical issues and even creating new ethical challenges. They point
如果一个人想要得到糟糕的教学评价，那就用职业道德之类的话题来挑战学生。这并不是说工作场所或任何职业的道德行为都不重要。以正直和尊重的态度对待他人，保护更广泛的公众免受各种组织的不法行为的侵害，并意识到任何专业社区的必要联系，以支持更广泛的公共利益，这些都是我们在学院、专业会议和公共场所必须解决的问题(见Allen, 2004;保罗和埃尔德，2003)。在这些问题上挑战学生是必要的，但这并不总是会得到学生或专业同事的称赞。事实上，它有可能使你成为一个有争议的人物。这样做会让你需要对你的领域和你的同事(很快就会成为以前的同事)做出批判性的评估，考虑那些可能偏离许多学生想要和期望的实际细节的困难问题，并冒着让你听起来像个自大的家伙的风险。我们可以学习关于道德和伦理的信仰，不做任何判断(描述性的)。我们可以以规范的方式处理伦理问题，讨论人们应该如何行动。我们可以考虑道德问题，这在专业社区中是很有意义的，以一种应用的方式，调查道德问题，因为它们在现实世界中发挥作用。我们研究伦理学本身，探讨伦理学的意义，剖析伦理学本身的语言(元伦理学)。看看我们可以考虑伦理问题的方式范围，许多档案教育者和从业者都不愿与伦理领域进行斗争。他们觉得这太概念化了，把他们带进宗教和形而上学的浑水里，把他们的时间从更重要的实际问题上耗光了。许多学生同意这种评价。在我看来，不处理道德问题可能比试图解决这个问题要糟糕得多。两位关于信息伦理的评论员解释了为什么会出现这种情况:“如果我们接受信息的重要性，信息的力量，那么，我们作为信息专业人员，每天都在与巨大的力量打交道。我们应该知道我们所处理的事情的价值，并能够在这些权力位置内捍卫我们的行动和立场”(布坎南和亨德森，2009年，第21页)。鉴于记录的性质及其信息和证据，有理由认为这种评估同样适用于档案保管员及其处理的内容。研究现代资讯时代伦理问题的学者和评论家认为，资讯科技的迅速发展正加速伦理问题的密度，甚至带来新的伦理挑战。他们指出了信息自由等问题;信息经济学;隐私、保密和保密;知识产权;对获取信息的控制;信息安全;以及其他问题，如跨文化信息伦理(Rudinow and Graybosch, 2002)。档案工作者长期以来一直将新的数字化和网络化信息和记录系统的技术问题视为他们的主要障碍和挑战，但这些技术也造成了一系列伦理困境。我们可以读到或听到新技术带来的档案伦理问题。例如，物理学家罗伯特·劳克林写道:“我们的社会比历史上任何时候都更广泛、更迅速、更彻底地隔绝知识。”事实上，信息时代或许应该被称为健忘症时代，因为它实际上意味着公众获取重要信息的能力急剧下降。鉴于互联网的兴起，这是特别具有讽刺意味的，它似乎显著地增加了对信息的访问，但实际上并没有”(Laughlin, 2008, p. ...)
{"title":"Teaching, Researching, and and Preaching Archival Ethics Or, How These New Views Came to Be","authors":"R. Cox","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.2.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.2.20","url":null,"abstract":"Defining the BasicsIf one wants to get poor teaching evaluations, challenge students with a topic such as professional ethics. This is not to imply that ethical behavior in the workplace or any profession is unimportant. Treating people with integrity and respect, protecting the broader public against wrongful behavior by all kinds of organizations, and having the sense of any professional community's necessary bond to support a broader public good are all attributes we must address in the academy, professional conferences, and public venues (see Allen, 2004; Paul and Elder, 2003). Challenging students about such matters is necessary, but it will not always lead to acclaim by students or professional colleagues. Indeed, it has the possibility of making you a controversial figure. Doing this puts you in the position of needing to make critical assessments of your field and your colleagues (soon to be former colleagues), considering difficult issues that can veer far from the practical nuts-and-bolts matters many students want and expect, and running the risk of making you sound like a pompous ass.There are many ways to consider how to address approaching ethical issues (see Buchanan and Henderson, 2009). We can study beliefs about morality and ethics, making no judgment (descriptive). We can approach ethical matters in a normative fashion, discoursing about how people ought to act. We can consider ethical issues, and this makes considerable sense in a professional community, in an applied manner, investigating ethical issues as they play out in real-world situations. And we study ethics itself, probing into what ethics means and dissecting the language of ethics itself (meta-ethics). Looking at the range of ways we can consider ethical concerns discourages many archival educators and practitioners from contending with the ethical realm. They feel that it is too conceptual, leads them into the murky waters of religion and metaphysics, and drains their time from more important practical matters. Many students agree with this assessment.Not to deal with ethics is, in my opinion, potentially far worse than trying to wrestle with this area. Two commentators on information ethics provide an explanation about why this might be the case: \"If we accept the importance of information, the power of information, then, we, as information professionals, are dealing with enormous power on a daily basis. We should know the value of what we've dealing with and be able to defend our actions and positions within these positions of power\" (Buchanan and Henderson, 2009, p. 21). Given the nature of records, with both their information and evidence, it stands to reason that such an assessment applies equally to archivists and what they handle.Scholars and commentators considering ethics in the modern information age argue that the rapid advances in information technologies are accelerating the density of ethical issues and even creating new ethical challenges. They point","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"20-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The intricacies of motion picture restoration tend to mystify the greater public. Indeed, it is not uncommon for individuals to register outright surprise that there remains any point to preserving motion picture film, as we move inexorably toward some vague digital utopia. Already we have come to covet our moving images on a small disk, a tangible commercial good to own and consume on a relatively small screen, at our convenience, in the company of our choice. We also appreciate these products for their ability to add layers to the film experience, to supplement our understanding and enjoyment with materials such as alternative endings, international versions, audio commentary tracks, and exclusive interviews. Many promise to be the definitive edition of a given film, returning the original artistic vision of the director who may have been victimized by censors, studios, or producers, with inferior or incomplete results masquerading as the final version for years. Arguments over what is the authentic version tend to play themselves out in this scenario. In other instances, the film was released as planned, but decades of travel, projection, or inadequate storage have decimated footage, leaving modern audiences to interpret a mangled text.Film restoration and preservation can encompass all of these issues and many others. It must also be noted that movies allegedly "restored" for DVD release may not have undergone any physical restoration or preservation of the original film elements, but were instead scanned onto a hard drive and digitally corrected. This is not simple or cheap, but it is outside the scope of this paper, which will focus exclusively on film restoration as a process ultimately acted out upon celluloid through either analog or digital techniques (Koeber, 2003).1 Practice is complex, and so is the language. Before discussing the issues we will visit the problem of terminology, so that we have a proper mapping of the terrain when considering the ethical challenges of practice, which will be the subsequent undertaking. Finally we will explore one of the more physically and ethically difficult examples in film history: the James C. Katz and Robert A. Harris 1996 restoration of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.Although we are principally concerned with restoration, preservation is a good concept to begin with, since the process of restoring a film often results in de facto preservation. Karen F. Gracy observes that "in the film archives community, the meaning of preservation is mutable and elusive" (Gracy, 2007, p. 141). Literature on the subject would indicate that she is absolutely correct, since definitions become difficult to fix when the agendas of various constituencies within the preservation community tend to overlap or compete with one another. Still, there are core practices which can be considered as preservation, and the definition supplied by the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) encompasses a range of meanings while
电影修复的复杂性往往使广大公众感到困惑。事实上，当我们无情地走向某个模糊的数字乌托邦时，人们对保留电影胶片仍然有任何意义感到惊讶，这并不罕见。我们已经开始觊觎小磁盘上的动态图像，在我们方便的时候，在我们选择的陪伴下，在一个相对较小的屏幕上拥有和消费一种有形的商业商品。我们也很欣赏这些产品，因为它们为电影体验增添了层次，通过不同的结局、国际版本、音频评论和独家采访等材料补充了我们的理解和享受。许多承诺是给定电影的最终版本，回归导演最初的艺术愿景，这些导演可能受到审查机构、工作室或制片人的伤害，多年来以劣质或不完整的结果伪装成最终版本。在这种情况下，关于什么是真实版本的争论往往会上演。在其他情况下，电影按计划上映，但几十年的旅行、放映或存储不足导致镜头大量减少，让现代观众只能解读扭曲的文本。电影修复和保存可以涵盖所有这些问题和许多其他问题。还必须指出的是，所谓的“修复”为DVD发行的电影可能没有经过任何物理修复或原始电影元素的保存，而是扫描到硬盘上并进行数字校正。这既不简单也不便宜，但它超出了本文的范围，本文将专门关注电影修复作为通过模拟或数字技术最终在赛璐珞上发挥作用的过程(Koeber, 2003)练习是复杂的，语言也是。在讨论这些问题之前，我们将先讨论术语的问题，以便在考虑实践的道德挑战时，我们有一个适当的地形映射，这将是后续的工作。最后，我们将探讨电影史上一个在身体上和道德上都比较困难的例子:詹姆斯·c·卡茨和罗伯特·a·哈里斯1996年对阿尔弗雷德·希区柯克的《迷魂记》的修复。虽然我们主要关注的是修复，但保存是一个很好的概念，因为修复电影的过程通常会导致事实上的保存。Karen F. gracey观察到“在电影档案界，保存的意义是可变的和难以捉摸的”(gracey, 2007, p. 141)。关于这个主题的文献表明，她是绝对正确的，因为当保护社区内不同选区的议程往往重叠或相互竞争时，定义就很难确定。尽管如此，仍有一些核心实践可以被视为保存，国家电影保存基金会(NFPF)提供的定义包含了一系列含义，但仍然保持重点:“保护电影和与公众分享内容所必需的完整连续活动。”电影保存现在包含了电影处理、复制、存储和访问的概念”(NFPF, 2004, pp. 3-4)。从这个意义上说，保存包括妥善储存胶片和定期检查，但也采取必要的步骤，以确保它被复制到新的，最好是聚酯胶片上。如果保存机构有足够的资金，最好的做法是制作一张额外的底片，这样，在需要进一步冲洗胶卷时，“保存底片”就不会受到影响。NFPF还对修复给出了一个很好的定义，即“超越对幸存的原始材料的物理复制，并试图重建电影的特定版本”。理想情况下，这包括比较所有已知的幸存的原始材料，将这些不同来源的素材拼凑成制作记录和展览历史所建议的顺序，在某些情况下，增强图像和声音以补偿过去的损害”(NFPF, 2004, pp. ...)
{"title":"You Shouldn't Have Been That Sentimental: Film Restoration Ethics in Hitchcock's Vertigo","authors":"S. Kilcoyne","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.57","url":null,"abstract":"The intricacies of motion picture restoration tend to mystify the greater public. Indeed, it is not uncommon for individuals to register outright surprise that there remains any point to preserving motion picture film, as we move inexorably toward some vague digital utopia. Already we have come to covet our moving images on a small disk, a tangible commercial good to own and consume on a relatively small screen, at our convenience, in the company of our choice. We also appreciate these products for their ability to add layers to the film experience, to supplement our understanding and enjoyment with materials such as alternative endings, international versions, audio commentary tracks, and exclusive interviews. Many promise to be the definitive edition of a given film, returning the original artistic vision of the director who may have been victimized by censors, studios, or producers, with inferior or incomplete results masquerading as the final version for years. Arguments over what is the authentic version tend to play themselves out in this scenario. In other instances, the film was released as planned, but decades of travel, projection, or inadequate storage have decimated footage, leaving modern audiences to interpret a mangled text.Film restoration and preservation can encompass all of these issues and many others. It must also be noted that movies allegedly \"restored\" for DVD release may not have undergone any physical restoration or preservation of the original film elements, but were instead scanned onto a hard drive and digitally corrected. This is not simple or cheap, but it is outside the scope of this paper, which will focus exclusively on film restoration as a process ultimately acted out upon celluloid through either analog or digital techniques (Koeber, 2003).1 Practice is complex, and so is the language. Before discussing the issues we will visit the problem of terminology, so that we have a proper mapping of the terrain when considering the ethical challenges of practice, which will be the subsequent undertaking. Finally we will explore one of the more physically and ethically difficult examples in film history: the James C. Katz and Robert A. Harris 1996 restoration of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.Although we are principally concerned with restoration, preservation is a good concept to begin with, since the process of restoring a film often results in de facto preservation. Karen F. Gracy observes that \"in the film archives community, the meaning of preservation is mutable and elusive\" (Gracy, 2007, p. 141). Literature on the subject would indicate that she is absolutely correct, since definitions become difficult to fix when the agendas of various constituencies within the preservation community tend to overlap or compete with one another. Still, there are core practices which can be considered as preservation, and the definition supplied by the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) encompasses a range of meanings while ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"57-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although archives have frequently been associated with treasure troves or viewed as stores of cultural gems, those responsible for maintaining them know that their operation and care can cost as much as a king's ransom. Funding archival work has perennially been a difficult issue to address. Recessions exacerbate financial problems, and, as the current economic downturn has shown, bring budgetary concerns to the forefront. During tough times archives and other cultural institutions have turned to their own collections, deaccessioning and selling valuable items to cover operating costs; such moves, however, often raise public ire and generate negative publicity for the institution. Some archives have chosen instead to follow in the footsteps of museums and raise funds by mining their holdings for materials that they can license, particularly those dealing in new forms of media based on the repackaging of existing content (Loe, 2004, p. 58). Although not as controversial as deaccessioning, archives must still contend with a multitude of legal and ethical issues when using items in their collections to generate revenue.Charging Fees or Generating RevenueAs with other predominantly cultural institutions like libraries and museums, archives have traditionally been viewed as nonprofit organizations intended to serve the greater good of society and scholarship. Their willingness to share the information they hold supported an intellectual barter system in which scholars could use archival materials in their works in return for acknowledging the source and depositing a copy of the final product. Permissions fees were usually charged only when materials were used in commercial or profit-seeking ventures. Changes in program funding, however, made it necessary for institutions to develop other ways of supporting their normal activities (Browar, Henderson, North, & Wenger, 2002, pp. 124-25). The introduction of fees for services like copying served a double purpose, helping both to recoup the cost of such activities and to moderate requests that could be potentially damaging to materials (Blais, 1995, p. 50). Advances in digital media also spurred archives to think of their holdings as potential sources of revenue. Through Corbis Corporation, Bill Gates illustrates how profitable fine art and archival images could be when they are digitized and actively marketed (Butler, 1998, p. 65); greater numbers of requests on the part of documentary filmmakers and others drawing upon the past for their creative works demonstrated that "the growing global demand for media content has also increased the perceived value of iconic cultural assets" like those lining many institutions' shelves (Ivey, 2008, p. 33). Realizing the potential of their holdings as well as the possibility that commercial companies could exploit their materials if they do not, many archives have decided to implement their own revenue generation programs.Some distinction must be made, however, betwee
虽然档案经常与宝藏联系在一起，或者被视为文化瑰宝的宝库，但负责维护它们的人知道，它们的操作和维护成本可能高达国王的赎金。资助档案工作一直是一个难以解决的问题。经济衰退加剧了金融问题，而且，正如目前的经济衰退所显示的那样，将预算问题带到了最重要的位置。在经济困难时期，档案馆和其他文化机构转向自己的收藏，出售和出售有价值的物品以支付运营成本;然而，这样的举动往往会引起公众的愤怒，并对该机构产生负面影响。一些档案馆选择跟随博物馆的脚步，通过挖掘他们所持有的材料来筹集资金，他们可以授权，特别是那些基于重新包装现有内容的新媒体形式(Loe, 2004, p. 58)。虽然不像转让那么有争议，但档案馆在利用馆藏来创收时，仍然必须应对大量的法律和道德问题。与图书馆和博物馆等其他主要的文化机构一样，档案馆传统上被视为旨在为社会和学术服务的非营利组织。他们愿意分享自己掌握的信息，这支持了一种知识易货制度，在这种制度下，学者们可以在他们的作品中使用档案材料，以换取承认来源和存放最终产品的副本。许可费通常只在材料用于商业或寻求利润的企业时收取。然而，项目资金的变化使得机构有必要开发其他方式来支持其正常活动(Browar, Henderson, North， & Wenger, 2002, pp. 124-25)。对复印等服务收取费用有双重目的，既有助于收回此类活动的费用，又有助于缓和可能对材料造成潜在损害的要求(Blais, 1995年，第50页)。数字媒体的进步也促使档案馆将馆藏视为潜在的收入来源。通过Corbis公司，比尔·盖茨说明了当艺术品和档案图像被数字化并积极营销时，它们是多么有利可图(Butler, 1998，第65页);纪录片制片人和其他人对过去的创造性作品提出了越来越多的要求，这表明“全球对媒体内容的需求不断增长，也增加了标志性文化资产的感知价值”，就像许多机构书架上的那些(Ivey, 2008，第33页)。意识到他们所持有的资料的潜力，以及如果他们不这样做，商业公司可能会利用这些资料的可能性，许多档案馆决定实施他们自己的创收计划。但是，必须对档案馆通常收取的各种费用加以区分。加布里埃尔·布莱斯指出，加拿大国家档案馆遵循政府的做法，区分了向用户收取费用的方式，即“从提供商品和服务的人那里收回公平份额的成本”，以及实施“可以采取的新活动……以产生收入为目的”，并且“由于其档案性质而没有严格执行”(Blais, 1995，第50页)。西蒙·福勒(Simon Fowler)在他关于英国档案局资助项目的文章中详细阐述了后者:档案馆的创收可能被定义为由档案工作人员组织的旨在为档案局的利益增加收入的活动....这些企业的共同之处在于，它们更有效地利用了现有的资源，比如员工知识或记录本身。增加收入的活动越来越多地提供新的服务，否则可能不存在(Fowler, 1993， . ...)
{"title":"Raising Money Raises Questions: The Ethics of Generating Revenue from Archival Materials","authors":"Elizabeth Druga","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.141","url":null,"abstract":"Although archives have frequently been associated with treasure troves or viewed as stores of cultural gems, those responsible for maintaining them know that their operation and care can cost as much as a king's ransom. Funding archival work has perennially been a difficult issue to address. Recessions exacerbate financial problems, and, as the current economic downturn has shown, bring budgetary concerns to the forefront. During tough times archives and other cultural institutions have turned to their own collections, deaccessioning and selling valuable items to cover operating costs; such moves, however, often raise public ire and generate negative publicity for the institution. Some archives have chosen instead to follow in the footsteps of museums and raise funds by mining their holdings for materials that they can license, particularly those dealing in new forms of media based on the repackaging of existing content (Loe, 2004, p. 58). Although not as controversial as deaccessioning, archives must still contend with a multitude of legal and ethical issues when using items in their collections to generate revenue.Charging Fees or Generating RevenueAs with other predominantly cultural institutions like libraries and museums, archives have traditionally been viewed as nonprofit organizations intended to serve the greater good of society and scholarship. Their willingness to share the information they hold supported an intellectual barter system in which scholars could use archival materials in their works in return for acknowledging the source and depositing a copy of the final product. Permissions fees were usually charged only when materials were used in commercial or profit-seeking ventures. Changes in program funding, however, made it necessary for institutions to develop other ways of supporting their normal activities (Browar, Henderson, North, & Wenger, 2002, pp. 124-25). The introduction of fees for services like copying served a double purpose, helping both to recoup the cost of such activities and to moderate requests that could be potentially damaging to materials (Blais, 1995, p. 50). Advances in digital media also spurred archives to think of their holdings as potential sources of revenue. Through Corbis Corporation, Bill Gates illustrates how profitable fine art and archival images could be when they are digitized and actively marketed (Butler, 1998, p. 65); greater numbers of requests on the part of documentary filmmakers and others drawing upon the past for their creative works demonstrated that \"the growing global demand for media content has also increased the perceived value of iconic cultural assets\" like those lining many institutions' shelves (Ivey, 2008, p. 33). Realizing the potential of their holdings as well as the possibility that commercial companies could exploit their materials if they do not, many archives have decided to implement their own revenue generation programs.Some distinction must be made, however, betwee","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"141-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionOn February 2, 2009, the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) announced the launch of its searchable online collection, part of an ongoing effort to digitize all of its artifacts and photographs. This event marked a milestone in the institution's "Fourth Museum" project-a reference to the "museum without walls" that serves the public outside of its three facilities in New York, Maryland, and D.C. (NMAI, 2009). With a particular focus on the digitization of the museum's photographic archives, this essay situates the Fourth Museum in its historical context, and then explores the possibilities and problematic issues of making these materials available on the Internet.NMAI and NAGPRAThe creation of the Fourth Museum is only the latest in a series of dramatic changes that NMAI has undergone in its ninety-three years of existence. NMAI began as the pet project of wealthy industrialist George G. Heye. The museum, arranged on the model of other established anthropology and natural history museums, displayed his personal collection of over 800,000 Native American artifacts purchased or collected on archaeological expeditions he financed. Many of the photographs were taken on these expeditions. The level of documentation of the acquisition of these objects varied, often depending on whether Heye purchased a large preexisting collection (in which case any prior documentation was often lost) or whether his field researchers collected the objects individually (in which case he required the inclusion of field notes) (Jacknis, 2008, p. 10).Initially displayed at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, Heye moved his collection to New York and formally founded the Museum of the American Indian as an independent entity in 1916. During the Great Depression and the Second World War, the museum fell into a period of stagnation and financial troubles that lasted until Heye's death in 1956. These problems plagued successive directors over the next three decades. Frederick J. Dockstader, who served as director from 1960 to 1975, was accused of unethically deaccessioning and selling portions of the collection in order to fund new acquisitions (NMAI, n.d.).Over the second half of the twentieth century, the fields of history and anthropology underwent radical changes; new historians presented the experiences and stories of underrepresented groups-told in their own words-as a challenge to the focus on the "Great Man" in history. Ethnographic observations of "exotic" cultures recorded by Westerners came into question. Political activism was often tied into ethnic identity and representation; the Red Power movement, for example, sought greater respect and equal treatment for Native Americans. This shift towards multiculturalism affected the traditional conception of the museum as well. Many essays on the topic reflect a postmodern self-consciousness in the museum world, a desire to draw attention to the "constr
2009年2月2日，史密森尼美洲印第安人国家博物馆(NMAI)宣布推出可搜索的在线收藏，这是其所有文物和照片数字化努力的一部分。这一事件标志着该机构“第四博物馆”项目的一个里程碑——这是对“没有围墙的博物馆”的参考，它在纽约、马里兰和华盛顿特区的三个设施之外为公众服务(NMAI, 2009)。本文特别关注博物馆摄影档案的数字化，将第四博物馆置于其历史背景中，然后探讨将这些材料在互联网上提供的可能性和问题。第四博物馆的创建只是NMAI在其93年的历史中经历的一系列戏剧性变化中的最新一次。NMAI最初是富有的实业家乔治·g·海耶(George G. Heye)的宠儿项目。该博物馆以其他已建立的人类学和自然历史博物馆为蓝本，展示了他在资助的考古探险中购买或收集的80多万件美洲原住民文物的个人收藏。许多照片都是在这些探险中拍摄的。获取这些物品的文件水平各不相同，通常取决于Heye是否购买了大量先前存在的收藏品(在这种情况下，任何先前的文件都经常丢失)，或者他的实地研究人员是否单独收集了这些物品(在这种情况下，他需要包括实地笔记)(Jacknis, 2008，第10页)。最初在宾夕法尼亚大学考古与人类学博物馆展出，海耶将他的收藏搬到了纽约，并于1916年正式成立了美国印第安人博物馆，作为一个独立的实体。在大萧条和第二次世界大战期间，博物馆陷入了停滞和财政困难的时期，一直持续到1956年海耶去世。在接下来的30年里，这些问题困扰着历任董事。1960年至1975年担任该馆馆长的弗雷德里克·j·多克斯塔德(Frederick J. Dockstader)被指控不道德地转让和出售部分藏品，以资助新的收购(NMAI, n.d)。20世纪下半叶，历史学和人类学领域发生了根本性的变化;新历史学家以他们自己的语言讲述那些未被充分代表的群体的经历和故事，作为对关注历史上“伟人”的挑战。西方人对“异域”文化的民族志观察也受到了质疑。政治激进主义常常与种族认同和代表联系在一起;例如，红色力量运动为印第安人争取更多的尊重和平等待遇。这种向多元文化主义的转变也影响了博物馆的传统观念。许多关于这一主题的文章反映了博物馆界的后现代自我意识，一种将注意力吸引到展览的“建构性”上的愿望，以及除了策展人的传统声音之外，给“展览中所代表的社区成员”一个声音(Lavine, 1991，第151页)。1989年，史密森学会收购了MAI，在这一点上，“国家”被附加到它的标题。博物馆的重新开放反映了对其藏品的一种根本不同的态度——由W. Richard West Jr.(南夏安族)担任馆长，使命转向与土著群体合作，记录他们的当代生活和历史。这就需要改变几乎所有的收藏和展览政策。在关闭了原馆址后，史密森学会于1994年在纽约市开设了乔治·g·海伊中心，并于1999年在马里兰州的苏特兰开设了文化资源中心。2004年，位于华盛顿特区国家广场的美国印第安人国家博物馆向公众开放，这吸引了最多的关注，然而，通常提到的NMAI主要指的是这座建筑的展览和设施。…
{"title":"Digitization as Repatriation?: The National Museum of the American Indian's Fourth Museum Project","authors":"Michelle Crouch","doi":"10.3172/JIE.19.1.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.19.1.45","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionOn February 2, 2009, the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) announced the launch of its searchable online collection, part of an ongoing effort to digitize all of its artifacts and photographs. This event marked a milestone in the institution's \"Fourth Museum\" project-a reference to the \"museum without walls\" that serves the public outside of its three facilities in New York, Maryland, and D.C. (NMAI, 2009). With a particular focus on the digitization of the museum's photographic archives, this essay situates the Fourth Museum in its historical context, and then explores the possibilities and problematic issues of making these materials available on the Internet.NMAI and NAGPRAThe creation of the Fourth Museum is only the latest in a series of dramatic changes that NMAI has undergone in its ninety-three years of existence. NMAI began as the pet project of wealthy industrialist George G. Heye. The museum, arranged on the model of other established anthropology and natural history museums, displayed his personal collection of over 800,000 Native American artifacts purchased or collected on archaeological expeditions he financed. Many of the photographs were taken on these expeditions. The level of documentation of the acquisition of these objects varied, often depending on whether Heye purchased a large preexisting collection (in which case any prior documentation was often lost) or whether his field researchers collected the objects individually (in which case he required the inclusion of field notes) (Jacknis, 2008, p. 10).Initially displayed at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, Heye moved his collection to New York and formally founded the Museum of the American Indian as an independent entity in 1916. During the Great Depression and the Second World War, the museum fell into a period of stagnation and financial troubles that lasted until Heye's death in 1956. These problems plagued successive directors over the next three decades. Frederick J. Dockstader, who served as director from 1960 to 1975, was accused of unethically deaccessioning and selling portions of the collection in order to fund new acquisitions (NMAI, n.d.).Over the second half of the twentieth century, the fields of history and anthropology underwent radical changes; new historians presented the experiences and stories of underrepresented groups-told in their own words-as a challenge to the focus on the \"Great Man\" in history. Ethnographic observations of \"exotic\" cultures recorded by Westerners came into question. Political activism was often tied into ethnic identity and representation; the Red Power movement, for example, sought greater respect and equal treatment for Native Americans. This shift towards multiculturalism affected the traditional conception of the museum as well. Many essays on the topic reflect a postmodern self-consciousness in the museum world, a desire to draw attention to the \"constr","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"19 1","pages":"45-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69754669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：