ELECTRONIC INFORMATION AND DIGITIZATION
Preservation and Security Challenges
|
19. Electronic Information and Digitization • Preservation and Security Challenges
Maxwell L. Anderson
Museum and library professionals have always assumed
that preservation of the evidence of the past is their primary
responsibility, but that long-held assumption is now being tested by the
advent of digital media. This paper will consider obstacles and
solutions ahead for administrators who seek to preserve intellectual
property in digital form, with an emphasis on museums and libraries.
The three main obstacles such administrators confront are: our
instinctive devotion to preserving all artworks and intellectual
property at any cost, the instability of a digital platform, and the
fluid and seemingly infinite permutations of any digital experience.
Institutional fetishism is our first dilemma. Art has
been at the core of human prehistory and history. But a heretical
question is posed in the contemporary world: would we be better off now
if it had been possible for the entire record of past creativity to have
been preserved? The question is more urgent given today's creative
explosion through the chip and the network, in an age in which every
banal whispered sentiment or retinally scanned visual bitstream stands
ready to be uploaded to a personal Web page, to float in an
unfathomably vast ether of data. The curator's spirit of advocacy is the
first problem we face, and the Solomonic decisions that await us are
more complicated than ever because of the sheer volume of creativity to
be charted in a digital world. Complicating the situation even further,
this digital transformation is happening at a time when the
relativistic fashions of the academy have made art historians and
critics resistant to defining hierarchies of quality. Yet, taste and
critical judgment to decide what will survive have never been more in
demand.
Digital artists today work in a way that defies the
conservator's impulse to protect. Possible permutations of the digital
experience are so numerous that it is not feasible for any individual
or group to determine which are the best suited to our attentions.
Conservators need curators to define which are the works most deserving
of perpetuation. The impulse of the day from the keyboard of the artist
is not to be explicit about what is the preferred context of
experiencing digital art; artists invoke instead a
"do-it-yourself" spirit that reduces the authority of the
artist and engages the participation of the broad public. Like many
academics, the artists themselves eschew the role of arbiter of how
their art is to be experienced. Neither do they look to curators to
decide this question. Although the conservation of a screen capture is
a complicated enterprise unto itself, the screen capture is hardly a
compelling version of a work of Internet art, and it is often the
interactivity of a Web site that gives the work meaning, rather than a
series of static pages.
The core problem in this preservation dilemma remains
the simple one of volume. Of all that is available, who is to decide
what is worth preserving? Artists who use digital video and the Internet
as their media are increasingly a self-reliant lot, for whom the
museum is a curmudgeonly old-guard institution insisting on antiquated
methods of display. The presentation of streaming video is not like the display
of a painting. Here there is notionally no reason to make room for other
works, because whereas a painting occupies space on a wall, in an
altogether different way, streaming video occupies only a little memory
on a server. Museums nevertheless would appear to be falling back on
their familiar ways in filtering what experiences their on-site
and online visitors are to have, instead of recognizing that the old
models of eleven-week exhibitions in finite spaces do not have much to
do with these new ways of making art.
Furthermore, the whole reason to choose among
thousands of paintings for purchase and display in museums is to set a
standard for appreciation, implicitly excluding those pictures that are
felt to be second-tier. The museum must use limited financial
resources for purchasing a finite number of works that will occupy
limited gallery and storage space, be described in the limited space of
analog publications, and attract a finite number of visitors. In the
digital realm, however, there is no necessary limit on the number of
works to be featured, displayed, published, or seen. The choices are
limited instead only by the appetite and tastes of the consumer.
The extent to which the curator's palate is
discerning is a huge problem. Without any practical reason to limit
oneself to a finite number of works worth advocating, art historians in
this new generation are in a double bind. Their Lacanian training has
led them to resist categorization of works of art according to a
presumed hierarchy of quality, which is also felt to be the domain of
nineteenth-century colonial oppressors. Add to that the realization
that there is no need to use quality as a shield from squandering
limited resources, because the resources are notionally almost
infinite, and conservators will be faced with the insurmountable
challenge of possibly having to preserve every scrap of code made by
every artist at work at a given time.
So what we must do, alas, is to introduce that
tried-and true technique for winnowing: the marketplace. Once digital
artists find themselves trying to sell their work by licensing finite
versions of it, the familiar and inexorable forces of greed,
acquisitiveness, and aesthetic judgment will again assert themselves,
and we will no longer have the same problems of scale.
On the practical front, the second problem we face is
that we have much to learn from art of the last century about the
physical challenges of preserving art made with digital media. Beginning
with artists who used collage, assemblage, found objects, industrial
multiples, and Conceptual, Process, Performance, and Anti-Form
techniques, the preservation of artistic intention may be as significant
asor even more significant thanthe preservation of
particular manifestations of that intention. We face a losing battle in
attempting to conserve various perishable ingredients of artworks that
were devised to explore alternatives to traditional craftsmanship or
even to sabotage it. In such cases, it is important to document the
intention of the artist through a direct exchange, with a series of
questions answered. These include the artist's flexibility regarding
transferring analog works to digital platforms. Artists' resistance,
while understandable, may consign their works to a parallel track of
public appreciation, because the equipment necessary to show films and
recordings will eventually demand the specialization available only
within institutions. It could be that these analog works will come to
resemble texts written in an unfamiliar alphabet; we know they exist,
but until they are converted into an alphabet with which we are
familiar, they will not occupy much of our mental bandwidth.
The artist's flexibility toward experiential
platforms is never guaranteed. Will a film from the 1970s, if
transferred to DVD (digital videodisc), remain a work of art in the eyes
of the artist or become a documentary equivalent lacking in its
fullest experiential dimensions? Will a video from
the 1980s if streamed through a Web site, lose its value as it loses the
granular quality of its original presentation?
Much is being done to study how to preserve disk and
tape-based memory. At present, although estimates vary, the contents of
a CD-ROM (compact disc-read-only memory) are believed to be subject to
corruption within ten years, and a 3.5-inch floppy disk can begin to
deteriorate in eighteen months. The 1996 report of the Task Force on the
Archiving of Digital Information proves that digital information, even
in laboratory conditions, cannot remain stable forever. [1]
Discs and tapes are perishable and, unlike their paper-based ancestors,
do not give us much advance notice about the problem. Even films
at least can begin to reek of vinegar to alert us that they are near
their end. In a report dated January 1999, Jeff Rothenberg maintained
that although we should always push forward with the most advanced
hardware and software solutions, we should ensure that these new
solutions do not make previous platforms obsolescent. [2] This
of course flies in the face of a primary corporate strategy in a market
economy, which is to force us to buy a new version of each hand-held
device as often as possible.
On the third front-facing the Protean fluidity
of the digital realmwe can be certain that artmaking itself
will change by virtue of digital media, and not simply in response to
changing platforms. The individual artist may find herself or himself
tempted to work in combination with other artists around the world,
simply because art-making will not be isolated from other kinds of
creative exercises on an instantaneous global network traveling through
the air to receivers and transmitters that are hand-held, worn, or
even implanted. Automatic gestures have been part of the history of art
from Dada to Surrealism to Abstract Expressionism to scatter pieces.
These represent, however, only early manifestations of
what could become possible with countless
participants free-associating through voice-recognition technology. We
may face a diminished appreciation of originality as a value integral
to making art and an enhanced appreciation of interactivity and
participation. We may even come to disavow the "completed" artwork
altogether, when a work's continuous refreshing becomes the artist's
prerogative.
The conservation challenges presented by digital
flexibility begin with the ease of change made possible by computer
codes. When an artist paints a painting, she or he makes choices based
on a strategy tied to materials. The size of a canvas, the method of
building up a surface, the length of time during which paint is in a
liquid state are but a few of the factors that are essentially
inflexible. Once a path is chosen, the painter has fewer options than
one might at first imagine. By contrast, the artist working with digital
media can change his or her work at a whim and need never consider the
work finished, as in the case of a Web page or a digital file. Some
artists see their Web sites as iterative, ongoing works of art with no
beginning and no end. And it will be up to those seeking to preserve the
experiences as the artist provides them with a reasonable simulacrum of
such a work as new platforms emerge.
For two decades, we have laughed off the profession
of television repairman as a pre-information age relic, since all
electronics are now disposable, with limited shelf lives, cheaper to
replace than to repair. Suddenly we awaken from a market-induced
slumber, as those fascinating junkyards of my youth, filled with the
possibilities of new life breathed into dormant mechanical devices, may
soon be treasure houses for museums, filled with priceless lost
parts.
The disposable society we have created has changed
over the last handful of years. Ersatz antiques distressed courtesy of
Ralph Lauren were requisite in the 1980s. Today our disdain
for the authentic but recent antique is suddenly
being overturned, as retro fashions bring back 1950s kitchen furniture
only recently deemed embarrassingly passé. Just like the earliest Sony
Portapak cameras, the microprocessors that were home to the first Mosaic
browser are now priceless vintage devices, and the earliest IBM personal
computers stand to be reawakened after a RAM-envy induced
slumberthat is, induced by the illusion of constantly growing
capacities for storage in random-access memory, or RAMof two
decades.
Even with an ambitious effort to reanimate forgotten
recording and projection equipment, we will have to make peace with the
likelihood that the original character of a digital experience will
never be recaptured in its entirety. Through meticulous conventional
documentation by interviewing artists, we will have to accommodate
ourselves to the emulation of experiential conditions instead of their
replication. The tolerance of relative degrees of accuracy on the part
of artists and experts will be tested as we make our way into the
uncertain waters that lie ahead.
chap19.html
|