Kemple 1

Steve KempleDr. Daniel RolandLIS-6060021 August 2010

Cognition, Continuum & Collaboration: A Prole-gomena for Libraries Present & Future

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. - Ludwig Wittgen-stein

But somehow it isn’t only not just the words isn’t it? - Harry Nilsson

INTRODUCTION

This essay is going to begin by looking at the problem of describing works of art and will then briefly investigate how the ascent of information technology as a widespread social phenomenon has broadened awareness of this heretofore-obscure problem. The problems will then be explored in hopes they will shed light on issues central to the foundations of library and information science, drawing parallels between the technical, philosophic and social issues of concern to the field of librarianship. This will culminate in a series of propositions intended to serve as a prolegomena for communi-cation and collaboration.

The central texts around which this will occur are Foundations of Li-brary and Information Science (2nd Edition) by Richard E. Rubin and Fu-ture Libraries: Dreams, Madness & Reality by Walt Crawford and Michael Gorman. Throughout this essay, the following excerpt from Dr. Rubin’s text should be kept in mind: “Libraries and librarianship are about serving peo-ple and the society as a whole” (304).

CONTEMPORARY ART – MATERIALITY AND ABOUTNESS

In the article “Works and Representation,” Ronald E. Day sets out to differentiate the accepted notion of “work” in traditional bibliographic de-scription from that which is found in works of art. He observes that much of the art produced in the 20th century, especially in the tradition of the avant-garde, cannot sufficiently be described by the standards of bibliographic de-scription (taken from Richard P. Smiraglia’s book The Nature of “a Work”) as they are generally understood.

Whereas the traditional bibliographic concept of the work takes an ideational approach that incorporates mentalist epistemolo-gies, container-content metaphors, and the conduit metaphor of information transfer and representation, the concept of the

Kemple 2

work of art as is presented here begins with the site-specific and time-valued nature of the object as a product of human labor and as an event that is emergent through cultural forms and from social situations (1644).

Day’s propositions rest on those of Martin Heidegger, conveyed in his 1971 essay “The Origin of the Work of Art.” He characterizes Heidegger’s argument as: “a historical and philosophical account of the work of art that stressed it being an act of work and, thus, a social event of constructive cre-ation” (1646). He suggests this runs counter to the established views of work among library professionals, embodied by the notion of epistemic con-tent, toward which he directs his subsequent critique:

The consequences for critically discussing the concept of work in the context of an information culture or information society, that is, in the context of a metaphysics of knowledge that per-vades culture and society today, is far reaching, not only encom-passing a critique of what we see today as professional educa-tion, theory, and practice in library and information science and information management, but also demanding an engagement with the modern concept of information in today’s late-modern cultures and societies. Such an investigation [...] forefronts the problem of the aesthetics of information as one of our chief ethi-cal and political horizons today (1646).

In “Records and Access: Museum Registration and Library Cata-loging”, published twenty years prior in Cataloging & Classification Quar-terly (1988), Esther Green Bierbaum addresses the same basic distinction between objects and information containers. Bierbaum asks for understand-ing and collaboration among museum and library professionals, compara-tively describing analogous processes in their respective fields. She de-scribes the process of object registration in terms familiar to her audience of library catalogers. Practical differences, as well as philosophic ones, are displayed side by side for analysis. She explains how “the museum focuses upon the object,” facilitating a “direct encounter with a unique [object or collection of objects].” In contrast, the library “brings us information through intermediaries, or carriers of content” (106).

For Bierbaum and Day, a paradigm of objectness and aboutness are reflected in museums and libraries and, generally speaking, works of art and works of writing. Day argues that current descriptive practices reduce objectness to aboutness. This undermines the intent and value of many, if not all, works of art, and is indicative of a widespread reductionism as a byproduct of information culture. A danger posed by such reductionism is the loss of materiality as a cultural archetype.

Kemple 3

Conceptual works, minimalist works, and foremost, performance art “happenings” are all types of works that emphasize their ma-teriality and their site-specific and time-valued characteristics, and that use these in critiques of normative meanings and val-ues in culture and society, including critiques of art as represen-tation. Live performance art cannot be preserved as such. Recordings of such events constitute new and different (often documentary) events whose meaning cannot be reduced to the first, particularly when the art work intends to make manifest or otherwise critique the representational status of such types of recordings (Day 1649).

This problem affects not only the ability of art librarians to provide necessary organization of art information; it affects their ability to enable access to that information. Museum and gallery curators, making up one of the largest user groups of scholarly art information, heavily rely on the availability of art information. In her paper “Comparing Practices in Art Li-braries,” Kim Collins articulates this dynamic: “Museum art librarians need to promote the connection that a well-maintained museum library will en-able curators to conduct in-depth research that will lead to more provoca-tive, scholarly exhibitions. Of course, museums want to fight the stereotype of being elitist and ‘academic,’ but why can’t entertainment be scholarly and the scholarly entertaining?” (80). In a response to an e-mail, Justine Ludwig, Assistant Curator at the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, writes:

One of the most important roles a curator takes on is that of a scholar. I view publication as an integral part of what I do. Art information, much like art itself, informs people of greater truths about themselves and the world around them. We strive to create scholarship that illuminates the aesthetic and adds depth to art.

In the same e-mail, Ludwig brings up points similar to those of Day:

One thing that I have been thinking about is that the current mode of art documentation [...] is rather dated. Art is becoming more and more technologically advanced, and I think that its documentation should reflect that. [...] Also, I find there to be a failing in the documentation of art that is not simply two-dimen-sional. Even documenting a photograph is unbelievably difficult (you are going to spend quite some time color correcting an im-age and then writing about the experience of a photograph is al-ways going to be personal and subjective). Sculptures, installa-tion, and video art are also impossible to document. We are only getting more broad in our understanding of art.

Kemple 4

While these difficulties are obvious in contemporary art, they are no less relevant for historical works. Tracy Johnson, artist and art professor, brought up the difficulties accessing art information without a requisite sub-ject expertise. In many art library image collections the only access point is the artist’s name. She brought up the fact that Rembrandt and Goya, even to many knowledgeable about art history, are generally thought of as painters.

What printmakers know is that Rembrandt was one of the most experimental and diligent printers in history, and he advanced the art exponentially. Goya, another painter, used aquatint in the most subtle and beautiful manner. Yet if I wanted to find an incredible example of aquatint, I would have to know that Goya was also a printmaker. Now that's no problem for someone who has had a good dose of the history of printmaking but for a stu-dent it could be a daunting task to winnow through artists in search of “ . . .”.

In common to Day, Bierbaum and Ludwig is the centrality of experi-ence in our encounters with art and art information. As a profession, how ought we address an experience with an art object, such as a performance (of greater dynamic temporaneous extension than spatial) or a painting (of greater dynamic spatial extension than temporaneous)? Given a particular work, how does our experience of that work change as it is represented in various forms of documentation or bibliographic technology? What sorts of experiences do we have with those technologies in general? To this end, Bierbaum incidentally affirms a central point of Day’s when she writes:

The library also brings us information through intermediaries, or carriers of content. Each carrier is usually a member of a group of thousands printed at the same time; the library’s focus is upon the content of any or many of them (for instance, a con-tent about silver-smithing); the encounter, while no less "real" or informative, is not a direct, sensory experience with the prod-uct of the silver-smith’s skill.

It is worthwhile to consider, qualify and compare our experiences with various media (using the term in its broadest sense so as to encompass manifestations and items of work, as well as any thing that serves as a sur-rogate to or documentation of that thing), and to consider how it may change from one media to the next.

DREAMS, MADNESS & HYPERBOLE – A SERVICE PARADIGM

The role of technology in libraries is the topic Walt Crawford and Michael Gorman discuss in their book Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness & Reality. Crawford and Gorman frame (with no small amount of hyperbole)

Kemple 5

such considerations in terms of a service ambition. While many of the argu-ments humorously reflect the time of it’s writing (1994), there are a number of strong, and fiercely relevant, themes presented throughout. A great deal of effort is given toward a proof that electronic text will never outperform print, primarily on the basis that, “The facts are that books [...] work better than any alternative for sustained reading” (17-18). It is interesting that as support to this argument, it is suggested that linearity is compromised in electronic text; they assert that linear reading is of more noble quality than nonlinear; consequently all serious works must always be linear (23-24). While the fact remains true, at least to some extent, that non-linearity is of-ten a quality of electronic text; the values of readers have shifted at behest of information technology. This is true in the creation of new works and the reinterpretation of old. For example, a bilingual translation by C.K. Ogden of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (quoted at the be-ginning of the paper) is formatted for faceted Web browsing1.

Ultimately, Crawford and Gorman’s topic is technology as a means for service as opposed to technology as ends. In the first manifesto-like chapter, they write:

Let us state, as strongly as we can, that libraries are not wholly or even primarily about information. They are about the preser-vation, dissemination, and use of recorded knowledge in what-ever form it may come so that humankind may become more knowledgeable; through knowledge reach understanding; and, as an ultimate goal, achieve wisdom (5).

This mirrors Rubin’s emphasis on service as the defining goal of li-braries and librarianship. “Underlying this notion of service is not just the betterment of the individual, but the betterment of the community as a whole. This activity, of bringing knowledge to people and the society, is the sine qua non of the profession” (304). Rubin, as well as Crawford and Gor-man, are openly indebted to the writings of S.R. Ranganathan, especially his Five Laws of Library Science. Crawford and Gorman formulate an updated variation on the laws:

1. Libraries serve humanity.2. Respect all forms by which knowledge is communicated.3. Use technology intelligently to enhance service.4. Protect free access to knowledge.5. Honor the past and create the future (Crawford & Gorman 8).

EXPERIENCING INFORMATION

1 “Ludwig Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: Hypertext of the Ogden bilingual edition” <http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html>. Having made several un-successful attempts at reading the text in print, I found this to enhance comprehensibility by virtue of its nonlinear form.

Kemple 6

Simply put, different information technologies create different experi-ences. If our profession’s central concern is that of service, then mindful-ness of the varieties of experiences is imperative. Different information technologies represent information in different ways. And means of repre-senting, through the organization of, information is central to our practice. There has been much discussion on what effects information technology has on the way we think. A recent article in The Guardian summarizes much of this contentious debate, presenting divergent opinions of various thinkers and researchers. Among them is that of Maryanne Wolf, cognitive neurosci-entist and author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain, who writes:

I am an apologist for the reading brain. It represents a miracle that springs from the brain’s unique capacity to rearrange itself to learn some-thing new. No one, however, knows what this reading brain will look like in one more generation. [...] How well will we preserve the critical capacities of the present ex-pert reading brain as we move to the digital reading brain of the next generation? Will the youngest members of our species de-velop their capacities for the deepest forms of thought while reading or will they become a culture of very different readers – with some children so inured to a surfeit of information that they have neither the time nor the motivation to go beyond su-perficial decoding? In our rapid transition into a digital culture, we need to figure out how to provide a full repertoire of cogni-tive skills that can be used across every medium by our children and, indeed, by ourselves.

If the cognitive abilities of library users are changing on a grand scale, as seems to be the case, so must libraries, in the interest of serving humanity, change on a grand scale. Rubin writes: “Understanding how peo-ple think, what they know, and how they approach information problems can help designers create knowledge models within their systems that more closely match the methods and data by which users can meet their needs” (51-52). I would argue that the scope of this problem is beyond online appli-cations and designing “user interfaces”, that it is at the heart of our profes-sion.

Hearkening back to Day’s argument, it is easy to see there is a mutu-ally affective relationship between libraries and their users. If materiality is indeed a forgotten concept, subsumed within the be-all reductionist para-digm of information, then the fault is of those who organize and disseminate information, promoting the notion of objects as “information containers”. However useful (and necessary!), this fallacy, it is a fallacious nonetheless: two copies of the same novel are still two different material objects, albeit with common characteristics (similar-looking ink on similar-looking pages

Kemple 7

forming similar-looking patterns of similar-looking symbols, etc.). But with-out such preposterous assumptions, libraries could not fulfill their mission! Then again, are we really serving humanity if we are presenting a delu-sional version of reality? Or are we just making humanity delusional?

In short, libraries exist to give meaning to the continuing human attempt to transcend space and time in the advancement of knowledge and the preservation of culture (Crawford & Gorman 4).

If I may temporarily venture into abstraction, any kind of description or categorization is an expression of a worldview. Given an object n that we are going to describe, it must be assumed that there is some means of loosely distinguishing it from something else. In doing so, we establish a rudimentary picture of the world: everything that is n and everything that isn’t n. If we wish to make some description of n, we do so by establishing some sort of relationship between n and the term we wish to describe it with. This is done by predication; the establishing of a relationship between two simple terms. Language itself is a form of predication. We cannot cate-gorize or define, much less communicate, an un-predicated term. If I point at something, the act of my pointing predicates that thing.

My argument is as follows:

1. Description is predication.2. The function of predication is communication.3. All forms of communication are social phenomenon.4. Therefore, description is a function of social phenomenon.

This may serve as a basis for the social function of libraries. In con-cluding the chapter “Librarianship: An Evolving Profession”, Rubin poses the following: “The key question is whether the traditional social values of librarianship should form the context for the exploitation of information technologies by librarians, or whether the new information technologies creates a new social context that changes the meaning and significance of libraries and librarians” (482). Perhaps it must be one or the other, but I see no reason why both cannot be true.

THE COLLABORATIVE CONTINUUM: A PROLEGOMENA

In “Libraries, archives and museums: catalysts along the collaboration continuum”, Günter Waibel, Diane M. Zorich and Ricky Erway describe a model for collaboration among institutions. This continuum is described in five stages: 1) contact, 2) cooperation, 3) coordination, 4) collaboration, and 5) convergence (18).

Kemple 8

Collaboration moves beyond agreements. It is a “...process of share creation: two or more [groups]...interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own”. Information is not just ex-changed; it is used to create something new. In collaboration, ‘something is there that wasn't there before’. That “something” is not just a new idea, but a transformation among the collabo-rating institutions (18).

Along similar lines, Walt Crawford and Michael Gorman write: “What unites libraries is more important than the distinctions between libraries–it is imperative that libraries should cooperate for mutual benefit” (114). Es-ther Bierbaum also fiercely advocates institutional collaboration:

A deeper relationship lies at the level of communication: both in-stitutions are agencies of communication, telling us about our past, our present, and our future. It is at this level that libraries and museums are most fruitfully linked, where the language-based records and the tangible objects enhance one another. It is at this level that professionals from each institution can serve their publics better by knowing and using the resources of the other (109).

While the above excerpts are discussing collaboration among institu-tions, I would argue that this mirrors not only the sorts of social interactions that libraries have the capacity to facilitate, but that it mirrors the logical bases whereby information is organized. When we engage with information, we are actually creating something that was not there before. Of course putting together a subject and a predicate is creative, but no less is encoun-tering subject-predicate combinations. In reading this sentence, you are putting together the terms to create an idea that resembles the idea in my mind as I write it. But, as Day points out, this is merely a representation, and every representation is unique from that which it represents. For every person who reads and understands this sentence, something new is created that was not there before. Therefore, not only do libraries organize, dissemi-nate, and facilitate access to information, they also facilitate the creation of information as well as interactions between human beings.

Libraries are, and must remain, about human relationships in service of individuals and communities. Libraries are, and must remain, complex, multidimensional webs of collection and ser-vices–each enhancing and complementing the others. It is only in recognizing and embracing that complexity and its attendant ambiguities that libraries will be able to continue their mission and thrive in an ever-changing society (Crawford & Gorman 179-180).

Kemple 9

Works Cited

Collins, Kim. “Patrons, Processes, and the Profession: Comparing the Aca-demic Art Library and the Art Museum Library.” The Twenty-First Century Art Librarian. Ed. Terrie L. Wilson. Binghamton, NY: The Ha-worth Information Press, 2003. 77-89. Print.

Crawford, Walt and Michael Gorman. Future Libraries: Dreams Madness & Reality. Chicago: American Library Association. 1995. Print.

Day, Ronald E. “Works and Representations.” Journal of the American Soci-ety for Information Science and Technology, 59.10 (2008), 1644-1652. Print.

Johnson, Tracy. “Re: Art Information.” Message to the author. 12 Aug. 2010. E-mail.

Ludwig, Justine. “Responses to questions.” Message to the author. 13 Aug. 2010. E-mail.

Naughton, John. “The internet: is it changing the way we think?” Guardian.-co.uk. 15 Aug. 2010. Web. 16 Aug. 2010.

Nilsson, Harry. Liner notes. Pussy Cats. LP. RCA Victor. 1974.

Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science, 2nd ed. New York: Neal-Schuman. 2004. Print.

Waibel, Günter, Diane M. Zorich, and Ricky Erway. “Libraries, archives and museums: catalysts along the collaboration continuum.” Art Libraries Journal 34.2 (2009): 17-20. Library, Information Science & Technol-ogy Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 10 Aug. 2010.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: Hypertext of the Og-den bilingual edition. Trans. C.K. Ogden. Web. 12 Aug. 2010.