Chris has a point – we do tend to come
up with examples of Jenkinson’s elephant to illustrate the unusual. I recall
‘Mr Graham’s pencil’ preserved from the late 19th century
in the records of a paint company, or the inevitable half smoked Churchillian
cigar butt in the papers of a devotee (I think that got left with the donor).
My suggestion might be to ask for the
unexpected – archive collections whose source material covers topics you
might not think would be in them. And an example? Not ‘pure’ written
source, but it would be the Bookmatch order books of Bryant and May, which
include a sample of the product ordered against each order, so providing information
of a wide range of retail and leisure businesses for the first sixty or so
years of the last century. One series included commissioned images, so there
are interiors and exteriors as well as standard ‘café’
designs with just addresses etc.
David Mander OBE
020 8889 4353
07970 215851
From:
Archivists, conservators and records managers.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Chris Pickford
Sent: 27 November 2009 09:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: facts about your
archive
I'm always struck by the fact that when we
want to promote archives, we end up using "non archival" items to
illustrate our publicity materials or as examples. This is certainly the case
with quite a lot of the material produced in recent years in which
"documents" seldom feature among the illustrations. I know that
written materials really don't excite visually, but it's almost as if
we're ashamed - or just completely stuck! - to draw on true archive materials.
Maybe it's an unavoidable issue for our
sector that our core holdings just aren't that sexy in a visually dependent
age. But I do think we need to be aware that using "pretties" and
"interesting artefacts" may not be that helpful in clarifying public
appreciation of what archives really are. Even if these things are genuinely
archival, they misrepresent the fact that the real (and tremendous) value of
our collections lies in its recorded information.
Anna's parasol prompted this - but I think
there is a serious point to consider about how we project the image of archives
through the use of visually "incorrect" (sorry - struggling for quite
the right word) illustrations.
Slightly off topic for the original
request, too - Angela did ask for interesting facts or unusual items (so the
parasol and leotard photo may be fine) - but I still think its worth asking if
we can make better connections between our evidential / informational holdings
and our public image.
Chris Pickford