[Web4lib] At Session on the Future of Libraries, a Sense of Urgency

[Christopher Kiess]

Again, Ross, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Moreover, you have
done little to address my point - how can we put a higher value back in the
profession. If we were to compare the amount of "frivilous entertainment"
watched in the Victorian Era to the amount of television watched today, I'm
pretty sure we would find we spend more of our time today being entertained.
Of course the counter argument here is that we have more time today due to
technology. Regardless, this is all beside the point.

One of the first libraries in America was started by Ben Franklin to share
collective knowledge via books since the cost of print materials was so
high. When a public library purchases 50 copies of National Treasure to
inflate their statistics, I consider this a perversion of what libraries are
meant to be. You can argue that National Treasure will be a classic in 100
years and maybe you are right. If you want to spend your time (and degreee)
handing out DVD's, go right ahead, Ross. But, Blockbuster and Borders are
doing the same thing and here's a little secret - they don't have to hire
people with an MLS, MLIS or and MIS.

My primary point stands - some aspects of our profession and some aspects of
our skill set will have to advance to meet the changes of technology. Your
argument is simply a diversionary one. How can we change to meet the demands
of the future?

chris

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Ross Singer <rossfsinger at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Christopher Kiess <clkiess at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > This brings me to my final point. There is something inherently wrong
> with
> > my culture. People in my culture know more about their favorite TV show
> than
> > they do about art or literature or history.  My point is that when you
> have
> > a culture that is more interested in American Idol than fine art or
> > literature it is hard to sell libraries, research, scholarly conversation
> or
> > the like. While I admit this is a sweeping generalization, there is some
> > truth to it.
>
> As opposed to previous generations that put down their Proust for a
> couple of hours to go see Toscanini conduct live at the local opera
> house?  Afterwards, a night of digestifs with the town literati to
> discuss foreign affairs, the state of modernist poetry and reconciling
> theodicy?
>
> What is this myth that popular culture hasn't *always* been the
> majority and fairly low-brow?  Elizabethan theatre had dancing dogs.
> Commedia dell'Arte had chamber pots dumped on lothario's heads.
>
> The theatre of late 19th/early 20th century was filled with sappy
> melodramas of the sort now reserved for the Lifetime channel.
>
> Why is that because *you* value fine art or literature it makes your
> opinion of what is important more valuable than what the majority
> wants to read/watch/listen to?
>
> -Ross.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>


-- 
C.L. Kiess, B.A., M.L.S.
Information & Knowledge Specialist
Columbus Regional Hospital
Library & Knowledge Services