_Art in America_ April Issue, from Australia to Porn to an American Master

The April 2005 issue of Art in America contains a few interesting pieces. For those in collection development, the Richard Kalina's review of De Kooning: An American Master by Mark Stevens and Annalyn Swan may be of interest. For the casual reader, the review provides a nice overview of the life of American painter who lived from 1904 to 1997 and who "many believe to be the greatest and most influential American artist of the 20th century. . ." (49). This issue also features various art reports from different parts of the world. I found particularly interesting the Report from Australia written by Richard Kalina, "Down Under No More," which argues that Australia has become an art center in its own right. Good information for those who may be planning to travel and have an interest in art. Sarah Valdez writes a small photography article, "Body Double," about photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders who depicts the same subjects twice, once clothed and once nude. The photographer recently did this approach in a series of portraits of porn stars. It is interesting to see how different some people can appear with or without clothes. The artist did make sure that for the stars' nude portraits, they were done up as when on screen. Finally, Sarah Lewis writes about Kehinde Wiley's portraits of African-American males in her article "De(i)fying the Masters." The artist creates life size portraits of African-American men "standing in the postures of prophets, saints and angels from Renaissance paintings, or of male subjects from later European portraits" (121). The exhibition was recently shown in the Brooklyn Museum. In the process, the artist offers a critique of the European tradition as well as of the media's portrayal of the African-American male. The samples presented in the magazine are very good in terms of providing a sense of the exhibit, and they are good art as well.

On withdrawing the print if it is available electronically

I recently read about this topic in article from Collection Building, volume 24, issue#2 (2005). It caught my eye because at the moment we are facing a space crisis (or concern, I suppose it depends on who you ask). At any rate, we reached the decision in our library to remove from the stacks any back issues of periodicals for which there is an issue in an online reliable source, like J-Stor. At the moment, we are moving the back issues to a small storage space in the floor above the library that the administration saw fit to give us when some other department moved to the new building. The space is basically a few hundred square feet or so, enough for three offices and the storage space in question. Since the space is small, it has been determined, or at least that is my understanding, that after a reasonable amount of time the journals in the storage area will be discarded if they are not requested. We are planning on implementing a paging system to handle any requests for the stored items. It is just a reflection of the fact that space is at a premium.

So, the article caught my eye because I wanted to see what criteria the authors proposed for this process, and maybe to see how close we were to such proposals in our thinking. So far, it looks like they are following a rational similar to ours. Space is at a premium, and there is the factor of cost. We are also moving to cancel print versions and keeping only electronic subscriptions, unless the price diferential is minimal. Again, another reality of shrinking funding. In our case also, having more online journals means better support for the distance education program as well. The authors of the article explore the question of whether or not both formats, print and electronic, should be kept if the online version is stable and reliable and as good as the print. The authors then provide a good summary of considerations in order to implement the withdrawal. They present a three tier system to assist libraries in the process which helps to determine which journals can be removed right away and which ones have to be delayed, say if they have specific problems like a large number of issues missing online. The authors mention also that faculty in their campus did not show much concern over the removal, but they note that their library has done previous removals of print journals, in that case, because they had the titles in J-Stor, so the faculty was likely used to the idea, or at least more accepting of it. In our campus, the director sent out a letter to the faculty explaining our situation, but as far as I know, we have not had any faculty express substantial concerns. At least none the director has brought to our attention at the librarians' meetings. The authors of the article write additionally that

"We realize that by withdrawing our print copies we are in effect shifting the burden of long-term preservation on others in the Library community. We are also putting our trust in the publisher's willingness and ability to create and maintain a stable digital archive that is duplicated in more than one location."

This does concern me, the notion that we have to depend on the good faith of a commercial interest to preserve collections. Maybe it is the cynic in me that wonders how willing would they be to do that preservation. Until it stops being economically feasable? There are clauses in contracts for perpetual access to what has been paid for in the event of a cancellation, but the authors acknowledge it is not something they necesarily want to test. In spite of that concern, the article conclude that shifting the collection towards more electronic resources better servest the needs of patrons and makes more efficient use of resources. That is what we are hoping as well, to make better use of our limited resources while we meet the needs and expectations of our community. We'll see how it goes.

On losing access to Government Information

Today's online edition of the Chicago Tribune carries a story with the following headline: "Librarians Worry Important Information Being Lost." The words "librarian" and "information" and "lost" were enough to catch my attention as I casually scanned my pages of headlines. The article explains how the Government Printing Office has been losing money on document sales, to a large measure because many government agencies, to cut back on costs, are bypassing the GPO and publishing their own documents online in their own websites. In doing this, the agencies do not always provide a copy to the GPO. A recent GPO report proposed that the GPO create a centralized database to serve as a repository to these documents. This creates concerns of access and centralization. Some are concerned that putting all documents in a central location would make them more susceptible to deletion or alteration. This can create significant concern since there is no clear solution when it comes to actually archiving what the government produces. Since these documents are only made available online, they can be as easily removed as they were easily placed online. They can be altered without the average citizen even knowing there was an alteration. The article states that

"What the librarians and critics fear is if the GPO implements its Digital Content System, an online database that would hold digital copies of documents from all federal agencies, the agency won't need to actually provide independent hard copies or digital files of information."

It seems to reduce the role of depository libraries, which are now one of the few places where the average citizen can go find out what his or her government is up to, with assistance from knowledgeable librarians. Critics of the new proposal argue that libraries need to have the documents distributed to them as well. In a time when there is even more information available online, the answer is not centralize and limit access, but it is to make it accessible to all. Making documents more available to libraries would only serve to enhance citizen participation.

As a note, the article makes reference to an article in the "latest" issue of the Journal of Academic Librarianship, which I have not been able to find. My guess is the databases have not picked it up yet, or it is not as "latest" as the newspaper suggests. At any rate, if I do find it, I will add a note after I read it. I did not get to work at a depository, but I developed a passion and belief in the power of Government Documents during library school that stays with me. It is of concern that access to such powerful and crucial tools of our democracy could be lost. Anyhow, food for thought.

A bit more on my reading list upgrade.

I went and got our latest issues of some of the periodicals I am considering for addition to my lists. It is a bit slow at the Information Desk today, so I got a bit of time to look over a few items. From what I managed to read, I come to the realization that you do need to be reading one of each so to speak if you want to get any sense of balance. Magazines like American Spectator or The New Republic clearly have an audience in mind, and their writing style as well as content and tone show as much. If someone happens to belong to the particular persuasion (conservative or liberal, or progressive for those liberals who don't want to be labeled liberal), then reading the one on your persuasion is fine. However, as I read through some of the articles, I found myself thinking, considering, what about the other side? What would these other writers and commentators say about the same thing? It is hard to do for a monthly, like American Spectator, because they have to choose more carefully to cover a month. But for weekly publications like the National Review and The New Republic for instance, it is interesting to compare how they speak to the same topics with a different approach.

Oh, and another thing I discovered. You can only read so much of it before you say enough is enough. The ideology can be a bit "thicker" on these magazines unlike the more traditional newsmagazines (Time, Newsweek, Economist, etc. and yes, I am sure some can debate those have their biases too, but we should look at the great scheme of things). Havind said that, the great thing about this country is that we have diversity of opinions and a First Amendment. This means we can be exposed to a marketplace of ideas, which is in part what I am trying to do. It is not easy standing in the middle because it means you have to sort out both sides, look critically at various different ideas. Then again that is what learning as well being a good citizen is about: being well informed and then deciding based on what has been learned and reflected upon. Does this make me idealistic? Hmm, maybe just a little. In the meantime, I will be adding some of these to my personal reading list.

And in closing, I should clarify that while I do have ambitious reading lists for work, it does not mean I read every single item every single month. Some months I read more than others. Some periodicals on my list are quarterly, so some months I have less to read. Other months I just don't get through everything. No big deal. The idea is to strive for as much as possible.

Booknote: _What's Going On_ (1997)

This is Nathan McCall's second book, also author of Makes Me Wanna Holler (1994). I have not read the first book, which is his autobiography, but it is one of the books I have on my perennial to read list. This book came in as part of a recent new books batch, so I grabbed it off the cart of new books we put at the Information Desk. I noted before in my first post that in our library the librarians get to review new books before we put them out for the public in the new books shelf display. We place the cart at the Information Desk, and I think the Circulation people give us about a week or two for review before shelving. Of course, if a patron comes by and sees something they like, they are welcome to take it as well since the books are ready to be checked out, thanks to the efforts of our great Technical Services people. At any rate, I picked up the book to look over, and it seemed interesting, so I began to read the introduction, and his direct and simple style just drew me right in, so in spite of having three books I am reading through, I put this one ahead of the list. I started it on Tuesday the 26th, and I finished it during lunch today.

Reading on the way home day before yesterday, I have to say the book is very engaging. McCall writes with a plain style that shows common sense, and at times, reading it, you can't help but be angry with him at some of the observations he makes about race relations in this country. From the Black kids who invade a White kids' pick up basketball game only to lose in a major way to the "Negro problem" in Old Town, Alexandria, Virginia (and other Old Towns across the United States). The book is a collection of essays that reflect the author's "perceptions about some of the issues that divide people and keep us racially polarized" (from the introduction). McCall looks at everything: White and Black relations, Black on Black violence, rap music, stereotypes, and so on, and he basically tells it like it is. The book has its moments of humor, but it also has its moving moments as well as moments of reflection. I highly recommend this book. Similar books may include the works of Jonathan Kozol, though his books are bit more formal.