For the first time since Henri Labrouste (1801-1875), currently the subject of an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, formulated the conception of the new, democratic library, the central library is fighting for survival. The relevance of these gloriously inflated book boxes is being questioned in an age that looks to the Internet for its intellectual resources. — online.wsj.com
18 Comments
I remember this exact question being asked two decades ago, and new libraries are still being built....
Many beautiful libraries in fact... and while I rarely find myself in one, when I do I seem to see no shortage of people using the space. Could it be that rare voiceless class, the urban poor may still use such a thing? Could it be that perhaps the reporters only conversations with anyone outside of the upper middle income bracket are to his grocery store clerk and food delivery guy, and very little actual research was done? Could it be?
Librarys will be around for a while, I hope. The thing that always seems to be left out in all these computerized utopian visions of the future is our need to be around eachother. Certainly there have been winners and loosers in the internet revolution, but as Yahoo's decision to bring everyone back to the office, it's our actual human interactions that keep us sane, and the Library is a great place to feel a sense of community, especially for the urban poor, or the street car suburban mixed communities, or anyone else who craves company while updating their facebook profile to their 100 closest friends.
weird article.
people only behave badly in brutalist buildings?
architecture breaks down into cass gilbert and corporate modernism?
so the stacks disappear at the nypl? Perhaps being in Foster's space would be quite pleasant. The renderings look more than a tad like a dull hotel, but those are only renderings. There's much they can't convey. Seems the author only associates carved plaster reproductions with quality public space, which is too bad as the author is advocating for quality public space. Modernism is a tougher game to appreciate, for sure.
Still, sounds a bit like a tantrum. Maybe the MOMA and the FAM will produce a nice, accelerated mash up.
i second Thayer-D, well said...
There are two professional organizations that I know of that think and talk and deal with this on an ongoing basis. Both are librarian groups. ALA , American Library Association, and ARLIS, the equivalent group for art librarians. ARLIS I know well as my ex was the chair on film and video. These are the academic, university librarians.
The future of libraries, books and collections is a constant topic. L libraries, and archives, are the depositories of our culture. The ideas of replacing books with electronic medias or just stored in an internet accessible cloud is just lame. It would be like turning education into gossip.
a tad hyperbolic, no?
Are you speaking about the NYPL or generally? Seems the NYPL is moving its stacks under Bryant Park.
I can't imagine that every library, to perform its function, needs to be a repository for the printed word.
Spike> Libraries in general. Librarians and especially archivists really do believe this. The internet is a sort of temp back-up, . The originals are always preserved.
BTW Have you ever experienced 'objects' in the original state. Most persons haven't and unfortunately dont have access. there is a difference, and not just Walter Benjamin's metaphysical 'Aura'. The differences are qualitative, as well as issues of size, resolution and context. I am always blown away by how the same things can be so different.
Library and starbucks, no difference.
Eric - agreed, of course, but whose arguing for throwing books away? Is that really the question being posed: library or Starbucks? Honestly, I don't know why that's your starting point. perhaps you have a reason for such an angle, such as a general sense of misgiving about, oh I dunno, western civilization? And yeah, I've seen some 'objects' - thanks for the condescension. Part of the point of public digital libraries is to help people get access to some form of the prized originals, and whatever else might be available. If someone wants to get access to the digitized books of the Warburg Institute and a public library is where the can do that, then good. Not everyone's going to make it to London. Not everyone's just looking for a place to check facebook. And not everyone's looking to chop up Warburg's library to get their hands on the real estate. Why subscribe to Subscribe's point of view?
Most people go to the library because starbucks is overcrowded.
Or they are just broke/homeless.
it's our actual human interactions that keep us sane
no, just coffee.
Spike> It's not that deep. I am recalling projects from the past. I've been on the inside for both sides, archives and internet. I prefer archives. Rule of thumb on internet info: 90% is inaccurate.
"Could it be that rare voiceless class, the urban poor may still use such a thing?"
the urban poor have basic requirements that should be met in advance of near-irrelevant demands for libraries.
"I remember this exact question being asked two decades ago, and new libraries are still being built...."
the article is concerned with how will libraries evolve and not whether they will still be built.
is it possible that the "moving target"referred to is actually a non-target?
is it possible that its a question of finding a new meaning for a word that is disconnecting from a traditional meaning that is losing its valour? and, by extention of that question, do we need to find a new meaning for an old wor(l)d?
if -at the paperbased (lets call them all books for convenience) level:
a library (A) = physical book storage(B) + scanning technologies(C)+dissemination technologies(D)+finding technologies(E)+reception technologies(F)
B needs a large space
C needs to be right next to B, contiguous with it => B+C= physically based BC
D is the output telecom channel to the server/public and is still within the BC vicinity=>BC+D= BCD
E and F are personal use technologies at the receiving user end
therefore, 'libraries' should be restricted to BCD most suitably associated with bibliology centers where the sciences of paperbased preservation and archiving ensure their longterm preservation. access would be restricted and controlled.
on the other hand, how do you deal with 10000...copies of the same book edition...do you store them all?
rule of thumb on internet info?
why are you talking about shit blogs and Wikipedia suddenly? is 90% of Artstor inaccurate?
im going back to posting cats and lewd music.
Tom Hille (currently doing a temporary stint teaching at Washington State) has done a lot of foundational research on the history and design of public libraries as a programmatic type. I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture he gave a few weeks ago where he outlined some of this research, and it was fascinating.
I reviewed this a while back.
Henry Hobson Richardson and the Small Public Library in America: A Study in Typology
then of course there are times when the archivists and the internet are of the same manifestations as in
plus, either way you have to wrestle with the challenges of the "deadmediabeat" and technological obsolescence.
also a close reading of the article makes clear the "library" in question in this piece isn't the larger concept of a "library" or "books" but the need for a specific typology the "central" library. Thus the if anything growing need for "community" libraries and "media" centers.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.