The
mission of the Old Schwamb Mill (OSM) is essentially “to keep the mill alive on the landscape as a unique educational resource.”1
And to that end they have done well. However, it could be said that this has
been done to the detriment of preservation. In the end, there is information
that is readily accessible, but not necessarily in the way a LIS student would
expect.
There
are two kinds of cultural heritage, tangible and intangible. OSM is an instance
of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, however the focus of OSM is
on the intangible aspects. OSM calls itself “the nation’s oldest continuously
operating mill site”2. The mill is considered to be “a living
document”3, and it is operated by a “trust which maintains the
mill's traditions”.4 It certainly is a different interpretation of
the meaning of “document”, but one that is implied by Briet’s definition.5
The
key is, it is not the wooden oval frames (which the Schwamb family produced) manufactured
here which are being persevered. It is the methods and skills, those arts “that
cannot be touched but which can be felt through other sensory organs”6
which are being preserved here. In this instance, one could literally tag and
bag the entirety of OSM and everything in it, but the sum of the parts would be
lost. The methods by which tools and skills and machines combine to make a
product is the intangible object that is being preserved and archived at OSM. Because
the efforts of those who manage the mill have been to perverse the tradition,
the information is largely based in the physical house and machine, rather than
in more traditional forms. As a result, there are many things the LIS student
would find disquieting.
Take for example, questions of the environment in OSM. In
regards to environmental controls, there are little to none none. The house is
subject to New England weather, and has been standing since before 1864. As OSM
is a registered historic landmark changes must be made with care. The process
of building a second staircase to the second floor, took 12 years and had been
on the agenda for nearly 20. A revamping of the interior, as would be necessary
for a proper archive, would be out of the question then. Naturally, as OSM is
filled with wood and saw dust, the most pressing environmental concern is fire.
There are fire alarms and sprinklers, but the staff admit that all it would
take is one bad day for it all to go up in smoke. Those who run OSM could make
an effort to fire-proof the mill. However, a large part of that would be to
stop production of fames, which would defeat the purpose of OSM. As a result,
those who run OSM are simply resigned to the facing that constant danger.7
Speaking of nature of OSM, that brings up questions of
preservation. The building itself is old, and so has all the problems of a
building over 200 years old. However, there is more to is then that. There is
also the question of how to care for the machines which shape the wood. The
original lathes, for example, have been there since 1864. “They are the
original machinery and have survived because of constant care and tending.”8
They cannot be archived, as then they could not be used. As a result, they must
be repaired, and well looked after. In short, OSM does not practice
preservation in the academic sense, they practice up-keep and repair. Perseveration,
at least in the LAMs sense, would imply the end of the use of the machines
which would be counter to the efforts of OSM to preserve the craft of frame
making.9
Naturally, this upkeep and maintenance at OSM is a highly
specialized trade. In fact, of the employees, the one who tends to the
machinery is has a professional job as a Victorian clock repair man, another
lost art. (On Tuesdays anyone is welcome to come in and which him (David Graf)
work.) The argument could be made that the staff are their own set best
practices, as not lathe repair is better suited to the realm of a mechanic or
woodworker, then it is an archivist.10
I
mentioned above there are between three and four staff members. OSM is much
like any other organization, in that is relies heavily on volunteers. The staff
and volunteers of OSM communicate dominantly by email and face to face work. One
of the volunteers was retired Smithsonian employee, who was good enough to make
an index of most of the objects in the Mill. This index is by no means robust
though. Furthermore, this index though beneficial, is not necessarily ideal for
helping support OSM’s mission of keeping the tradition of wooden frame making alive.11
OSM
does take in some money aside from gifts, grants, and contributions. The upstairs
space is rented out to architects and engineers engaged in historic
preservation, as well as functioning as a gallery for local artists in our
gallery which they make commission off of. Additionally, the barn is rented out
as retail showroom. The local artist especially, have the effect of drawing a
verity of people in, who might not otherwise visit.12
Finally,
I want to talk a bit about the collections. There are arguably four or more
collections in OSM. All of them are accessible, and it is hard to imagine how
they would be otherwise, as OSM is a working mill. There are machines on which
the wood is worked, which have weekly demonstrations. They are essential to OSM
and I have mentioned how that could not be persevered without inconveniencing OSM.
There is a large set of a mold cutting knives, which the Smithsonian did make
an offer to purchase, however that offer was refused, despite the fact that the
molding machine is no longer in the mill.13
There
is in fact an archive in the more traditional sense as well. It was recently
moved to a room with a good deal less sun in it. While all in one place, the archives
are not organized. It consists largely of the paper work -the internal records
of production at of mill- and is accessible to anyone who should wish to
examine it. (Any willing intern, would be welcome to organize it.) I would
image it is not dissimilar to the contents of the unfortunate Textiles Museum.
Unfortunately, those documents are not the primary concern of the OSM. While all
such documents could be digitized, that would not be ultimately beneficial the
OSM’s oval all goal.14
Finally, (I know this sounds silly) there is also a great
deal of interesting memorabilia just stuck to the walls. Scattered all of the
building walls; are pin-up-girls from the 60s, baseball schedules from the 50s,
maps from the 30s and employee safety documents from the 70s. The collection of
items on the walls alone is likely worth a study in and of itself. Again, this
too could be archived and digitized, but it would not serve the purpose of OSM’s
mission, and therefrom the memorabilia themselves would be deprived of the
context of the current location.15
The
majority of the information OSM has to offer is the kind that is either contextual
or intangible. Thus OSM shares the information best, when people are physically
able to visit the mill. Tours are available to all who visit, which only makes
more clear the embedded nature of the information. To put indexes, archive or catalogs
of OSM up on line would be beneficial only in the abstract academic sense. Technology
cannot capture information of the kind OSM can provide. I think this is why the
technology of OSM (Facebook and Twitter) serves more to let people know that they
exist, then to bombard the viewer with data. That information must be transmitted
in person. Perhaps this is why OSM works so closely with the community. OSM
works with local artists and the town, and finding ways to blend their mission
with the spirit of the times. As an example, in November they plan to start an
annual craft show. To me, OSM seems to be at least part of what Carson is
looking for in his Plan B. OSM draws people in, not by the flash of its
websites or the latest technologies, but by offering a unique experience that
can only be gained first hand.16
2.
Old Schwamb Mill brochure
3.
Old Schwamb Mill brochure
5.
Buckland, M. K. (1997). What is a “document”?. Journal
Of The American Society For Information Science, 48804-809.
6.
Chowdhury, G. G., Ruthven, I. (2015) Managing
digital cultural heritage information. Cultural
Heritage Information: Access and Management Retrieved from: http://moodle.simmons.edu/pluginfile.php/647214/mod_resource/content/0/CHIchowdhuryCh1.pdf
7.
Old Schwamb Mill Newsletter 2015, Old Schwamb
Mill Tour
9.
Old Schwamb Mill brochure, Old Schwamb Mill
Newsletter 2015, http://www.oldschwambmill.org/preservation/preservation.html
10. Old
Schwamb Mill brochure, Old Schwamb Mill Newsletter 2015, Old Schwamb Mill Tour
11. Old
Schwamb Mill Tour
13. Old
Schwamb Mill Tour
14. Old
Schwamb Mill Tour
15. Old
Schwamb Mill Tour
16. Carson,
C. (2008). The End of History Museums: What's Plan B?. The Public Historian, (4). 9. doi:10.1525/tph.2008.30.4.9.
No comments:
Post a Comment