Aleksander Lavrenčič 1 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY ABSTRACT The report describes the relationship between audio-visual archives and archival sci- ence or archivology. Author has described the prehistoric wishes of mankind in the ren- dering all visible things, even the moving images. But the retention of audio-visual ma- terials was only facilitated by the advancement of technology at the end of the 19th and in the 20th centuries. Audio-visual archivology is an important part of archival science/ archivology. Differences between classical and audio-visual archives will be significant- ly reduced in the future due to archiving of born digital materials. Key words: archives, audio-visual archives, archival science, archivology, digitization SCIENZE ARCHIVISTICHE / ARCHIVOLOGIA E ARCHIVI AUDIOVISIVI O ARCHIVI AUDIOVISIVI E SCIENZE ARCHIVISTICHE / ARCHIVOLOGIA Sintesi Il rapporto descrive la relazione tra archivi audiovisivi e scienze archivistiche o archivo - logiche. L’autore ha descritto i desideri preistorici dell’umanità nel rendere tutte le cose visibili, anche le immagini in movimento. Ma la conservazione dei materiali audiovisivi è stata facilitata solo dal progresso della tecnologia alla fine del XIX e XX secolo. L’ar- chivologia audiovisiva è una parte importante della scienza / archivologia archivistica. Le differenze tra archivi classici e audiovisivi saranno notevolmente ridotte in futuro a causa dell’archiviazione di materiali digitali nati. Parole chiave: archivi, archivi audiovisivi, scienza archivistica, archivologia, digitalizzazione ARHIVOLOGIJA/ARHIVISTIKA IN AVDIOVIZUALNI ARHIVI ALI AVDIOVIZUALNI ARHIVI IN ARHIVOLOGIJA/ARHIVISTIKA IZVLEČEK Poročilo opisuje razmerje med avdiovizualnimi arhivi in arhivistiko oziroma arhivologi- jo..Avtor je opisal pradavne želje človeštva po upodabljanju vsega vidnega, tudi giblji- vih slik. Hrambo avdiovizualnega gradiva je omogočil šele napredek tehnologije konec 19. in v 20 stoletju. Avdiovizualna arhivistika oziroma arhivologija je pomemben del ar- hivistike/arhivologije. Razlike med klasičnimi in avdiovizualnimi arhivi se bodo zaradi arhiviranja digitalno ustvarjenega gradiva v prihodnosti bistveno zmanjšale. Ključne besede: arhivi, avdiovizualni arhivi, arhivistika, arhivologija, digitalizacija 1 Aleksander Lavrenčič, magister arhivistike in dokumentologije, univ. dipl. zgod, arhivski svetovalec, do - kumentalist raziskovalec, RTV Slovenija, Kolodvorska 2, 1550 Ljubljana, aleksander.lavrencic@rtvslo.si, tel. +386 1 475 3610 77 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič 1 UVOD Arhivologija/Arhivistika 2 in avdiovizualni arhivi ali avdiovizualni arhivi in arhivologija/ arhivistika? Težave, ki so nastale že pri samem dvomu, ki se je porodil ob zapisu naslova referata – ali postaviti na prvo mesto avdiovizualne arhive ali arhivistiko/arhivologijo - so pripeljale do nadaljnjega razmišljanja, ki je prvotni namen referata, to je predsta- vitev avdiovizualnih arhivov znotraj arhivske znanosti, močno razširil. Pri razpravi se nismo omejili samo na začetke in posebnosti avdiovizualnih arhivov, ki so se nesporno pojavili šele s tehničnim razvojem, prvimi zapisi gibljive slike in zvoka ter njihovim po- novnim predvajanjem in s tem povezano hrambo nosilcev in vsebine gibljive slike in zvoka, temveč smo vlogo avdiovizualnih arhivov analizirali znotraj arhivske znanosti. 2 ČAS IN SPOMIN Kdaj se je prvič pojavila pri človeku želja, da bi ukradel podobo času in tako podaljšal spomin ali jo celo prenesel na prihodnje rodove, ne vemo. Ta želja je na začetku lahko temeljila na posnemanju, kasneje pa je z različnimi likovnimi tehnikami človek poskušal tem podobam vdihniti celo življenje (grški mit o Pigmalionu). Poleg premagovanja tro - dimenzionalnosti so vidni poskusi posegov v četrto – časovno dimenzijo in prizadevanja za upodobitev realnosti v gibanju, saj naj bi se takšne upodobitve najbolj približale res- ničnemu življenju. Življenje namreč ni statično, življenje se giblje, zato je bilo potrebno ujeti posamezne trenutke in jih povezati v celoto in to celoto tudi ohraniti. Že starodavni umetniki so ugotovili, da lahko z uporabo kontrastov vplivajo na človeko - vo vidno in psihološko dojemanje slik in s tem ustvarjajo dinamiko, ki pričara gibanje. Janez Zalaznik je te elemente našel že v prazgodovinskih risbah iz Valcamonice, kjer kontrast med oblimi in oglatimi oblikami ustvarja dinamično in učinkovito kompozicijo (Zalaznik 2019, 13). 3 PODOBE IN GIBANJE V 19. stoletju je z izumom fotografije postalo realistično upodabljanje vizualnih podob preprosto in dostopno širšim množicam. Temu mediju je uspelo s pomočjo celuloidne- ga traku pričarati tudi gibanje. Brata Lumiere sta s prvo projekcijo leta 1895 sprožila kinematografsko revolucijo, ki je kot glavno orožje izkoristila optično prevaro vrtenja osemnajstih slik na sekundo (kasneje 24-ih slik na sekundo). Če smo najprej omenili podobe in gibanje kot predmet prvega dela Bergsonove 3 analize podob, nas v arhivologiji še bolj zanima drugi del, to je razmerje podoba-čas. Deleuze ugotavlja, da filmski avtorji namesto s pojmi mislijo s podobami-gibanji in s podoba- mi-časi (Deleuze 1991, 7). Bergson je že leta 1907 film poimenoval kinematografska iluzija. Film nam namreč prodaja lažne podobe in lažno gibanje. Uporablja dva kom- 2 Termin arhivologija je uporabil dr. Miroslav Novak v gradivu za akreditacijo magistrskega študijskega pro- grama Arhivistika in dokumentologija (Klasinc 2018, 16). Arhivologija je opredeljena kot veda o upravl - janju in katalogiziranju arhivskega gradiva. Dr. Peter Pavel Klasinc je na zborovanju v Radencih leta 2011 opozoril na razlike v strokovni terminologiji. Arhivologija (angl. Archivology) je mednarodno uveljavljeni pojem, ki ga slovenska terminologija še ni poznala. Angleški sinonim za arhivologijo je »archival science«, v slovenskem jeziku pa se uporablja termin »arhivistika«, s katerim se označuje veda, ki se ukvarja s teor - etičnimi in praktičnimi rešitvami na področju upravljanja z arhivskim gradivom (Klasinc 2011, 76). 3 Henri-Louis Bergson (1859-1941) je francoski filozof, ki je postavil nekaj ključnih smernic v razvoju film- ske teorije. Njegovo delo »Metiere et Memorie« je kasneje kot osnovo filozofije filma sprejel filozof Gilles Deleueze (1925-1995) (Petrovič 2008). Slovenskim bralcem je na spletni strani Dnevnika https:// www.dnevnik.si/1042729898 dostopen povzetek soočenja med Bergsonom in Albertom Einsteinom leta 1922 v Parizu. 78 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič plementarna dosežka: trenutne reze, ki jih imenujemo podobe in neko gibanje oziro - ma čas, ki je brezoseben, uniformen, abstrakten, neviden oziroma neopazen – čas se nahaja znotraj aparata s pomočjo katerega spravimo v tek podobe (Isti, 9). Čas, ki je v filmski umetnosti razumljen kot del iluzije pri produkcijah in reprodukcijah, pa postane v arhivologiji del osnovnega problema: kako zagotoviti ponovna predvajanja izdelka v izvirnem zaporedju in v izvirni obliki. V arhivu deluje čas na posamezne podobe uni- čevalno in jih trajno spreminja. Tako kot Heraklit ni mogel dvakrat stopiti v isto reko, tako si tudi gledalci ne morejo dvakrat ogledati istega filma. Vse zainteresirane skupine, tako producenti kot gledalci na drugi strani, pa si prizadevajo, da bi se vsebina čim bolj verodostojno ohranila. Na tem mestu pa v proces stopijo arhivisti, njihova naloga pa je, da s pomočjo strokovnjakov iz drugih znanosti ukanijo čas in ga na nek način podaljšajo. Čas pa je bil že na začetku kinematografije v hudi nevarnosti pred uničenjem. Lastniki filmskih studiev so kmalu ugotovili, da so njihovi filmi v veliki nevarnosti. Film je kot nosilec slike oziroma trenutnih rezov, kot jih je poimenoval Bergson, s pomočjo gibanja ustvaril lažno iluzijo in spremenil odnos gibanje – čas. Ni pa bil sposoben ukaniti časa pri njegovem vplivu na film. 4 Sama kemična sestava nosilca je začela ubijati samega sebe: nitratni filmi so bili zelo vnetljivi in eksplozivni, kar je povzročilo veliko nesreč v filmskih studiih. Leta 1948 so nitratne filmske trakove zamenjali s triacacetatnimi, toda kmalu so spoznali, da tudi ti zaradi kemičnih procesov razžirajo sami sebe. Polimeri v filmski osnovi so se začeli cepiti v monomere, kar je povzročilo odstop emulzije, krh- kost in zvijanje filmov. Hramba v neprimernih pogojih pa je proces razpadanja filmov še pospešila (Lavrenčič 2005, 207). Velika občutljivost pa ni bila značilna samo za filmske trakove ampak se je kmalu izkazala za velik problem pri arhiviranju vseh nosilcev v av - diovizualnih arhivih. Zato je interdisciplinarno sodelovanje med različnimi strokami v avdiovizualnih arhivih zelo pomembno in edina prava pot za ohranitev svetovne avdi- ovizualne kulturne dediščine. Slike in zvoka z izvirnikov zaradi spremembe tehnologije reproduciranja ne moremo več uporabljati, zato pa je ključna za ohranitev digitalizacija, ki omogoča prenos nespremenjene vsebine na nove nosilce. Digitalizacija je korenito spremenila odnos med arhiviranjem nosilcev in vsebine – ključna je postala vsebina in ne več sami nosilci. Na pomen in vlogo digitalizacije pri ohranjanju avdiovizualne kul - turne dediščine je slovenske arhiviste prvi opozoril dr. Branko Bubenik, dolgoletni vodja INDOK službe Hrvaške radiotelevizije, podpredsednik Zveze televizijskih arhivov FIAT/ IFTA in predsednik Komisije FIAT/IFTA za izobraževanje (Bubenik 2001). Bubenik je ob tem opozoril tudi na arhivski paradoks pri odnosu med hrambo in uporabo oziroma re - produkcijo gradiva v avdiovizualnih arhivih. Zaradi degradacije nosilcev informacij se vsi dokumenti postopoma uničujejo in postajajo nečitljivi s samim pasivnim staranjem. Vsaka uporaba avdiovizualnih dokumentov pa le-te še opazno degradira. To velja tudi za zaščitno kopiranje, saj se za reprodukcijo avdiovizualnih dokumentov uporabljajo aparature in stroji, ki zaradi intenzivnega fizičnega kontakta, velikih hitrosti predvaja- nja in visokih temperatur, poškodujejo gradivo pri vsaki uporabi. Poleg tega je frekven- ca uporabe avdiovizualnega gradiva v medijskih ustanovah zelo visoka, navadno je ve - liko višja kot v klasičnem arhivu. Rezultat vsega tega je hitro uničevanje avdiovizualnih dokumentov. Pojavlja se arhivski paradoks (Bubenik 2001, 60-61): • Namen hrambe je uporaba. • Vsaka uporaba delno uničuje avdiovizualno gradivo. • Intenzivna uporaba popolnoma uničuje avdiovizualno gradivo. 4 Slovenski jezik in nekateri drugi jeziki uporabljata enak termin film tako za nosilec slike, kot za izdelek. V drugih jezikih sta termina različna: film/movie (ang.), pellicula/film (ita.). Primerjava angleške in italijan- ske terminologije, pa nam celo pokaže, da je film v angleščini izraz za nosilec, v italijanščini pa za izdelek. 79 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič • Postavlja se vprašanje: kaj bomo zapustili našim potomcem? • Varovati ali uporabljati gradivo? • Zakaj ohraniti in ne uporabljati? Kako ohraniti avdiovizualno gradivo za prihodnje generacije in ga intenzivno upora - bljati brez izgube kakovosti pri kopijah in brez degradacije izvirnika? Rešitev na prvi po - gled nerešljive težave je v uporabi digitalne tehnologije v avdiovizualni arhivologiji in pravočasna, organizirana migracija s starih analognih na nove digitalne medije. Definicije arhivistike/arhivologije kot znanosti in avdiovizualni arhivi Ali lahko zgoraj omenjene lastnosti in definicije avdiovizualnih arhivov povežemo v definicije arhivistike kot znanosti? Kot pomoč smo izbrali definicije ki jih je zbral in v referatu na konferenci »Za človeka gre, izzivi za znanost in izobraževanje«, ki jo je leta 2018 v Mariboru organizirala fakulteta Alma Mater Europaea – Evropski center Maribor, predstavil dr. Peter Pavel Klasinc. Klasinc je arhivistiko oziroma arhivologijo opredelil kot samostojno akademsko, multidisciplinarno in interdisciplinarno znanost (Klasinc 2018, 15). Razdelil jo je na znanstvenoraziskovalni in strokovni del ter določil pogoje, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da lahko arhivologijo opredelimo kot znanost. Poznati moramo: • predmet raziskovanja, • vzroke raziskovanja, • metode in cilje raziskovanja in • omejitve raziskovanja. Naštel je tudi definicije, ki so bile v uporabi, nekatere izmed njih pa so aktualne še danes. Tudi v te definicije bomo poskušali vnesti vlogo in pomen avdiovizualnih arhivov: 1. Arhivistika 5 j e v e d a , s kate ro o zn a ču j e m o n e k o zn a n j e , ki se u kva rj a s te o reti čn i m i i n praktičnimi rešitvami na področju upravljanja z dokumentarnim in arhivskim gradivom. 2. Arhivistika je nova znanost, ki se ukvarja z vrednotenjem, prevzemanjem, urejan- jem, opisovanjem, dolgoročno hrambo, uporabo in z zagotavljanjem verodosto- jnosti arhivskega gradiva. 3. Arhivistika proučuje znanja, ki so potrebna za obvladovanje dokumentarnega in arhivskega gradiva od njegovega nastanka, urejanja, vrednotenja, prevzemanja, opisovanja, dolgoročne hrambe, arhiviranja in tudi kasnejše morebitne uporabe, ne glede na to, ali je gradivo zapisano v klasični (papirni) ali elektronski obliki. 4. Arhivistika je znanstvena veda, ki mora brez kompromisov obravnavati vsa področja arhivske teorije in prakse. 5. Arhivistika je veda, katere cilj ni proučevanje posameznih dokumentov, temveč ra- ziskava strukture celot arhivskega gradiva (raziskuje njegovo zgodovino, nastanek in pojavnost posameznih dokumentov, vzroke za nastanek in vzroke in načine za določanje arhivskega gradiva med dokumentarnim gradivom). 6. Arhivistika je znanost, ki se ukvarja z arhivsko teorijo in prakso. 7. Arhivistika je znanost, ki se ukvarja s formiranjem fonda. 8. Arhivistika je znanost, ki se ukvarja z arhivskim in dokumentarnim gradivom in dokumenti. 5 Naštete termine smo v referatu pustili v izvirni obliki tako kot jih je v definicijah navedel dr. Peter Pavel Klasinc. 80 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič 9. Arhivistika je znanost, ki se ukvarja s celotami, spisi in načini odlaganja spisov. 10. Arhivistika je znanost, ki se ukvarja z urejenostjo dokumentarnega in arhivskega gradiva, zaradi dostopnosti. 11. Arhivistika je znanost, ki rešuje pravna vprašanja arhivov, delovanje arhivov in standardov. 12. Arhivistika je znanost, ki skrbi za organizacijo dela v arhivih. 13. Arhivistika je znanost, ki ustvarja spoznanja in metode, ki bodo opravičile delovanje in obstoj arhivov. 14. Arhivistika je znanost, ki proučuje obstoj, urejanje, upravljanje, vodenje, hrambo, vzdrževanje ter pomen arhivskega gradiva za dokazovanje nekih pravic države ali državljanov, opredeljuje pisno kulturno dediščino. 15. Arhivistika je znanost, ki proučuje obstoj: • arhivsko teorijo in prakso, • arhivsko tehniko, • arhivsko zakonodajo, • zgodovino arhivov, • in ostalo. Tudi za avdiovizualno arhivistiko kot del arhivistike oziroma arhivologije velja, da je im - ela in ima še danes razvoj, ki je povezan: • s tehničnim razvojem, formiranjem arhivskih prostorov (arhitekturna vprašanja, lok- acije arhiva, notranja razporeditev prostorov), ustreznosti arhivskih škatel (izdelava , material, uporaba), klimatskimi, varnostnimi in drugimi pogoji tehničnega varovanja. • strokovnim razvojem (strokovna obdelava gradiva, urejanje, popisovanje, klasifik- acija , itd.); • z razvojem informacijskih tehnologij oziroma informacijske družbe. Analiza nalog avdiovizualnih arhivov nam pokaže, da se naloge ujemajo v vseh našte - tih definicijah, čeprav prihaja pri nekaterih točkah do nekaterih razlik v primerjavi z delom arhivistov v klasičnih arhivih. Avdiovizualni arhivisti morajo več pozornos - ti nameniti spreminjanju nosilcev zapisov, spremembam tehnologije in predvsem vprašanju avtorske pravice in sorodnih pravic. V prihodnosti se bodo prav gotovo za- brisale meje glede novih nosilcev, saj bodo digitalni dokumenti shranjeni na enakih ali podobnih nosilcih. Več težav bo avdiovizualnim arhivistom povzročilo naraščanje števila avdiovizualnih del in s tem povečanje prostorskih kapacitet za hrambo. Pov - ečanje prostorskih kapacitet bo zahteval tudi razvoj tehnologije in z njim povezano ustvarjanje večpredstavnostnih in interaktivnih oddaj, ki bodo povezane tudi z arhi- viranjem odzivov gledalcev na medmrežju. Arhivisti bomo morali najti rešitve tudi za te oddaje, drugače se bodo spremenile v neponovljive performanse kot smo jim bili priča na začetku dobe radia in televizije. 81 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič 4 TEMELJNO VPRAŠANJE AVDIOVIZUALNEGA ARHIVIRANJA: KAKO UJETI NEPONOVLJIVOST IN JO PONAVLJATI Ko analiziramo začetke avdiovizualnih arhivov ugotovimo, da je bil odnos do arhiviranja oddaj na začetku radijske in televizijskega dobe nekoliko nenavaden. Zelo pogosto nale- timo v avdiovizualnih arhivih na vprašanje, kateri so najstarejši posnetki, ki jih hrani tel - evizijski arhivih. Vsi, ki postavijo to vprašanje, so navadno razočarani nad odgovori, da najstarejši posnetki navadno ne obstajajo. Posnetki pa niso bili arhivirani iz dveh vzrokov: • radio in televizija sta prve oddaje oddajala v živo, • ni bilo opreme in nosilcev, na katere bi zapisovali posnetke. Britanski strokovnjak za avdiovizualno arhiviranje Adam Lee je v intervjuju razložil, kako so na BBC-ju po letu 1947 sploh razvili postopek za shranjevanje televizijske slike: pred tel - evizijski ekran so postavili filmsko kamero in snemali oddajo z ekrana (Lee 2018). Zato so posnetki, ki so se ohranili, zelo slabe kakovosti. Na posnetkih zaznamo tudi dodatne mot - nje, ki so nastale kot posledica popačene slike, kakršno so leče filmske kamere prenesle s televizijskega ekrana na filmski trak. V arhivih so tako shranili slabšo kakovost slike, kar bi lahko primerjali s fotografijami ali filmskimi posnetki z računalniških monitorjev ali foto - grafijami televizijskih ekranov, kjer se prikazujejo koronarne motnje. Zato lahko trdimo, da je bila tehnična kakovost posnetkov v začetkih televizije veliko boljša, kot pa lahko zmotno sklepamo po ohranjenem gradivu, saj je v arhivih ohranjena preslikava preslikave. Enako velja za kakovost radijskih prenosov, ki jih je preslikava glasu na nosilec poslabšala, še bolj pa ponovna uporaba in poškodbe na nosilcih. Govorimo torej lahko o preslikavah vsebin (Novak 2007). Dodatne težave pri preslikavah je predstavljalo še sevanje z ekrana. 6 Veliko let po tem, ko je tehnologija omogočila arhiviranje avdiovizualnega gradiva, so začeli avdiovizualnim arhivistom pogosto postavljati tudi vprašanje, zakaj vse oddaje niso bile arhivirane? Adam Lee je na to vprašanje odgovoril, da takrat ljudje še niso raz - mišljali o tem, oziroma televizije niso dojemali kot permanentni medij: »Kar je bilo en- krat predvajano, je bilo predvajano dokončno.« (Lee 2018). Televizijske oddaje je prim- erjal z gledališkimi predstavami in željo, da bi si jih ogledali v živo. Tudi takratni gledalci so na televizijo gledali kot nekaj minljivega. Radio in televizija sta bila zanje minljiva medija, ki izginjata v etru, v nasprotju s časopisi, ki so jih lahko bralci prebrali, shranili in nato pozneje po lastni želji ponovno prebrali. BBC je začela arhivirati televizijske oddaje po uveljavitvi dvopalčnih magnetoskopskih trakov v televizijski produkciji v poznih petdesetih letih 20. stoletja. Vendar so te trakove uporabljali predvsem kot produkcijske trakove, na katere so posneli oddajo za predva- janje. Magnetoskopskih trakov v nasprotju s filmskimi trakovi niso obravnavali kot nos - ilce za trajnostne zapise slike in zvoka, zato so jih po predvajanju oddaj navadno brisali in uporabili za produkcijo novih oddaj (Lee 2018). Spremembe v odnosu do arhiviranja oddaj so se pri BBC-ju zgodile šele sredi sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja, ko so v arhivih uvedli selekcijsko politiko in začeli odločati, katere trakove bodo ohranili. Spremenil se je tudi odnos gledalcev do televizijskih oddaj, ki so izgubile predznak neponovljivega predvajanja. Vendar to ni značilno samo za BBC; podobno se je dogajalo tudi drugim radiotelevizijskim postajam, ki niso zmogle arhivirati celotne produkcije (Lee 2018). 7 6 Pomanjkanje avdiovizualnih zapisov pomeni, da lahko najstarejšo zgodovino avdiovizualnih medijev raziskujemo samo z uporabo drugih virov. Ti viri so lahko slikovni (fotografije) in pisni viri. Med pisne vire sodijo v prvi vrsti programski dokumenti o oddajah, kot sekundarni viri pa sporedi, ki so bili objavljeni v časopisih in revijah, kritike, poročila in drugi dokumenti o radioteleviziji, med drugim tudi zapisani spomini in ustna pričevanja. 7 Na podobne težave danes naletimo pri arhiviranju prispevkov tako imenovanih novomedijskih vsebin. Med iskanjem rešitev za trajno arhiviranje te vsebine množično izginjajo. 82 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič Danes se je odnos do arhiviranja avdiovizualnih oddaj popolnoma spremenil. Zvočni in slikovni posnetki niso več samo gradivo za ponovitev oddaj v programih ali ust - varjanje novih oddaj, ampak mu raziskovalci priznavajo celo večjo verodostojnost zgodovinskega vira kot pa pisnim dokumentom. Če smo govorili o videoposnetkih kot o optični iluziji, ki na nek način prevara gledalce, potem moramo zatrditi tudi, da je bil izum človeške pisave tudi samo način, ki je z dogovorjenimi znaki posnemal člove- kove misli in govor. Govor sam pa je že posnetek misli, vsi pisni zapisi pa samo več ali manj zanesljivi dokumenti o posameznem dogodku. Da dokumenti, ki so še tako vestno zapisani s črkami in drugimi dogovorjenimi znaki bralcu ne sporočajo popolnih informacij, nas v razpravi o dobesednih zapisih parlamentarnih sej kot zgodovinskem viru opozarjata Mojca Šorn in Jure Gašparič. Med živo razpravo in zapisano besedo ob- stajajo vendarle velike razlike, ki so pomembne za raziskovalce: »Dobesedni prepisi parlamentarnih sej so rezultati dela človeka, zapisovalca, ki se je pri svojem delu po - gosto znašel pred številnimi problemi. Kaj storiti, če ni bilo poslanca dobro slišati, kaj storiti z vzkliki, ki se pojavljajo v ozadju dvorane, kako zapisati besede, izrečene v nar - ečju, kako zapisati napačne izraze, kako sploh zadosti hitro in natančno slediti vsemu povedanemu?« Najlažje je to storiti z zvočnimi zapisi magnetogrami, video zapisi pa omogočajo tudi zapis neverbalne komunikacije. 5 ZAKLJUČEK Pregled dela v avdiovizualnih arhivih in razvoja avdiovizualnih arhivov nam je pokazal, da je avdiovizualna arhivistika oziroma arhivologija pomemben del arhivistike/arhivo- logije in se lahko samo znotraj matične vede razvija tudi v prihodnosti. Razvoj digitalne tehnologije v prihodnosti in sami postopki nastanka dokumentov pa bodo avdiovizu - alne arhive približali klasičnim oziroma klasične arhive približali avdiovizualnim. Točne napovedi o razvoju v prihodnosti pa ne moremo podati. Scenarist in režiser filma Tranzit (r. Christian Petzold, 2018) je film po zadnjem kadru zaključil z rezom v napisni boben in pesmijo Talking Heads: ».. We are on the Road to Nowhere..., There’s a City in my Mind, it’s very far away, but it’s there and it’s growing day by day…«. Vsi smo torej v tranzitu, vemo od kod prihajamo, ne vemo pa kam gremo. Avdiovizualni arhivi so se zaradi svojih posebnosti razvijali ločeno od klasičnih arhivov. Največje razlike so predstavljale značilnosti nosilcev slike in zvoka ter njihova uporaba in odvisnost od sprememb tehnologije. Z razvojem digitalne tehnologije in arhiviran- jem digitalno nastalega gradiva, pa so se te razlike zmanjšale. Tudi primerjava med os- novnimi definicijami arhivistike in avdiovizualnimi arhivi je pokazala, da lahko avdiovi- zualno arhivistiko obravnavamo kot pomemben del arhivistike. VIRI IN LITERATURA: Bubenik, B. (2001). Razvoj organizacijskih struktur TV arhivov. V. P. P. Klasinc (ur.), Sodo- bni arhivi 2001, XXIII. Posvetovanje o strokovnih in tehničnih vprašanjih v arhivih. Referati s posvetovanja v Radencih, 26. in 27.3.2001. Maribor: Mednarodni inštitut arhivskih znanosti in Arhivsko društvo Maribor, str. 60 – 67. Deleuze, G. (1991). Studia Humanitatis: Podoba-gibanje. Ljubljana: ŠKUC, Filozofska fakulteta. Gašparič, J. in Šorn M. (2016). Od žive debate do zapisane besede. Dobesedni zapisi par- lamentarnih sej kot zgodovinski vir. V P. Štih (ur.), Zgodovinski časopis, 70, 2016, št. 3-4 (154). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, str. 438 – 454. 83 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič Klasinc, P. P. (2011). Študij arhivistike kot znanstvene vede. V Tehnični in vsebinski prob- lemi sodobnega arhiviranja, Zbornik referatov dopolnilnega izobraževanja s po- dročij arhivistike, dokumentalistike in informatike, 10. Maribor: Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. str. 73 – 81. Klasinc, P. P. (2018). Arhivska znanost – Per aspera ad astra/Prek trnja do zvezd. V P. P. Klasinc (ur.), Arhivi v službi človeka – človek v službi arhivov, Zbornik znanstvenih prispevkov, 3-2018/1. Maribor: Alma Mater Europea – ECM, str. 14 – 18. Lavrenčič, A (2005). Ukrepi za zavarovanje filmskega arhivskega gradiva in preprečevan - je širjenja okužbe z ocetnim sindromom. V S. Tovšak (ur.), Tehnični in vsebinski problemi sodobnega arhiviranja, Zbornik referatov dopolnilnega izobraževanja s področij arhivistike, dokumentalistike in informatike, 4. Maribor: Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. str. 203 – 210. Novak, M. (2007). Preslikave vsebin v arhivskih strokovnih postopkih. Maribor: Pokrajin- ski arhiv Maribor. Petrovič, R. (2008). Filmozofija v praksi, 31.7 .2008. Društvo za razvoj humanistike Zofi - jini ljubimci. Pridobljeno 1. junija 2019 s spletne strani https://zofijini.net/filmsko_ prispevki_filmozofija/. »The BBC Television Archive, An interview with Adam Lee, BBC archive expert«. Prido- bljeno 1. maja 2018 s spletne strani http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tv_archive. shtml?chapter=7 . Zalaznik, J. (2019). Oblo in oglato ter o tem, kako ju je posvojil kubizem. Ljubljana: Javni sklad RS za kulturne dejavnosti. SUMMARY It seems, that the desire to store memories and record images appeared very early in the past of the mankind. Already in the ancient times, this desire has been expressed in the need for perfect imitation of nature. The ancient artists wanted to create images in motion, a perfect realistic world, as they were watching with their own eyes. Centuries after that man tried to capture the movement and keep it in the picture by the vari- ous art techniques and tricks, but the problems of archiving motion picture and sound weren’t resolved until the time of great inventions at the end of 19th century and the inventions of the sound and video carriers in the 20th century, which enabled the re- cording of moving images and sounds and their reproduction. The first audio-visual ar- chives had to deal with unstable, flammable and dangerous explosive tapes. But then, even more danger was exposed; people were convinced that all the events that were broadcast by radio and television were some sort of unrepeatable performances, which are not worth to be archived. Audio-visual archives developed in the past separately from classic archives because of their special features. The biggest differences were the characteristics of image and sound carriers, use of the records and the dependence on technology changes. Development of digital technologies and archiving of born digital records decreased the differences between audio-visual and classic archives. A compar- ison between the basic definitions of archivology or archival science and audio-visual archives has shown, that audio-visual archivology or archival science can be considered as an important part of archivology/archival science. Acceptance date: 11.08.2019 Typology: 1.02 Review Article 84 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY AND AUDIO-VISUAL ARCHIVES OR AUDIO- VISUAL ARCHIVES AND ARCHIVAL SCIENCE/ARCHIVOLOGY Aleksander Lavrenčič Bogdan-Florin Popovici CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Abstract Archival arrangement is one of the main activities in archival processing. It is assumed it is based on common understandings and principles. However, there are archival prac- tices that does not fully comply with these principles and understandings, and yet the archives still exist and users are still using the records. Consequently, it may be ques- tioned if the archival principles are not cultural-conditioned and in what circumstanc- es archival arrangement, as presented in international professional literature, can add value to archival processing. The work implied should balance the practical reality of resources and needs of the stakeholders. The modern technologies bring a transforma- tion of archival arrangement, converting it from physical to virtual by reducing the rele - vance physical location of a record on shelves in favour of a logical property of records. Keywords: archival arrangement, archival principles, archival metadata, users LA SFIDA DELL’ORGANIZZAZIONE DELL’ARCHIVIO Sintesi L’organizzazione dell’archivio è una delle principali attività di gestione dell’archivio. Si presume che si basi su comuni conoscenze e principi. Tuttavia, esistono procedure di archiviazione che non sono pienamente conformi a questi principi ed intese, ep - pure gli archivi esistono ancora e gli utenti stanno ancora utilizzando i documenti. Di conseguenza, ci si può chiedere se i principi dell’archivistica siano condizionati dalla cultura, ed in quali circostanze l’organizzazione dell’archivio, così come presentata nella letteratura professionale internazionale, possa aggiungere valore alla gestione dell’archivio. Il lavoro implicito dovrebbe bilanciare la realtà pratica delle risorse e delle esigenze delle parti interessate. Le moderne tecnologie portano una trasforma - zione dell’organizzazione dell’archivio, convertendola da fisica a virtuale, riducendo la pertinenza della posizione fisica di un documento sugli scaffali a favore di una pro- prietà logica dei documenti stessi. Parole chiave: organizzazione dell’archivio, principi di archiviazione, metadati di archi- viazione, utenti 85 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici IZZIVI ARHIVSKE STROKOVNE OBDELAVE Izvleček Arhivska strokovna obdelava je ena glavnih arhivskih dejavnosti. Domneva se, da te - melji na skupnem razumevanju in načelih. Vendar obstajajo arhivske prakse, ki v ce - loti ne ustrezajo tem načelom in razumevanjem, vendar arhivi še vedno obstajajo in uporabniki še vedno uporabljajo zapise. Posledično se lahko sprašujemo, če arhivska načela niso kulturno pogojena in v kakšnih okoliščinah lahko arhivska ureditev, kot je predstavljena v mednarodni strokovni literaturi, doda arhivsko vrednost. Vključeno delo mora uravnotežiti dejansko resničnost virov in potreb zainteresiranih strani. So - dobne tehnologije vnašajo spremembe v postopke urejanja arhivskega gradiva s pret - varjanjem iz fizične v virtualno obliko in s tem zmanjševanje fizične lokacije zapisa na policah v korist logične lastnosti zapisov. Ključne besede: arhivska ureditev, arhivski principi, arhivski metapodatki, uporabniki It is a fact that these days almost all professional conferences are dealing with electron - ic records or the way analogic records can be turned into digital. And this is happening despite the fact many of the National Archives (or, broadly speaking, Archives…) are still having huge amount of paper records, many of them not processed yet. Until two or three decades ago, the professional journals were full of studies reveling issues the ar - chivists had in processing analogue records. Were all those issues solved miraculously by the mere presence of electronic tools, since the former are not present in profession - al debate any longer? I doubt it is the case, and I believe it is just a different agenda. Expectations of users are different than decades ago, and, as a result, the professional interests changed. And I said that as an excuse for coming again to a classical topic, archival arrangement. While the digital side will have its place in the analysis, my primary focus will be on traditional records. More precisely, I would like to play the devil’s advocate part, questioning to what degree the archival arrangement is crucial in archival processing, if the famous “structure of archives” is relevant enough in order to justify the effort for creating it. THE DEFINITIONS Although any archivist can define archival arrangement, I would like to start by review- ing some of the definitions, in time. In 1964, in a book edited by ICA, the arrangement or classification (“le classement”) was defined as “le rangement dans un ordre déterminé de documents d’archives” (ICA 1964) 1 . In 1988, also in a book edited by ICA, it can be read the following parallel, but not equiv - alent definitions, in English and French: ARRANGEMENT. (1) The intellectual operations involved in the organization of records (1)/archives (1) based upon the principle of prov - enance and the registry principle, reflecting the administrative structure and/or com- petence or function of the originating agency. If this is impossible, then an organisation based upon other criteria adapted to the physical type or form or content of the docu- ments, such as an alphabetical, chronological, geographical or subject order, may be 1 It should be noted the term arrangement lacks as an entry, the only term being classification. 86 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici used. Arrangement may be carried out at all or any of the following levels: repository, record/archive group, sub-group, class or series, item or document. (2) The physical operations complementary to (1) above, such as numbering and shelv- ing. Also referred to as sorting. (1) CLASSEMENT. (1) Opération intellectuelle consistant à ordonner les documents d’archives à l’intérieur des articles et les articles à l’intérieur des fonds ou des séries, selon un plan reflétant la structure interne des organismes producteurs des fonds, conformément au principe du respect des fonds et au principe du respect de l’ordre primitif, ou, en cas d’impossibilité d’application de ces deux principes, selon des critères chronologiques, géographiques, alphabétiques ou thématiques. Le classement se fait traditionnellement, dans la pratique archivistique française (sic!), dans le cadre des séries et sous-séries. (…) (2) RANGEMENT. Opération matérielle, complémentaire de (1), consistant à placer les ar- ticles dans les magasins selon l’ordre des cotes. Sinonym — classification (Walne, 1988). In 1996, in an American dictionary, arrangement was defined as “the intellectual and physical processes and results of organizing documents in accordance with ac - cepted archival principles, particularly provenance, at as many as necessary of the following levels: repository, collection record group or fonds, subgroup(s), series subseries, file unit, and item. The processes usually include packing, labeling, and shelving and are primarily intended to achieve physical control over archival hold - ings (Bellardo, 1992). In 2002, for the National French Archives, it was defined CLASSEMENT as (1) Opération consistant à la mise en ordre intellectuelle et physique des documents d’archives à l’intérieur des dossiers, et des dossiers à l’intérieur d’un fonds, réalisé en application du principe du respect des fonds, ou, en cas d’impossibilité d’application de ce princi- pe, selon des critères chronologiques, géographiques, numériques, alphabétiques ou thématiques. Le classement aboutit à la constitution des articles, à leur cotation et à leur rangement sur les rayonnages et conditionne la rédaction de l’instrument de re- cherche permettant de les retrouver. (…) (2) Opération matérielle de mise en ordre des documents par leur insertion dans le dossier correspondant. [English]: (1) Arrangement, classification (DAF, 2002) In 2005, another American analytic glossary of archival terminology defined arrange- ment as “1. The process of organizing materials with respect to their provenance and original order, to protect their context and to achieve physical or intellectual control over the materials(…) Arrangement is distinguished from classification, which places materials in an order established by someone other than the creator. One note indicates that “Though not widely practiced, arrangement can be employed in an intellectual sense, without a corresponding physical ordering of material. For example, five folders stored in four different boxes can be listed together in a finding aid as an ordered series without changing their storage location. Arrangement with respect to original order presumes such an order is discernable. Archivists are not required to preserve ‘original chaos’, and may arrange such materials in a way that facilitates their use and manage- ment without violation of any archival principle” (Pearce-Moses 2005) 2 . 2 The author also cite Miller, with a more refined definition of arrangement: The process of organizing and managing historical records by 1) identifying or bringing together sets of records derived from a common source which have common characteristics and a common file structure, and 2) identifying re- lationships among such sets of records and between records and their creators. 87 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici Reading these definitions, one can easily notice the concept has its evolution in sev - eral decades, increasing the complexity and facets of the term. While at the begin - ning archival arrangement referred mainly to the physical ordered grouping based on some criteria, later on the term is considered to have dual facet, physical and in - tellectual. The latter is not clearly defined, but it implied the creation of statements about a) provenance and original order (or other type of order, if “original” one is not discernable) and b) (not so often practiced) to virtually associate some archival material, without change their physical location (in other words, to create some re - lations among descriptions, while the records are physical still kept separately). The purposes for arrangement reflect also physical vs intellectual duality: a) to identify the items on shelves and 2). to support creation of the finding aids, i.e. description of records. In definitions that confess the influence of Oliver Holmes (Holmes, 1964), arrange - ment can be done at various “levels”: repository, fonds, subfonds/subgroups, series, item. The approach was later included in ISAD(G). One common reference is the well-known principles of archival arrangement. The literature on this matter is huge. I would only like to remind here some aspects. Firstly, the Respects de Fonds, as enounced by the French National Archives in 1841, referred only to fonds level provenance, whilst “inside” of a fonds the archivists could implement any order s/he wants. Only later, in 1898, the Dutch archivists Mul- ler, Fruit, Fruin added the need for inner respect (i.e., original order), that is not only to group together records from the same creator, but also to respect the order the offices of origin gave to those records (Popovici, 2016). This “order of the offices” creates a direct link between archival arrangement and records classification; in the best of the possible world, filing plans should be mirrored, for permanent records, in archival arrangement. Moreover, the criteria used in records classification (organ - ization, functional, subject based etc.) should be preserved by archivists. And, re - spectively, series and files created through classification plans should be consistent with series and files in archives. A structured presentation of the fonds is one of the ISAD(G) requirements. It is to be noticed that in the definitions, in case of a not usable original order, there is no conditions for what order to be used; basically, anybody can do anything, no matter the functions, processes or mandates of a creator. And, since in practice the life a creator is complicated, it is reflected in its records structure, it may not be very easy to identify original order; so, it is easier to re-arrange everything and “make order” than “restore order”. Secondly, there were emphasized more than once the advantages of using these principles of arrangement. Keeping the original creator arrangement is “the only realistic way to cope with large volumes of archival material from different prov - enances” (Horsman, 1994:54); it obviated the need for contentious rearrangement according to subject (Schellenberg, 1961:18); it was a convenient method for re - trieval, by gathering and describing records generated and received by the same institution or person (Duchein, 1983:67); it is a way to preserve the “objectivity” of the records and to provide insight into the functions, processes, and personal rela - tionships of the records creator (Schellenberg, 1961:18). 88 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici DOING DIFFERENTLY I had an opportunity to visit an archival repository in Russia this year and, while watch - ing the labels of the archival boxes, I found them extremely instructive in what concerns the system of archival arrangement. The labels indicated the fond, the inventory num- ber, folder number. Inventory—as I was informed, was basically the finding aid of an accession. The big structure, in this case, was the fond–accession–(maybe business unit, date)–folder. Of course, organizational divisions may appear in inventory, but they are repeated in another finding aid, for those files belonging to a different accession. In this case, a finding aid would not represent the full series of records, nor even intellectually, while subfonds are rather archival groupings based on management criterium (acces- sions), than “organic” (business units or broad functions of creating body). The reason those labels were so suggestive for me is that I was familiar with this sys- tem, from my country. In Romania, as a record management legal requirement, all fold - ers created in one year by an organizational unit should be listed (compiling a records inventory). One inventory is listing in detail (reference code, classification code, date, content description and other relevant information) the folders bearing the same re- tention period, no matter the classes from the filing plan (read series) they belong to. When accessioned, the records inventories become the transfer lists. After crossing the “archival threshold”, if there are many accessions in the repositories, there can be more approaches. One possibility is to treat each accession like a subfond, and the transfer list becomes the archival inventory 3 . Another is to re-process various accessions and to re-arrange the whole fonds, as to merge various groups from different accessions. In all cases, the final structure will be like fonds–subfonds–(date)—folders. As one can see, nor in this case the series are revealed, though the internal rules for archival processing recommends grouping files based on “topics” (Norme, 1996:art.17). For the sake of prac - ticality, records may be also arranged by external form, into folders and book-registers groups. Most often, because it is the easiest solution, files are arranged chronological, without any attention to the organizational or functional structure of the creator. In all cases, the archival inventory should reflect the physical order. Comments about the system used in Romanian archives may start with the remark that even arrangement is not what in other languages/practices is. Though in Romani- an professional studies arrangement can be done at many levels (Ciucă, 1978:286), as envisaged in international glossaries, in National Archives rules arrangement at fond level is distinguished from the other types of arrangement, and even get a new name: “fonding”. It is defined as “archival operation of identifying the records of a creator”, in contrast to “arrangement” which is archival operation of grouping records and archival units according to other criteria (Norme, 1996:art 11). While the source for this is quite certain (influence of Soviet practice 4 ), I find it hard to argue, logically speaking, that grouping records based on provenance is different than grouping records based on oth- er criteria, including internal provenance. But the practical usage and lack of theoretical reflection on the matter strengthen this approach. 3 Since it may be confusion, it may be necessary to highlight the fact that “inventory” has multiple un- derstandings: 1). it is a list of folders in one year (within the creating agency); 2). it is the sum of all in- ventories (1) that are transferred in one accession to archives; 3). it can be, if a re-processing occurs, the consolidated finding aid, for the whole fonds. This approach is substantially different from others (for instance, the one used in Archival Portal Europe, where one inventory is the finding aids of one fonds). 4 Direcția generală a Arhivelor, Norme de bază în munca arhivelor de stat, Moscova, 1962 (Romanian trans - lation, unpublished). It should be noted, however, that Romanian translation of Russian rules for archival processing did not employed term arrangement at all, but the duality fonding versus systematization (= arrangement records within a fonds). See for the Russian standard today http://base.garant.ru/190736/ 89 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici The second remark is that most of the solutions adopted reflect practical responses in archival work. Keeping the records grouped on accessions implies lesser physical effort, even to the detriment of intellectual arrangement. For instance, mixing series by listing all existent folders may not give the overview of which what classes of records were kept and which not. Of course, this impedes on a real assessment of overall informa- tion preserved, but gives an easy way of compiling information and helps creating lists for disposition (all files that should expire ar the same moment are listed on the same inventory). Moreover, if there are hundreds or thousands of folders, the identification and description of series would have acted as a summary for the files in that series, as the folder description of files acts like a summary for the records contained. But again, processing files one after another exclude the need for a broad orchestration and iden- tification of smaller groups of files. Third, lack of series identification hampers the iden- tification of all files pertaining to the same process, since the files belonging to the same class themselves maybe scattered on various years or inventories; but, except for the increased time necessary to retrieve all the files in one class, it may be a good way to avoid misleading researchers about the content of a series. The approach of arrangement files based on their date represents a solution for efficien - cy. The speed of processing is higher, the required expertise of staff is minimal and the overall orchestration for processing is easier (for arrangement, anyone can read some figures to determine the span dates of a file; in description, just take year after year, and the finding aid is ready). On the other hand, except for the overall provenance (which, in fact, it is mostly custodial provenance), very few contextual information is provided. Also, separation folders vs registers it is the practical response to an attempt to arrange records as to be as easy as possible retrievable, managed and stored. Since the inventories reflects the physical order, they basically reflect the archivists needs of managing records. It is not made, in many cases, no other intellectual connec- tions between divisions of the creators, mandates, functions, activities and so on, ex- cept for an overall description at fonds level, in introductory part of the inventory. Such information is and remain of course embedded in the archival material, but they are not usually revealed in divisions of the archival finding aid. In the best case, subfonds are visible as headings in the inventories, but not other more elaborate description. Hence, users must browse inventories, read description after description and find out what they need. BETWEEN ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AND DOING DIFFERENTLY It may look surprisingly, but users like to browse… I recall, in my professional career, only one user complaining that the records are not grouped based on the divisions of the organization, and then on series. List of files were satisfactory enough for most of the users. Browsing contents descriptions may only be enhanced by having some sort of automation; if those inventories can be merged into, let’s say, a huge searchable pdf file, I believe it will be characterized as a great achievement that would be surpassed only by the full digitization and text search availability. And this is a case not only for Romanian users. This year in Bucharest I had a very nice conversation with a colleague from Germany. She shared with me memories from the time she was a researcher of German archives (be - fore becoming archivist) and she confesses that, during her Ph.D. studies, she never read the prefaces of the archival inventories, where detailed information about structure of fond or other contexts records were provided. She preferred to go directly to abstracts and read page after page until she found what she needed. Of course, if it would have 90 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici been available, probably she would use a search engine… But what was memorable in her speech was: “I never read the prefaces—but very likely, if I would have done it, it would not have changed a bit my results” . That was a very elegant way of saying the archivist work of intellectual arrangement and contextualized description was hardly relevant from her perspective at that time. A quite similar experience I had with a friend archivist from Austria. In his case, he had available the online searching. His first method of research — the full text search through descriptions of records; no browsing hierarchies for records, no mandates, no creator descriptions. And this made me wonder what the use of making elaborated arrangements (and de- scriptions) would be, why to bother (as archivist), if nobody cares (as user). Of course, ideologically speaking, the answer would be “because this is what an archivist would do”, but I would argue that archivists are not the same everywhere, the resources are not the same everywhere, the archival material is not the same everywhere, nor the re - quested level of processing. And, above all, without a practical ground, it may look like archivists are aiming for perfection instead of doing something useful. In other words, I wondered if all our theories justify the amount of work we are supposed to do. It may sound outrageous, but I am definitely not the first one saying it. Peter Horsman said “Archival methods centred on respect des fonds, therefore, serve custody and the convenience of the archivist in managing collections in tidy and well defined groupings. They do not necessarily serve users or researchers. Of course archivists pretend—and they may actually believe—that their own administrative convenience also best serves users by protecting provenance. The user, however, has often been seriously misled by archivists and their fonds” (Horsman, 2002:22). Also, David Bearman argued that “…ar- chivists and records managers schedule, appraise, accession or destroy, describe and re - trieve collectivities of records, generally at the series level. Because this practice does not best satisfy many users, the recordkeeping professions have developed theoretical defences for it, but it is preferable to accept the obvious—we manage paper records col - lectively because it is too expensive to manage them individually” (Bearman, 1996) As a first remark, I would like to argue is that archival principles may not fit very well everywhere. While it is acknowledged their birth was due to certain particular legal and administrative contexts, it should be equally accepted that even today such princi- ples are fully applicable only in certain cases—which, after all, questions the character of universal principle itself. Simpler said, those principles may be contingent to admin - istrative traditions. The identification of fonds had issues which lead to Australian series system; lack of systematic records management lead to unusable original “order” and let the archivist impose his/her own order. On the other hand, arranging records into subfonds or series is a way to divide holdings into manageable units. “The practical response to providing intellectual control over large volumes of records accessioned from paper recordkeeping systems was to employ top-down, collective description of records aggregates (…)item level description, even of such a simple element of information as the date of specific records, has not been a regular part of archival practice because of the expense of acquiring such data in a paper environment, not because archivists did not realize that researchers would find such metadata valuable”. (Bearman, 1996) But, in the case of Romanian example, since the legal provisions asks for compiling detailed lists, the arguments above has no point. Records are managed at folder level, description already exists, so not using the series or other levels of aggregation may be well ground. 91 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici In the same time, for average users, even custodial provenance may be irrelevant. We can see this every day, and not only in the archives. The “fake news” is an issue because regular people are not accustomed to question the source and the motivation (read, mandate) of releasing a certain information. And since many people would tend to blame the lack of proper education for this, I would emphasize that even professional users in the Archives are looking mostly for information and the critical thinking is often not applied to the record itself (who created the record, why was created, who pre- served the record, on what ground, why the record is grouped with other records etc.). It is also true that we should not consider only the needs and interest of certain cat- egory of users in doing our job. After all, archivists, in responding to administrative needs based on their holdings, may be considered also users of the archives, and their needs should also be taken into consideration. For instance, information about where one group of records was accessioned from, who aggregated some files together, how many folders are in a certain group maybe appropriate to be collected, but it is very much dependent on the context of practice. It is equally important, when assessing the information needs, to consider whether the goals for holding and processing archives are to deliver information or to deliver records. If the former, then in most cases a careful arrangement and reconstruction of original or- der may be irrelevant. If somebody finds the piece of information s/he needs, nothing else matters. It should be stressed, however, that for advanced users, retrieval by archival structures may be useful. In a finding aid, it is not the information in the record that is searched, but the information in the representation of the content. Representation is me - diated by archivist and some pieces of information relevant for a certain user may exist in a file, but not to be revealed in the description. Or may exist in the description, but, as long as not the same words are used to describe the same information, it cannot be easily re - trieved. Also, having folders and book registers kept separately, and being unaware of the structure of the archives, one cannot have the full understanding about how the informa - tion can be correlated or if the information is complete. In such cases, having upper level description (as for series, for instance) is a useful method of retrieval, helping to identify the body of records that may contain a certain information. If such high-level description is not done, then the information may remain hidden. It is equally true that, if the descrip - tion of high-level groups is only an aggregation of information from the members (that is, bottom up collection of descriptive information), then creating the aggregation is rather useless. The most relevant need is to have information about the aggregation as a whole, which leads us to the need for an arrangement based on structure of the organization or on functions, under the prerequisite that information about such criteria to be also avail - able and helps retrieval by contextualization of information. On the other hand, if it is to deliver records, not only cultural information artifacts, prov - enance and original order get their highest potential. David Bearman noted: “physical aggregation has reflected the administrative boundaries of custody because physical control dictated who could see records and use them, which offices had access, and when records were retained and destroyed. The fonds reflected the ultimate legal and admin - istrative responsibility for records and their recordkeeping systems. The procedures of this administrative entity were crucial to estimate the trustworthiness of the records in - herited at a later date.” (Bearman, 1996) Preserving the information necessary to trace back who created records, in what circumstances, for what ground transferred records to the archives, which were the original relations between various records grouping etc. may be relevant mostly to authenticate the records and their source and preserve and prove the quality of evidence. 92 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici The remarks above made visible that nobody questioned the need for records to be in a proper order in a repository, as to be retrieved. The only questionable part of archival arrangement may be its intellectual side, how relevant is to associate records together and what informa - tion can be derived as to enhance the retrieval or meaning of records and if the results com- pensate the work efforts. The answers for the first issues are, as I tried to show, circumstantial, and depends a lot on the recordkeeping traditions, knowledge of users and of the archivists. For the last question, about return of investment, it should be highlighted two changes that the development of technology brings. Firstly (and this is the most relevant for tra- ditional records), the digital transformation of finding aids reduced the need for them to be a mirror of physical arrangement. Putting physically a file in a certain series was never just an act of housekeeping, but it implied a certain transfer of properties from that series to that file; that is, the respective file got an (implicit) attribute, which was shared by all other files form that grouping. With the separation between physical and logical, if the records are properly housed and shelved and uniquely identified through reference code, then the finding aid can create relevant grouping without physical ef- forts, only by virtually associating records having the same properties 5 . Secondly, using properly formatted finding aids, it allows for users to create their own arrangements, based on processing the metadata delivered (for instance, create their chronological order, across various divisions of archives). This seems to eliminate completely the need for (physical) archival arrangements, changing the emphasis from moving records in a repository to the recording of relevant properties allowing users to display the rep- resentation of records in the desired order (Shepherd, Yeo, 2003:96). That last point is quite common among the scholars dealing with electronic records, espe - cially in the area of re-using records management metadata for classification 6 , and long time anticipated 7 . The only issue is that in order to use metadata for arrangement, those metadata must exist (Hedstrom, 1993:8), and some reports in the matter are not so opti - mistic (Kettunen, Henttonen, 2010). And this is beside the arguments brought already that creating relations revealing provenance is something that is not solvable through opera - tional metadata, which focus on creator needs and not on archival needs (Macneil, 1995:30). CONCLUSIONS Archival arrangement—as any arrangement—started as a practical need of keeping a certain order to information and the carrier it was recorded to. In certain historical conditions, some rules were developed in this regard, for making the job done in a certain way. Despite being raised as “archival principles”, various practices show that, sometimes, those principles are not respected, and the alternative practices satisfy the needs of those communities. Arguments developed in time by archivists and archival scholars supporting the archival arrangement needs to be balanced with the practical reality of resources and needs of the stakeholders. Those needs (reflecting both the interest of archivists and those of the researchers for records AND information) should be considered on long term by archival processing, and an adequate argumentation for the professional efforts implied should be provided. In this regard, modern technology facilitates a transfer from the physical to virtual arrangement and a democratization of arrangement, by offering to the users the possibility to create their own arrangements, provided that the necessary metadata are presented in descriptions. 5 A practical example in Popovici 2017. 6 See for instance Bak 2012. 7 See debates in Canada, Wallace 1995; Wallace 1993; Hedstrom 1993, MacNeil 1995. 93 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici Bak, G. (2012). “Continuous classification: capturing dynamic relationships among infor - mation resources”. Archival Science. No. 12, pp. 287–318. Bearman 1996 Bearman, D. (1996) “Item Level Control and Electronic Recordkeeping”, in Archives and Museum Informatics, Volume 10, Issue 3 (1996), pp 195–245 at at http://www.archimuse.com/papers/nhprc/item-lvl.html Bellardo, L. (1992). A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript, Curators and Records Manag - ers, Chicago. Ciuca M. (1979). “Ordonarea si inventarierea documentelor aflate in depozitele Arhive- lor Statului” in Revista Arhivelor, nr. 3/1979. pp. 284-301. DAF (2002). Direction des Archives de France, Dictionnaire de terminologie archivis- tique, Paris, 2002 at https://francearchives.fr/file/4f717e37a1befe4b17f58633cb- c6bcf54f8199b4/dictionnaire-de-terminologie-archivistique.pdf Duchein, M. (1992). „Le respect des fonds en archivistique. Principes théorétiques et problèmes pratiques.” in Michel Duchein, Etudes d’archivistique (1957-1992), Paris. pp. 9-34. Hedstrom, M. (1993). “Descriptive Practices for Electronic Records: Deciding What is Es- sential and Imagining What is Possible”, Archivaria, Volume 36 (1993) (online). Holmes, O. (1964). “Archival Arrangement—Five Different Operations at Five Different Levels”. The Amercain Archivist, 1964, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 22-42 (online) Horsman, P. (1994). “Taming the elephant: An orthodox approach to the Principle of Prov- enance.” The Principle of Provenance. First Stokholm Conference on Archival Theory and the Principle of Provenance (2-3 September 1993). Stockholm. pp. 51-63. Horsman, P. (2002) The Last Dance of the Phoenix, or The De-discovery of the Archival Fonds. Archivaria 54. pp. 1-23 (online). ICA (1964). International Council on Archives, Lexicon of Archival terminology, Paris. Kettunen, K., Henttonen, P. (2010). „Missing in action? Content of records management metadata in real life”. Library and Information Science Research, volume 32, pp. 43-52 MacNeil, H. (1995). “Metadata Strategies and Archival Description: Comparing Apples to Oranges”. Archivaria, Volume 39 (1995) Norme (1996). Norme privind desfășurarea activității în Arhivele National e, București, 1996. Pearce-Moses, R. (2005). Glossary of Archival and Records Terminology, Chicago. Popovici, B. F. (2016). “Records In Contexts. Towards a New Level in Archival Description” in Tehnicni in Vsebinski Problemi Klasincnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, Maribor. Popovici, B. F. (2015). “Physical or Intellectual Arrangement of Archives. A Case for sco - peArchiv”, in Tehnicni în Vsebinski Problemi Klasincnega in elektronskega arhivi- ranja, Maribor (online) . Schellenberg,T. (1961). ”Archival Principles of Arrangement”. The American Archivist, , Vol. 24, No. 1. pp. 11-24. Shepherd, E., Yeo G. (2003). Managing Records: A Handbook of Principles and Practice, London. Wallace, D. (1993). “Metadata and the Archival Management of Electronic Records: A Re- view”. Archivaria, Volume 36 (Autumn 1993). (online) Wallace, D. (1995). “Managing the Present: Metadata as Archival Description”, Archivar- ia, Volume 39. (online) Walne, P. (1988). Dictionary of Archival Terminology, Paris, 1988 Acceptance date: 11.08.2019 Typology: 1.02 Review Article 94 CHALLENGING THE ARCHIVAL ARRANGEMENT Bogdan-Florin Popovici