Much of Van Slyck’s article focused on the physical space of libraries, and how designs changed over time to reflect the changing goals of both philanthropists and librarians. Early libraries had a lot in common with medieval buildings—distinct rooms that sharply defined the hierarchy of library users. Large, ornate buildings were meant to memorialize the donor’s generosity. Buildings were designed so that librarians would control patron access to the books—and in some cases, patrons were segregated by gender. As librarians gained greater footing in the professional world and Carnegie’s philanthropy dictated costs, the control they had over library design increased as well. Libraries began to consist of open stacks, and separate areas for children’s collections. The nature of access to library collections had changed, and libraries became less showplaces for the wealth of the donor. Within the forty years that Van Slyck surveys, the experience of librarians, patrons and trustees was transformed.
Do you agree with Van Slyck’s argument that the power of library boards was diminished by their physical location in the library? By the end of the article, Van Slyck suggests that the new architecture of libraries put librarians in a role similar to the factory supervisor, central to all activities, presiding over an ordered environment. She also makes the claim that as architecture became less grandiose, patrons found the library to be less intimidating. Do you agree with these assessments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with Jennifer's assessment. As I was reading this article, I kept thinking about libraries of today and how much they have changed from the grandiose buildings Van Slyck discusses. I do think that the openness of many contemporary library designs (and of course the open stacks of libraries) make patrons feel welcome and feel that the library is accessible to them, wheras the designs of yesteryear were designed for reasons other than welcoming patrons into the building, which is interesting since the building should in theory be for the patrons (otherwise, why build it all?).
I don't know, I think I'd like to go to a grandiose library. I've sometimes felt a bit disappointed by the shabby interiors of many libraries. The first time I went into one of those sorry little strip mall libraries, I honestly felt like crying. (My family had just moved from an area where our nearest library was a spacious, attractive one.)
On the other hand, I sure wouldn't want to be the poor library assistant always having to scurry away from the front desk back into the book hall to climb a ladder and retrieve books from the drafty upper levels! So a functional layout is definitely important, but I don't see that there would be anything wrong with stained glass, fireplaces, or domed ceilings...at least, not as long as some wealthy industrialist was footing the bill!
I am glad that Kelly commented on not wanting the be the poor librarian that had to scurry about locating books. I feel that the begining of Slyck's article spoke of the architecture in the context of library functions/adminstratin and maintanence of the collection, two aspects which we did not discuss in great length today. In addition to the imposing vision that the alcoved book hall created, the Slyck article briefly points out the damage that such design did to the actual books. Unfortunately, very little detail about such damage was discussed. Like Swain's article on the WPA, we again have a library history that neglects the very objectss we are collecting.
Post a Comment