Access vs. Integrity

Access is a subject that we have revisited several times over the past few months in each of our four classes. While the setting may be different - archives, museums, Internet - the argument stays the same. Who has the right to access information? Is it just the scholars, the professionals, the hobbyists, or the general public? The argument that is strongest right now is that everyone has a right to access their history and information; and that is why the Internet is such an important resource, because it allows everyone to have equal access to information. Are there still things that need to be regulated? When does access start to influence integrity?

Google recently unveiled "Street View" in The United States. It is a feature of Google Maps that takes live shots at street level. The Pentagon has recently asked Google to remove these images as it compromises the safety of the compound. MSNBC reports that Google has agreed to remove the potentially harmful images, but does not believe that by rights they should have to as all the shots were taken from the street in a public place, and there is no law against that. I find that access to that sort of information is compromised integrity. I realise that we are filmed most of the places we go by security cameras and the like; but I still don't think that Google should be able to put images of anyone, let alone a security facility like the Pentagon, up on the Internet. In this respect, I feel there needs to be a line about how much access a person can have.

In museums and archives, the artefacts and documents have limited access so as to preserve the integrity of the original object and preserve it for future generations. Does that mean that only some people should have access to it? not necessarily. This is where digital technology has a positive role to play. The digitisation of these objects means that more and more people are able to have access to information and history, while not damaging the original with over-handling.

Museum blockbuster exhibits, on the other hand, have a high access rate, but (to some eyes) a lower integrity. Blockbusters are flashy, commercial, and big income boosters. Museums are expected to have a certain integrity, a certain dedication to research, education and authenticity. They are seen as the keepers of history and with this authority, they have a certain responsibility. James Cuno, director and president of the Art Institute of Chicago, told Museum News that "when it comes to exhibits that are conceived for other reasons - drive attendance, increase public profile, increase revenue - those factors alone are not enough to justify an exhibition" (Beizer et al. "Marketing the King: Tut 2 and the New Blockbuster" Museum News. November/December (2005), 41). Blockbusters don't need to sacrifice the integrity of the exhibit, Disney-fy the attractions, or fall short of thorough research in order to draw in crowds. They should still do all those things that are integral to quality museum work even when they are presenting a popular, controversial or misconceived topic.

So how do we draw a line?

I don't think there is an easy answer to this. Everyone has different levels of what they are comfortable with. Every museum, business, person, and even big-wig corporations like Google, are going to have to draw this line for themselves. Knowing your own line, however, should also include respecting the lines of others. While it seems that more access is better, that is not always the case. We don't need to sacrifice integrity in order to have access.