The smaller or medium size libraries probably stand a
better chance of creating a new concept of librarianship. They are also experiencing budgetary
constraints, but are generally encumbered with less bureaucracy and consequently
may be more agile. Ohio State University
was the seed bed for OCLC--not the Widener Library, not the Library of
Congress. In the private sector, some of
the most innovative technologies were developed in small shops and non-shops by
people charged with excitement about some loony idea. Driven by compulsion, they just tried things,
and as they did, they learned, evolved their ideas, and, bingo, finally got it
right.
But, big or small, I don't see anything really innovative
coming out of any libraries. Like you I
have recently had chance to visit a number of new and upgraded libraries. The libraries I have visited are in Vietnam
where I am currently traveling, but your summary of observations of U.S.
libraries lines up with what I have seen in Vietnam
--glassed walled conference rooms, shelving for audio and video media,
books (though in Vietnam much fewer in number than in U.S. libraries) and
comfortable reading area and, I would add, lots of terminals and wi-fi
connectivity. But none of this
constitutes a library renaissance.
Despite the well thought out space, the nice
light, the comfortable seating, ample automation, and Internet access,
this does not constitute a leap into the future.
Invariably when we think of building a new library or
upgrading an old library, we think of constructing or upgrading a library
building, and as soon as we do that, we have shackled ourselves to 19th century
thinking. Why a building? Because we
need some place to put the books. Why
the books? Because the books contain the
information and creativity that the user wants.
But what if the content is not contained in a physical medium? What if much, if not most, content is
electronic, then what?
I am not saying that we don't need buildings. But I am saying that we have for much of our
history correlated libraries with library buildings because of the dominance of
books. From time to time we have tried
to democratize the way we treat the various media in our collections, but this
has resulted mainly in changes to cataloging rules--not a matrix shift in
thinking--not a genuine recognition that we are in the content business, not the
container business.
More and more content will be electronic. I think this is obvious to all of us. Consequently, when we build new libraries we
would do well to think first of the library as an electronic platform rather
than a building. If we start with this premise, we are more likely to rethink
our concept of library service and to consider notions like a "push" service or
a PBS model and so much more. The
library of the future is neither a Carnegie like monumental temple of knowledge
nor a sleek glass and steel testament to modernity. The library of the future is a cluster of
automation equipment, applications, and connectivity designed to generate
products and services that meet the information and entertainment needs of t! he
community.
Once we rethink the library as first and foremost an
electronic platform then the other important elements, like the building --its
use, its design, size, perhaps, too, its location, can be reconceptualzed--and,
very likely, reconceptualized in ways vastly different than our 19th century
thinking allows us to contemplate today.
Best wishes,
John