On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 8:42 AM, <cctalk-request at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:06:32 +0100 (BST)
From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell)
To: cctalk at
classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Buying something from a museum (was Re: Whats in a
straight 8
Message-ID: <m1WlOOs-000J4ZC at p850ug1>
Content-Type: text/plain
[Telecopier RX400]
>
> 1) My machine origianlly had the fan/filter unit on the battom, but
this
was
remvoed by a previous owner. I am therefore missing the base plate.
Could tooul let me look at the udnersid of the machine, or tell me if
this plate is metal or plastic (or soemthing else) and if metal, is it
magnetic
I am pretty sure if the machine was in MOSI and in accessible storage
that would be possible.
Many items are in in-accessible storage....which is a different kettle
of fish...
[snip]
Incidnetlaly, the last tiem I went ot the London science museum I left in
tears. Not jsut becuase there is so little there. Or that the
descriptions are dumbed down, and in many cases give the wrong sort of
information (I do not mean the information is factually wrong, it is not.
But for example a Model 7 Avometer [1] is described as being mase of
Bakelite. This is true, but IMHO, the important thing about that
instrument is what it measues and how.Now what the case is made of. No my
real moand is that it is not a science meusum. There is far too much
about the human aspect of a artefact, and that is not science. One reason
I studeid science is that it is, in general, independant of people
(mathemantics is aguably independant of the universe, but I wasnt' clever
enough for that). When I think back to wha the museum was like 30-40
eyars ago, I weep.
I disagree strongly with your statement, "There is far too much about the
human aspect of a [sic] artefact, and that is not science." Technology is
a human behavior, and preserving the artifact (US spelling) but not its
cultural context is telling only a small part of the story. That is my
concern with much that is written as "computer history": it is purely about
the construction and functioning of an artifact but fails to convey that
contextual component. Such "internalist" histories are not without value,
but we do a disservice to the future if we stop there. Equally incomplete
are "externalist" histories that speak of nothing but social response to
technology without the context of providing the reader with an
understanding of the technology itself: this is seen often in hand-wringing
essays that demonize "the computer" as a source of all social ills. A
contextual account that relates both the nature of the technology and the
social context in which it is shaped, as well as how its creation shapes
the society in which it is created, is a basis for a meaningful and useful
discourse.
It is interesting to me that the majority of historical writing about the
computer is internalist (several historiographers have so noted and I
concur) and yet the "big story" of the computer is how it has changed human
society swiftly and dramatically. In contrast, the book "Technology's
Storytellers" analyses the first twenty years of the journal Technology &
Culture and finds that in a broad discussion of technology the majority of
work is contextual. Why do computer historians seem to describe but not
interpret?
Finally, a museum of technology may be a very different beast than a
classic, archival museum that puts things in cases and writes little signs
about them. Indeed, a museum of functional computers is a collection of
artifacts that speak in their own voices. Of the museums I have visited, I
feel TNMOC and the original IBM museum in Sindelfingen have done the best
job of recognizing and highlighting this. (I have not seen the IBM museum
since it moved, so I cannot comment on its current state.)
IMHO.
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS
Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School
University of Washington
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.