focusing on broadcast materials and other materials with informational value in the
(cultural-)historic sense, and EYE on film productions with cinematographic
merit.46 In carrying out their tasks, both archives build on a long tradition of
national and international cooperation aimed at avoiding duplication of efforts as
well as loss of potentially significant records.47 A major difference between the
policies of both institutions is that for EYE - which as opposed to Sound Vision
defines Dutch film heritage not only in terms of production, but in terms of what is
relevant to the local "film or cinema culture" - the collection consists for a
considerable part of non-Dutch materials.48
These "international" films constitute one area of the collection where EYE can
distinguish itself as an institution. Both archives, in their policy documents, suggest
that appraisal and selection are geared towards building a collection with a clear
profile, and by the same token, shaping their image as organisations. Sound
Vision strives primarily for representativeness, and characterises collection building
as a matter of "filling gaps".49 The institute's intent here seems to be to ensure that
no area of social and cultural life, or no period in the history of (Dutch) television
or non-fiction filmmaking, remains undocumented for future generations. EYE, in
contrast, aims for completeness in some areas of its collection (Dutch films released
in cinemas and Dutch artistic films) but allows itself what it calls "bold" choices in
other domains (for example, new international cinema and international classics,
and more implicitly, Expanded Cinema works).50 The criteria here - "artistic merit",
"originality", "innovativeness", etc. - leave a great deal of room for interpretation,
and even personal preference.51 At times, a certain friction is also visible between the
institute's desire to come off as a trailblazer, shaping canons rather than to follow
them, and decisions to invest in high-profile, internationally sought-after
"treasures" (which take up a large portion of its restoration budget).52
Another tendency that transpires in these documents is that selection decisions are
informed increasingly by the needs of reuse - both in the short and the long term,
and by various types of users. At Sound Vision, which has a history as a production
archive, reuse value is key also to the development of a heritage collection.53 In this
case, it could either mean the repurposing of a broadcasters' assets by producers, or
the retrospective study or educational or entertainment use of these and other
materials (whether by the institution itself or by external parties). But EYE as well
suggests in its collection plan that acquisition and selection are done with reuse in
mind - although the emphasis here lies with its own programming. In calling itself a
"museum", it implies that it sees presentation as one of its core tasks, and this
makes for certain priorities in collection building - priorities inevitably inspired by
concerns of the present and immediate future. As presentation is subject in turn to
copyright regulations, the latter inevitably affect selection decisions also - as they do
at Sound Vision. EYE even states that films are retained only if this includes the
right to show them on its own premises.54
Overall, the collection policies of both institutions confirm the observation by
Thomas Connors, in a piece on public television archives, that relevant documents,
where they exist, tend to contain a great many criteria for appraisal and selection,
which are often formulated so inclusively that they do not provide very firm
guidelines for disposal and retention. In daily practice, archivists need to be more
selective than those policies suggest, if they wish to maintain manageable collection
sizes.55 This inevitably implies that in the workplace, decisions are also made that
those policies do not allow an outside reader - or one with a retrospective interest -
to infer.
3. Practices of Appraisal and Selection in the Transition to
Digital Archival Workflows
In recent years, moving image archives, like other collection institutions, have
increasingly been acquiring records in digital form. In a 2006 instalment for the
DCC Digital Curation Manual, Ross Harvey anticipated some of the challenges this
would present for appraisal and selection. In his contribution, he identifies among
others "questions of definition (for example, of significance, continuing value), scope
(what do we need to select in addition to the data?) and process (what needs to be
decided when?)".56
nieuwe trends en ontwikkelingen
46 EYE Filmmuseum, 'Collectieplan', 8; Lauwers, Collection Policy Sound and Vision, 11, 12. The latter
publication uses the phrase "Netherlands Collection", introduced in the early 1990s as part of the
government's Deltaplan for Cultural Management.
47 An example at the national level is EYE's decision, after consultation with the Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science, to take over (part of) the archival and presentation tasks of NIAf, the Netherlands
Institution for Animation Film (Nederlands Instituut voor Animatiefilm) after its demise in 2013
(see EYE Filmmuseum, 'Collectieplan', 23). Internationally, the institutions cooperate within UNESCO
(both), FIAF and ACE (the Association of European Cinémathèques) (EYE) and FIAT and IASA
(the International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives) (Sound Vision), among others for
purposes of relocation or repatriation of materials that are (more) significant to institutions elsewhere.
48 EYE Filmmuseum, 'Collectieplan', 5-6 (the phrase "film- of bioscoopcultuur" is used on p. 5). The document
also specifies here that 60% of the collection is in fact "international" (5). Sound Vision in contrast only
keeps non-Dutch materials if the "broadcast of the production or program had a great influence
[presumably, on Dutch practice] and might be very difficult to get hold of otherwise" (Lauwers, Collection
Policy Sound and Vision, 21). In the conversation referenced further on in this article, Frank Roumen, Sector
Manager Collections at EYE, notes that these non-Dutch materials do in certain cases show signs of local
appropriation (F. Roumen, personal interview, 11 May 2016).
49 Lauwers, Collection Policy Sound and Vision, 19 (quote), 20. Nederlands Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid,
'Werkproces Acquisitie Beeld en Geluid' also speaks in this context of target "coverage levels"
("dekkingsgraden") for materials on specific topics or with specific features (10).
194
eef masson appraisal and selection in moving image archives: legacy and transformations
50 EYE Filmmuseum, 'Collectieplan', 7, 18, 23 (but see also p. 6, 9, etc., where the term "eigenzinnig" is
consistently used). "Expanded Cinema" is the term the institute uses for materials on the intersection
between film and (media) art. I should point out here that it is not always clear how much freedom of choice
EYE allows itself exactly. For example, while it seeks to make 'bold choices' in its selection of Expanded
Cinema works, it also strives for a 'representative collection' here - which suggests that there is some kind of
a reference for representativeness to reckon with (23). Roumen points out that some of these choices are
also made during reselection (interview).
51 Ibidem, 6, 17-19 (quotes). Kula argues that this is an issue in fact with most criteria for AV appraisal,
including also socio-historic ones (see Appraising Moving Images, 83).
52 Compare for instance ibidem, 18, 21 (where the term "parels" is used). On p. 9, the document claims that it
"examines and adjusts existing canons" ("bestaande canons onder de loep neemt en bijstelt"); on p. 22 it
states that it "(re)writes the avant-garde canon" ("de canon van de avant-garde (her)schreven"). Evidence
of this also is the fact that EYE sometimes commissions new work, based on its collections (9).
53 Lauwers, Collection Policy Sound and Vision, 18 (which calls it one of three key 'perspectives').
The organisation actually suggests that its attempts establish a representative collection (by "filling gaps")
are inflected by the needs of users (20).
54 EYE Filmmuseum, 'Collectieplan', 17; Lauwers, Collection Policy Sound and Vision, 21.
55 Connors, 'Appraising Public Television Programs', 165.
56 R. Harvey, 'Appraisal and Selection', in: S. Ross and M. Day (eds.), DCC Digital Curation Manual
(Glasgow 2006) 9 (online at www.dcc.ac.uk/webfm_send/121).
195
