Catching Up

I know I promised some reports on activities at the SAA 2007 Annual Conference in Chicago, but that will have to wait at least one more day. I barely had time to glance at either the copies of the New York Times (and sometimes Chicago Tribune as well) that were deposited daily outside of my hotel room door or at my own copy of the Sunday Times at home, but going through my also-neglected Google Reader this morning, I eyeballed the following items, published over the last several days, which can give us all much to brood about. While Sweden takes decisive measures to preserve the works of Ingmar Bergman, private interests in the United States litigate over an equally vital piece of American dance history (i.e. the New Dance Group). In happier news on the dance front, it appears as if the Dance Notation Bureau has regrouped successfully. See if you agree or not with a notator’s contention that dance is not an ephemeral art. Meanwhile, in a not very provocative think piece, Jason Zinoman quavers inconclusively (in typical Times fashion) over the previously discussed Vanity Fair article’s impact upon Arthur Miller’s reputation. Finally, in Sunday’s Arts & Leisure section, there was a more informative piece on the creative reuse of material in the Woody Guthrie Foundation and Archives that manages not to mention the work of the archivists themselves at all.

 

Some thoughts on Arthur Miller article in Vanity Fair

I was thumbing through a copy of the latest issue of Vanity Fair in a waiting room yesterday and I had just started reading the Suzanna Andrews article on Arthur Miller, when I was called in for my appointment. Not surprisingly, after finishing the article today, I discovered that discussion about the piece, which reveals that Miller took great pains to conceal the fact that he had a son with Down syndrome whom he had institutionalized, was taking place all over the blogosphere and elsewhere. (Indeed, Miller’s entry in Wikipedia already had been revised several times.)

While the article has the potential to be just another nine days wonder (or whatever our contemporary Web equivalent might be), it is bound to have an impact on Miller’s reputation and the study of his work. Admittedly, it was not the first thought that the article provoked, but my reading did make me curious to see what the finding aid for Miller’s papers might look like. After confirming that his papers were held by the Harry Ransom Center, I searched their Web site in vain for an online finding aid, but I was startled to discover that an exhibition on Miller, Rehearsing the American Dream: Arthur Miller’s Theater, was scheduled to open on September 4, 2007 at the Center.

I’m not sure whether to pity or envy the public service and curatorial staff at the Ransom Center. Is this kind of indirect publicity for an exhibit and/or collection an archivist’s nightmare or dream come true? What sort of experiences might we have had in dealing with such awkward or potentially awkward situations?

Maybe there is a germ of an idea for an SAA session in here somewhere. I feel pretty sure, however, that we will see something inspired by the Anderson article as an episode on the Law & Order franchise sooner than that.