Journal of Film Preservation - FIAF

de reevaluación de los cambios
profundos que afectan el entorno
profesional de los archivistas
cinematográficos. Desde este punto
de vista, convendría ampliar la
membresía de la Federación a nuevo
insticuciones.
En momentos en que en Gran
Bretaña, Estados Unidos, Italia, y
Australia la función de capacitación
profesional de archivistas
cinematográficos (que en su tiempo
aseguraba con exclusividad la FIAF, a
través de la Summer School creada en
1973) está pasando a las instituciones
de archivos y de las universidades. La
FIAF debe, por ende, reconsiderar su
política en materia de capacitación
profesional, ya que ésta representa la
clave para el futuro de nuestras
instituciones.
La UNESCO, con la que la FIAF ha
estado vinculada permanentemente,
en particular para la elaboración en
1980 de las Recomendaciones para la
salvaguarda del patrimonio, ha
resuelto incluir las obras
cinematográficas en su programa
Memoria del Mundo. Este es otro
terreno en el que la FIAF debería
intervenir activamente.
La financiación de los archivos
cinematográficos también sufre
cambios: ¡Nos exigen que nos
hagamos buscadores de oro! Tanto en
Europa como en América, de distintas
maneras, estamos confrontados con
estas nuevas responsabilidades.
Por todas estas razones, la FIAF debe
cambiar y transformarse en un centro
de evaluación, dando impulso a las
iniciativas de las asociaciones
regionales y, al mismo tiempo,
desarrollando una red permanente de
información. Periódicamente, nuestra
federación debe renovar las ocasiones
de discusión sobre asuntos concretos
que determinan el trabajo de los
archivos y debe funcionar como
centro abierto y permanente de
debates.
rely on not-for-profit organizations like the Film Foundation and the
National Film Preservation Foundation to coordinate fund raising and
distribute the income to the archives.
The split that has developed in recent years between the archives in
the United States and those in Europe is partly the result of different
funding models in the two regions. Public/private partnerships are the
name of the game in the States and industry/archive arrangements
that openly benefit both parties are also common. This close
relationship between the producer and the archivist seems an
anathema in Europe where most funds still come from governments.
Private fund raising is becoming more common there, but it seldom
involves such close relationships with the film industry as it does in the
States.
Perhaps this conflict could be avoided if the Federation defined more
realistically the rule that requires film archives to be non-commercial.
In the strictest sense, this is impossible in today’s world. Now that the
archive movement is well established, one can probably take a more
liberal approach to the issue. A more realistic definition would
recognize that an archive has to charge for some services that were
previously freely available and that often those charges are calculated
on a cost-plus basis because this is the only way the archive can
support non-income generating activities. There is nothing wrong with
working with commercial entities as long as the relationship does not
distort preservation priorities. Also, individual staff must not benefit
from such arrangements and funds generated must only used for
accepted archival activities.
Therefore, what changes does FIAF need to make? Perhaps I could start
with a proposal made by Wolfgang Klaue in 1994. He suggested
programs of work, rather than standing commissions, that
concentrated on solving specific problems and had set timetables.
There is still work for the existing commissions to do but some of the
tasks they undertook in the past, when FIAF was the only place one
could acquire film preservation expertise, are being pursued by regional
preservation groups. In addition, the very existence of standing
commissions inhibits the formation of new groups, even ones with
specific agendas and timetables.
Here are some of the projects I would like to see incorporated into the
new work program. The Federation could coordinate the activities of
the regional associations and act as a clearing-house for information so
that duplication of effort is avoided. It could represent the regional
associations in meetings with UNESCO and other related organizations
like IASA, FIAT/IFTA, DOMITOR and IAMHIST. With care a powerful lobby
can be built up that will benefit all the participants. It could, for
instance, prepare for the 25th anniversary of the UNESCO resolution on
the “Safeguarding and Preservation of the Moving Image” by
examining the impact it has had and how it could be given more teeth
in future.
Now that film itself is threatened with extinction, there needs to be a
group to consider the importance of film as an artifact. As I said in
Seoul last year, archives will have to decide whether they stop
7 Journal of Film Preservation / 67 / 2004