Beyond Theory – Interview with Jill Delaney by Juan Alonso

The LAC’s photographic collection is estimated to include 30 million photographic documents, including positives, negatives, as well as historical photographic processes such as daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, autochromes, color transparencies, slides, and digital photography. This collection documents nearly the entire visual history of Canada. It is also interesting because your institution brings together the archives and libraries of Canada. What is your approach to the arrangement and description of visual documents?

LAC follows the concepts of ‘respect du fonds’ and original order for arrangement, and the Canadian Rules for Archival Description as the basis of its description of photographs. Photography archivists may supplement these rules depending on the characteristics of the documents and of the collection/fonds itself, in order to provide the best access to the collection. Photographic collections are described within the context of the fonds, whether it is a purely photographic fonds, or photographs within a larger multiple media fonds. Arrangement of photographs follows the principles of respecting the provenance and original order of a collection where possible, in order to maintain as much original context for the documents as possible. As you know, photographs have been produced, circulated and used over the last almost 200 years for a wide variety of purposes, including for scientific work, portraiture, social and familial documentation, so photographic collections often come to an archive with widely varying arrangements. The photography archivists work to maintain these arrangements as much as possible, working with various levels of description (IE. Fonds, collection, series, item) and finding aids to make the collections as accessible as possible for researchers. Item level description is an important component of photographic description, but with very large collections this may not be feasible, unless the creator or donor has a finding aid (large government photo collections can contain more than 1 million items, while the portrait studio or newspaper collections may contain up to 500,000 items).

There has been some discussion about the limitations of utilizing the Fonds system for collections such as large complex government collections. These collections may have a complicated history of changes in provenance and organizational changes enacted by changing governments. In Canada, parts of federal government collections, including photography, were turned over to new provincial jurisdictions as the nation expanded and evolved. In some cases, photo libraries were separated and sent to museums.

The creation of photo libraries in departments could also obscure original provenance or creation. These libraries tended to be catalogued according to subject matter rather than provenance, making it impossible to fully honour the concept of respect du fonds. The copying and sharing of photographs between departments can also obscure provenance in government photographs.

With private collections the challenges can be a bit different. Photographs were more widely shared between family members, or even between photographic studios, so attributing creation and copyright can be complicated. This is especially the case with newspaper photo collections, where individual newspapers or magazines will have images from Press or Photo services Magnum) that may not be identified as such in the collection.

Not withstanding all of these challenges, photography archivists at LAC and across Canada I believe, support these foundational concepts of archival practice.

I have noticed that your search engine allows filtering by Archives, Library but also Images, which seems more like a mosaic viewer of images. Do you believe that images should be displayed with a more focused view of the item? How could this type of visualization be reconciled with the principles of provenance and archival context?

The search engine for LAC contains a number of options for searching photographs and other visual documents. At the highest level, a researcher can search for either archival collections/documents or published material, and use key subject words to further narrow their search. Within the archival search, the researcher can, if they wish, filter based on the format of the material such as textual, photographic, artistic, audiovisual, cartographic, philatelic, and so on. Such a search can produce results for both photographic fonds,collections, series, and items . The Image Search filter was created several years ago, and allows researchers to see a sort of ‘light table’ of images based on their key word search. This can be useful for those wanting to quickly see, for example, all the copied images from a single collection, or a single subject matter, such as the Houses of Parliament.

However, it is important researchers using that search engine realize that only a small proportion (about 5%) of LAC collections have been digitized and put online at the item level, and so Image Search has serious limitations. Using the archives search option will lead you to descriptions of collections, series and items, giving a broader sense of what exists within the collections, even if it has not be reproduced.

As an archivist, I prefer to see and understand the larger context of photographs, whether it be the source negatives, or other supporting documentation such as text or audiovisual records from the fonds. However, the reality today is that many researchers understand photographs as single items, and want to search that way. My hope is that once they have found an interesting item, they will follow the links through to the larger collection and gain understanding that way. Photography archivists everywhere have long fought the idea that photographs are only useful as illustrations to add to primary textual research when it is published. Rather, we all understand that photographs themselves contain a lot of information, both within the content of the photograph, but also through a reading of the context of the creation, circulation and use of the item itself.

Creating an image in the 19th century was almost a ritual that could take hours and was deeply connected to communication but also identity, and memory. Technological advancements in photography have always had significant consequences. For example, the advent of cameras that allowed for quick and portable photography, such as the Leica cameras of the 1930s, revolutionized photojournalism with dynamic and creative perspectives. This is evident when comparing photographs from the Crimean War or World War I with those from World War II. Digital photography has also brought changes and expanded the concept of photographic capture. Images are now taken quickly and of all kinds of scenes, often shared instantly on social media, and seemingly forgotten soon after. Do you think we are experiencing a new revolution in imagery? If so, in what direction do you think this change is heading? Do you believe these new uses of images challenge or diminish the traditional uses of 19th and 20th-century photography?

I think it would be difficult to deny the disruptions created by digital photography, especially the use of social media sites and of cell phones with increasingly sophisticated camera and editing technology. In my 25 years at LAC we went from acquiring and preserving film and paper based photography to creating a DAM system and acquiring large collections of digital photography. But as you remark, the technology of photography has evolved throughout the last 200 years, and will probably continue to do so. For example are now faced with the widespread use of AI apps like Dall-E that are producing increasingly convincing “photographic” deep fake imagery. It’s difficult to know where all of this will lead, as the history of photography is intertwined with social, political and economic events and trends, sometimes creating history and sometimes following. As archivists we know that photography has almost always been not only a tool for personal expression, but one for political persuasion (whether ‘real’ or ‘faked’), and for propaganda across a broad spectrum of social activities. Photography is more ubiquitous than ever, but as an archivist I can’t help but believe that, as in the past, a huge proportion of those images will not survive and time will hopefully lead to a ‘natural’ selection of the most important images to preserve. The control of the circulation and distribution of those images online by just a few very powerful tech moguls is probably what worries me most as a historian and archivist. Combined with AI, we can already see that this concentration of power can lead to negative consequences for understanding current events, let alone past ones.

I do think one real challenge is with the potential loss of context of the creation of new images within the current daily deluge and the often indiscriminate and malicious circulation of photographs. Preserving that context, by archivists, journalists, historians and others is still incredibly important work. But I don’t feel any of this diminishes the uses of 19th and 20th century photography. I’m not sure those uses have really changed in a fundamental way. People still tend to see photographs as purveyors of truth, and still use them that way, whether sharing family or celebrity portraits ( from cartes de visites to Instagram/FB/WhatsApp), creating news, creating new knowledge through photos (from Nadar’s views of Paris from a hot air balloon to drone images of wild fires or other disasters) or documenting important events or environments (from the 19th century Crimean War to the Russian War in Ukraine).

My father worked professionally in photography for over 30 years. In 2004, with the rise of digital technology, we witnessed the closure of many iconic laboratories and even saw companies dedicated to selling frames and photo albums go bankrupt. Subsequently, there was a wave of closures of physical photo stores. Recently, a friend sent me an article about the closure of EFTI, one of Spain’s most important and respected photography schools. The article also reflects on the precariousness of the photography profession, with many professionals struggling to make a living and a noted lack of interest in photographic education among the youth. It seems paradoxical that it happens in such a visually oriented society, where photography exhibitions are highly valued too. I am curious about the situation of the business of photography in Canada and the US because I have the impression that the profession of photographer is still highly respected and offers good career opportunities. Do you think this is the case? Do you believe there is an evolution towards a professionals who are less photographers but more multimedia, combining audio, still images, and video? How might this potential change impact training and the profession within the archival field? Is there a trend towards seeking multimedia archivists who can manage different formats of photography, video, and audio?

There is no doubt the profession of photography in Canada has become much more difficult since the widespread use of cell phones and DSLRs in the general population. Making a living as a photographer in an environment where digital images can be easily copied and printed by clients, and the huge volume of easily accessible stock or generic imagery online has meant a shift, in the last 20 years or so, in how photographers operate. Until the 1990s, newspapers and magazines, as well as corporations and governments in Canada had photographers on staff. Journalists, whether freelance or staff, have had to become multifaceted. Several years ago a journalist from CBC (the national broadcaster) showed up, by himself, to do a story on Yousuf Karsh’s collection at LAC. He was carrying so much equipment: cameras, tripods, video equipment, sound equipment that I was surprised he could even walk. That’s the new reality for journalists in Canada and I expect around the world.

Photography schools in Canada still seem to be going strong, which is a bit of a surprise considering how difficult it is to make a living in the profession. According to an online search there are 22 universities or community colleges offering photography studies across Canada, and a number of private photography schools as well. My impression is that many of these students are dedicated amateurs rather than those hoping to join the profession.

The positions of photography archivist and audiovisual archivists have evolved significantly in Canada over the last 50 years. This is not necessarily due as much to the shift to digital technologies as to the cuts in funding for archives over this period. Cuts to funding, since the 1990s, have meant that many archives which had specialist media archivists cut those positions, or merged them with textual responsibilities.

The history of the Photography Archives at LAC illustrates these changes. The National Photography Collection was its own Branch in the 1960s. It then became a Division (a downgrade), and then a Section within a Division. Photography archives were then merged with Documentary Art archives in following funding cuts in the 1990s. At this point, photography archivists were responsible for both government photography, and for private documentary photography. Following deep funding cuts in 2013-14 and much upheaval in LAC in general, government specialist archivists were essentially eliminated and the work was assumed by the government textual archivists according to departmental portfolios. This means there are almost no photography or audio visual specialists for government records, which include millions of government photographs. Today, private photography and audiovisual archivists are in a small section which also includes the philatelic archivist.

Recently, there has been a rise in research using images as primary sources rather than mere supplements to text. Some studies go beyond the history of authors, genres, and photographic techniques to conduct semiotic analyses of image content, narrative use, and the photographer’s ideology or intent. Have you noticed an increase in research projects focusing on these aspects among researchers studying images held by LAC? To what extent can the polysemic nature of images facilitate more novel research, such as studies related to scientific recording or colonialism? Can you share any specific examples from your institution?

There has been a shift in how researchers chose to use photographs in the last few decades, as academic teaching and research have been influenced by postmodern and poststructural theory, including semiotics. The majority of users still come looking for photographs as visual supplements, but I did notice more graduate students and researchers looking at photography as primary sources. More historians are looking at the production of photographs within the context of their creation, as well as their circulation, use and reception. They view photographs as multi-dimensional cultural and historical objects that wield their own powers of representation. Understanding the technical, social and cultural frames of photography as unique from text has really opened the field to some very interesting analyses that can shift our understandings of history and culture.

Photography archives play an essential role in this shift, with their emphasis on maintaining the original context of creation for photographs, both physically and intellectually. Issues around memory, power and identity (broadly speaking) have continued to dominate scholarly work as well as politics and culture in the 21st century, informing postcolonial studies and questions around the ‘objectivity’ of Western-based sciences such as anthropology.

One of the more fascinating aspects of photographs which contributes to their polysemic nature lies in their reproducibility and subsequent circulation and use, where they may take on different meaning or utility. One of the more important concrete examples is how photographs of Canada’s indigenous peoples from the 19th and 20th centuries were taken to characterize them as a ‘dying race’, or to show their supposed inferiority to white colonizers and settlers. these photographs played an important role in Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which clearly showed the destructive racism and deadly oppression of indigenous peoples, and attempts by Canadian governments to destroy their identities and cultures. The Commission digitized thousands of these photographs to use not only as evidence of their treatment by colonizers, but to reclaim their own histories. As part of LAC’s duties to reconciliation, the people portrayed in these photographs, most of whom were originally unidentified, are being given back their names through collaboration with their communities.

Another example of this characteristic of photography lies in the Mountain Legacy Project (mountainlegacy.ca). This ongoing scientific and environmental project uses more than 100,000 technical photographs, taken from the 1880s to the late 1950s to create topographic maps in the mountainous regions of western Canada. They were seen as ‘ephemeral documents’, and were initially slated for destruction. They are now seen as crucial tools to analyse environmental change over the last 140 years. Used in conjunction with exact repeat photographs taken in the last 25+ years, they show clear changes to all aspects of the mountain environment including glacial retreat, forest and ground cover types, as well as changes to land stewardship based on a shift from indigenous to settler practices.

It’s interesting that LAC’s homepage features a prominent call for Donations, including images. This approach goes beyond author-based photographic history demonstrating a commitment to collecting and managing photographic material from what Howard Zinn might call “ordinary people.” Is this initiative successful? What are the criteria for accepting and acquiring donations? What are the terms of use and exploitation for materials acquired by LAC? What potential do collections from non-professional authors have?

LAC as well as most provincial archives in Canada have a somewhat unique ‘made in Canada’ approach to archives in their adoption of the ‘Total Archives’ concept to define their mandates. These Canadian archives collect both government documents as well as private collections, in the belief that it will result in a better balance of state and citizen-based representation, and therefore a more complete historical record. The transfer of government archives at LAC is controlled through the national Library and Archives Canada Act, while the acquisition of private collections is voluntary and facilitated through both active and passive mechanisms.

On the ‘private side’, this has meant producing and reviewing private acquisition strategies over the years to build collections which represent diverse aspects and views of Canadian history and society. There is a broad concept of ‘national significance’ which has guided acquisition at LAC over the years. Until relatively recently acquisition tended to focus on ‘great men’ and important businesses or families. That has changed significantly over the decades to be more inclusive to better represent Canada’s diversity.

Of course this is easier said than done. In the 19th century, for example, photography in Canada could only be afforded by the upper classes, although studio portraiture trickled down to the middle classes. By the 1960s and 1970s, when documentary photography arguably peaked in Canada, there were a large number of (still mostly male) photographers who were producing interesting projects about labour and the working class, immigrants, political unrest, certain cultural (mostly European) minorities, indigenous life and so on that LAC acquired. Nonetheless, LAC has a long way to go, both in representing non-white or marginalized communities, and especially in acquiring from photographers from these communities themselves.

Acquisition of ‘private’ images tends to focus on professional photographers producing documentary work and the potential of these collections is really enormous for researchers. LAC policy aims to make these collections as accessible as possible. Almost all collections can be viewed without restrictions, and archivists work with the creators on opening up reproduction as well. However, as photographers make their living with their images, there also needs to be respect for their rights.

In addition to an impressive collection of professional documentary photography, LAC also has a collection of so-called amateur photographers collections, from the mid-nineteenth century forward to today. The “Amateurs Project” was undertaken in the 1980s by the National Photography Collection to research and collect photographic archives of non-professional photographers across the country. Many of these photographers are now considered some of the most important image makers in the history of Canada, such as Minna Keene, Alexander Henderson, John Vanderpant and Sidney Carter. I think amateur photography will continue to be an important category of collecting, given the push to diversify both the creators and the content of the collections, and photography archivists are always open to considering a variety of donations.

Regarding preservation, there is recent discussion about using paper for preserving 20th-century photographic positives due to ecological reasons, such as reducing plastic use, and because physical consultation and handling are less necessary with mass digitization and digital image access. Paper may also allow images to breathe more and permit ID codes to be placed outside the image rather than on the reverse. However, paper has its drawbacks, such as taking up more space, potential loss of the original sleeve, and the fact that plastic, if it has passed the IPI – PAT test, remains a standard and long-term preservation reference. In today’s highly digitized environment, how relevant is it to use transparent plastic sleeves and consider preservation aspects like polyester versus polypropylene and microns (40, 80, 150)? What are your thoughts on this? Do you think these preservation systems are complementary? What is your institution’s approach?

I don’t think there is an easy answer to this question. I’m not a conservator so I’m not an expert on this topic. Over the years I worked at LAC, certain preservation standards changed, and some remained the same. Budgetary issues also play a rôle. As far as I know Print File sleeves for 35mm and medium format plastic negatives, which are made from archival quality polyethylene are still the standard. LAC has a millions of negatives in its holdings; the majority of it’s photographs are negatives of some sort. As a result, only a small percentage of those negatives have been digitized, as the priority is more often for prints. This means that handling is an important issue, and preserving the negatives in transparent sleeves minimizes rough handling by researchers. Nitrate cellulose or colour negatives are sleeved in paper envelopes. Nitrate can ‘off gas’, and you don’t want those gasses to be trapped in the sleeves. And if the negatives do start to deteriorate, you don’t want them adhered to the plastic sleeve. LAC stores its colour negatives in a ‘cold vault’, and during the warming up or cooling down of those negatives which occurs if they are removed for consultation, humidity can occur, and it needs to evaporate rather than be trapped in the sleeve.

LAC also tends to store most prints in paper rather than plastic or mylar. Although mylar allows viewing without removing the print from the sleeve, it’s expensive, and not really realistic for such a large collection. Very high value prints are stored in mylar, but otherwise, prints are stored in paper envelopes or folders. These need to be pure alpha-cellulose paper that is non-buffered, neutral pH, sulfur-free and lignin-free.[1] The exception to this is digital prints, or inkjet prints, which are stored in mylar as the ink surface can be scratched very easily.

So, I guess you could say that LAC uses a risk/benefit analysis when deciding what to use for preservation. More recently, that analysis includes asking whether the original sleeves or envelopes (from the creator/donor) need to be replaced, or whether they can continue to be used. This is undoubtedly good practice environmentally speaking, but is also more cost efficient. However, it is important to understand if the original sleeves or containers may be damaging the photographs before deciding whether to keep them. Consultation with a photographic conservator on this issue is important. One other principle is that it is better to use materials that will stand the test of time, and hopefully won’t need replacing in the short term. This can reduce waste in the long term. There have been cases where less expensive containers, for example, were ordered to save money, but they weren’t very sturdy, and will need to be replaced much sooner. Digitization can definitely reduce handling, especially if the principle of ‘digitize once’ is followed. Of course, electronic files come with their own environmental footprint, as servers need to be maintained and can use considerable amounts of energy and generate high levels of greenhouse gase and consume a lot of water, as we are finding out with the rise of AI.

In the realm of historical archives, many professionals trained in art, humanities, or history sometimes show reluctance towards new technologies. I recall seeing people wearing “I hate computers” shirts at a conference on image management, perhaps as a way to champion analog photography. A friend and colleague reflected on how painters once resisted technology that threatened their art and profession. Initially, photography aimed to imitate painting until it developed as an independent art form with its own language. Eventually, many painters found ways to coexist with photography, incorporating it into their work or exploring new artistic dimensions. Just as painters had to accept a new visual medium, photography, which ultimately gained high artistic regard, it is impossible to dismiss the significant impact that digital-born photography has or may have on the profession in terms of archival management. In the early days of photography, the daguerreotype was a unique object with a negative from which no copies could be made. However, with the advent of digital technology in the 21st century, the production and reproduction of images have accelerated to unimaginable levels, leading to issues such as receiving too many similar or duplicate images, including RAW files and processed versions, along with XMP sidecar files. Considering this, should we rethink workflows, perhaps implementing clear and structured ingestion protocols that include prior selections? What do you think is the main impact of digital-born photography on archival management? What should be the role of 21st-century photographic archivists in relation to information technology? How should archivists position themselves in this regard?

There’s no question in my mind that digital photography (including both born digital and digitized) is having a major impact on the ability of archives and archivists to carry out their work, and this will only get exponentially more challenging over time. How much control archives might be able to exert over the deluge of digital photography is more difficult to assess. Certainly the development of different workflows for born digital photography are necessary, but not only for the selection process. LAC has developed a robust protocol for the intake and processing of digital records, to ensure that the authenticity and integrity of the files is maintained. Photography archivists work in collaboration with a digital integration team, who assist and advise with both the pre-ingest and post-ingest workflows and standards (see: https://www.dpconline.org/blog/wdpd/blog-heather-tompkins-wdpd). There can be some challenges following the standards in the case of photography archives, not least of which is the diversity and obsolescence of older formats which may not meet current ‘best’ standards. There can also be, as you mention, a lot of duplication or near duplication of images. If the collection is relatively well organized when it comes to the archives, it might not be too difficult to make selection, using a ‘light table’ open source software.. Nonetheless, pre-selection by the donor is greatly preferred, in fact necessary, in the case of large institutional or government collections. I don’t think it’s really acceptable for archivists to not do selection, as well as proper description, which are essential to making digital photographs ‘discoverable’.

While some older archivists might have some initial hesitation to working with digital formats, expertise can be built through both properly supported training, knowledge sharing, and the experience of doing the work. This can be an issue for smaller archives with fewer professional staff and resources, but hopefully organizations such as the ICA will continue to provide support. There really is no other choice but to adapt!

I think that, for the near future at least, the combination of technical experts supporting archivists is a good team-based approach, especially for medium and large-sized archives. The traditional expertise of archivists in subject matter and media will always be needed for selection, arrangement and description, regardless of format. Over time, the role of the technical experts may evolve and change, but as technology continues to rapidly change, they are a very necessary component for success.

Regarding technologies and specifically AI, I recently had the opportunity to test DAM systems that include advanced automation tools such as facial and scene recognition. For video, the software extracts audio with speech-to-text technology, detects video tone, summarizes content, and enables searches within that textual content, pinpointing the exact second of the video where the content is discussed. This suggests that many tasks related to audio-visual description of digital or digitized materials may be surpassed by AI. How do you think this technology could be utilized by photographic archivists in different phases of their work? How might it facilitate user access to these images?

My feeling (and somewhat limited experience) with AI is that it will, for the time being, need to be strongly ‘supervised’ by archivists to do the work required. I have been using early AI identification or distinction tools such as Tin Eye and Google Lens, to help me find images online for several years. Sometimes it is very successful, and other times the returned results are just terrible. If we think about a large collection of born-digital photographs with a high percentage of near duplicates, it might be very challenging for AI to find the ‘best’ images to keep. It could be more useful in less well organized collections, and in searching for duplication across different collections and archives, which may help archivists in deciding whether to acquire a collection or which aspect to focus on. And AI may be useful in helping to create metadata to better identify photographs which lack proper description, although it is still quite prone to error or the creation of false information (so-called hallucinations) at this point. Problems with ‘model collapse’ (where generative AI creates feedback loops of inaccurate and false results based on utilising its own previous inaccurate work) would need to be worked out, before archives, which are relied upon to prioritize accuracy and authenticity, could adopt AI throughout it’s processes. But whether we like it or not, most large departments and institutions are already looking into how AI can be used to make archivists’ work more efficient, and to potentially increase accessibility to collections. I do think archivists are well placed to understand the potential problems of adopting AI too early, or for work for which it is not well designed.

Related to access, one major issue with historical image collections is the lack of copyright information, which hinders access to many images and conflicts with public institutions’ mission to disseminate heritage. Sometimes I wonder which is more important: the public’s right to access and use an image or the potential unknown exploitation rights related to that image. What is your advice for balancing these aspects? What are your thoughts on risk management? Do you think legislation should be updated in this regard?

I’m not all that familiar with copyright legislation around the world, but I can speak to it in Canada. Over the decades I have been a photography archivist there has been a slow but steady increase in the duration of the time copyright applies to photographs. On the one hand, I feel like this is of benefit to professional photographers who make a living from their hard work. But on the other hand, this can really limit access to, and use of, photography by legitimate researchers.

The growth of photo stock companies such as Getty Images, and the commodification of news and editorial photography by newspapers and media organizations such as the New York Times, has also had a bit of a chilling effect on use by researchers. The inherent duplication of photography only complicates the issue. As an archivist, it can be frustrating to find stock image companies charging large fees for the use of a photograph which is open to access from LAC’s collection and long out of copyright in Canada. In Canada, there is the opportunity for researchers to apply for the use of an image where the copyright holder cannot be identified, but it can be a long process. At LAC, the policy is, I believe, that in most cases, reproductions of photographs still in copyright can be provided for personal study, but it is up to the client to prove that they have cleared copyright when using an image for publication. I do think a risk management based approach is needed, where archivists or copyright experts can assess the likelihood that the copyright holder still exists, or will assert their rights over historical photographs.

There are photograph collections at LAC that are underutilized because ownership or copyright issues cannot be resolved. Before I retired I worked on negotiating use of a collection of important early 20th century photographs depicting Inuit peoples’ culture and practices at the time. There were serious issues related to both the ownership of the photographs, and the access to the images by the Inuit communities themselves, and it was very much a collaborative effort between several institutions. A colleague took over that multiyear project once I retired, and completed the negotiations, I’m happy to say. In this case all the hard work was worth the effort as it increases access to important and rare images of the Inuit people and northern Canada. But this is just one example of one problematic collection among many.

I would like to ask about the future of archives. We are used to working with fonds or collections from authors or entities where production and dissemination have been controlled and transferred to the archive. However, today we have a vast production of photographic and audio-visual content shared on social media platforms like Instagram, which are not always or will not always be accessible. Additionally, television channels must rethink how they control and capture production, which no longer follows the analog logic with the rise of multiplatform consumption, including YouTube, streaming, mobile phone photography, and third-party platforms. I would like to know how you imagine the visual archives of the future. What might they look like? What challenges might they face? What advantages could they offer? And what role might audio-visual archivists play in this futuristic scenario?

I’m a bit hesitant to predict what the future of archives might be, as such predictions have a very high rate of failure. I have also only dipped my toe into the world of AI. However, I do see three areas where photographic archives could play an important role, given how technology and the use of the internet are developing now. First, one of the great strengths of archives is their focus on maintaining and explaining the context of original records, including photography. As humanity continues to create incomprehensible amount of data and content, and especially with the rapid growth of generative AI, such as ChatGPT, DALL-E and Stable Diffusion context is being abandoned. I would think that archives could and should play an important role in providing context for historical photos and become a key resource for people searching for valid and validated information regarding historic records.

The second role is closely related to this, and that is to become a leading source for authentic photographs. While photography has a long history of ‘fakes’, production of fake imagery is exponentially easier, faster and more ‘realistic’ now. Photographic archives should be a part of the process of validating and providing authentic historical images. Archives have always played an important role in validating information and records, and archivists understand the importance of provenance and context in this activity. Photo archivists will need to develop new forensic knowledge and skills to take part in the evolving challenge of the creation of misinformation and disinformation today.

Visual media still tends to be treated as ‘fact’ by most people, so I think photo expertise takes on an added urgency in today’s media environment. Canadian author and blogger Cory Doctorow has also pointed to the ‘enshittification’ of the internet, where there has been an increasing degradation of reliable search results and information. Librarians are already tackling this problem through education of users, and I think archives could also be leaders in this conversation.

Finally, photographic archives need to continue to acquire authentic records that will help people tell their own stories and history. This reinforces the concern that I recently watched a video where Jon Ippolito speaks about how generative AI, because it works with probability algorithms, can result in a lack of diversity in the images and texts it produces, and erase important minority or marginalized peoples and communities from online sources. This makes the work of archivist to build collections that fully represents societies and culture even more important.

Finally, you have been with the ICA PAAG working group for many years and continue to be a key member, now working on the new descriptive standards we are developing under the PCOM funding umbrella. How did you start with the group? Why do you think this expert group has been and continues to be important? How has your experience been over the years?

I started with PAAG after an LAC colleague in photographic conservation approached me about being in the group. It seemed to me an excellent opportunity to expand my knowledge of photographic archives and practices around the world, and to understand and contribute to discussions about current issues in photographic archives, so I agreed! And I have definitely learned a lot from my international colleagues over the years, and had a chance to exchange ideas and experiences with many of them.

I think the most important work that PAAG has done is to provide access to both current knowledge and experience by specialist archivists to smaller archives which may not have the resources or capacity to gain that knowledge on their own. I think PAAG has done an excellent job in providing really useful and practical information through its case histories, short guides and standards documents. This work only accelerated under the leadership of David Iglesias Franch, and I’m sure will continue with you and Natālija Lāce.

Jill Delaney holds an MA in Canadian Studies from Carleton University and a PhD in the History and Theory of Art and Architecture from the State University of New York at Binghamton. Since 1998, she has worked as an archivist in Photography Acquisition and Research at Library and Archives Canada. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the ICA Photographic and Audiovisual Archives Expert Group.