FTA:
He said he would be reluctant to put up McGuckin's displays in the future.

McGuckin is known for his controversial holiday displays, which have included a drug-smuggling elf, a youngster making crystal meth from a chemistry set and Nazi gingerbread men.

Reluctant eh?

McGuckin sounds more like an AW than anything else.

The negativity associated with the display detracted from all the positive things happening at the library, McDonough said.

McDonough said the library board left the decision up to him.

Translation: The Board gave him an ultimatum - take it down, or they will stop protecting him to the City against the negative publicity. This, in turn, will show up on his next evaluation as something like "does not maintain good relations with the public" or some such. And it puts him in jeopardy at the City during the next budget cycle, because everyone knows his Board doesn't back him - that will come back to him as reduced funding. And of course there's the general idea of people not coming to a library that they hate. So circulation goes down on his watch.

In short, they left it up to him whether to take the display down or lose all political capital.

As far as the "artist" is concerned... WTF is he, some high school art class drop-out? "Attention Whore" doesn't do justice. "Look at MEEEEE - I'm controVERsial! It's art. ART!!! If you don;t like it, then you don't get it. MY vision. MINE!!!"

Lord. People piss me off sometimes.

And if it were a book burning display?

Libraries have to do something to regain relevance.

To be offensive when trying to make a statement is one thing. But to be offensive for no other reason than to be offensive is another.

timmy_the_tooth: Libraries have to do something to regain relevance.

Actually when there are economic troubles, libraries do very well.

Libraries will continue to remain relevant as long as there's copyright law. Not everything is available online - and much is subscription-based, which libraries often pay for.

PoopStain

+1

They just need to hire more gorillas.

timmy_the_tooth: Libraries have to do something to regain relevance.

I don't have the problem with the art, I do have a problem with the Public Library forcing the general public to look at one specific man's art. If this was an art festival, no problem. If this is in his own home, no problem. But there is no rational reason why his art--and his art alone--should be foisted on the public, regardless of whether its perceived to be controversial or not.

Oh, no, more censorship! Christ on the cross immersed in a bottle of piss, what's happening to this country! Damned barbarians have no appreciation for true art!

/waaaaaaaaaahmbulance call

Why can't that happen in my library?

PoopStain: Why do we still have libraries? We should convert them all to public internet cafes, and they should serve delicious coffee and beer.

You must not have recently visited a library at a major university--many college libraries now have a Starbucks inside. I kid you not.

PoopStain: Why do we still have libraries? We should convert them all to public internet cafes, and they should serve delicious coffee and beer.

The rednecks in my district honestly voted to close all libraries in the area a few years back. It lasted until the next election cycle.

DandamanFL: FTA:
He said he would be reluctant to put up McGuckin's displays in the future.

McGuckin is known for his controversial holiday displays, which have included a drug-smuggling elf, a youngster making crystal meth from a chemistry set and Nazi gingerbread men.

Reluctant eh?

I dunno, those sound like they'd be pretty good decorations in a punk rock bar. In a public library, maybe not so much.

TastyEloi: PoopStain: Why do we still have libraries? We should convert them all to public internet cafes, and they should serve delicious coffee and beer.

You must not have recently visited a library at a major university--many college libraries now have a Starbucks inside. I kid you not.

I worked at a library cafe once. People always give you dirty looks because it's too loud.

Fark-worthy story, terrible headline. Ugh.

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

/and by that, i mean "jesus christ i gotta see this!"

Aside from the fact that a public library just seems to be a strange place to put these displays, is there anybody out there who is honestly offended by this latest work? A Christmas tree getting revenge on Santa in such a way seems way more silly than offensive.

Benevolent Misanthrope: As far as the "artist" is concerned... WTF is he, some high school art class drop-out? "Attention Whore" doesn't do justice. "Look at MEEEEE - I'm controversial! It's art. ART!!! If you don;t like it, then you don't get it. MY vision. MINE!!!"

Lord. People piss me off sometimes.

Controversial art done in its right purpose serves an essential function in satire and political commentary.

This one is making a point about fetal alcohol syndrome.



If she won't let a baby drink, why did she drink pregnant?

Or what about the famous mohommad cartoon?



Even some douchebags consider bodyworlds an controversial art.



THAT is farking sad.

Wuss.

Benevolent Misanthrope

You sound like you work at a library.

thisispete: Actually when there are economic troubles, libraries do very well.

Libraries will continue to remain relevant as long as there's copyright law. Not everything is available online - and much is subscription-based, which libraries often pay for.

Yep, parents need a place to drop off their kids.

Not everything is online, but with the onslaught of digitization that Google has just signed on to do, Google is going to significantly change the online landscape in less than 5 years.

Public libraries are not in danger, they are already nearly obsolete: a place where parents drop off their kids (if it's a safe neighborhood) to play on the internet and a place for junkies to shoot up in the bathroom and stay out of the rain (in a bad neighborhood).

As for the much vaunted "online databases" that too has changed radically in the last few years. Libraries are no longer the warehouses for knowledge but are now the gatekeepers of knowledge.

Unless you live in a very well to do neighborhood the good resources, the valuable resources like Lexis/Nexis are too expensive to buy, and their costs are increasing annually at what looks like an exponential rate.

Sure, some places can buy access to a watered down version of Proquest but even that won't be affordable much longer, or the subscription will get cut to like "two local newspapers" which are probably online already.

Face it, public libraries are nearly obsolete.

I'd give money to keep any library open. I either buy my books or go to the library. Why would I want to sit at my computer and read a digital book? I love the atmosphere of libraries, the helpful assistants and the smell of books. I want a book in my hands, that I can snuggle in bed and read, ear mark the pages (I'm a douche, yes) or if it's my book, write notes in the margin.

/Will be sad when libraries disappear.

timmy_the_tooth: thisispete: Actually when there are economic troubles, libraries do very well.

Libraries will continue to remain relevant as long as there's copyright law. Not everything is available online - and much is subscription-based, which libraries often pay for.

Yep, parents need a place to drop off their kids.

Not everything is online, but with the onslaught of digitization that Google has just signed on to do, Google is going to significantly change the online landscape in less than 5 years.

Public libraries are not in danger, they are already nearly obsolete: a place where parents drop off their kids (if it's a safe neighborhood) to play on the internet and a place for junkies to shoot up in the bathroom and stay out of the rain (in a bad neighborhood).

As for the much vaunted "online databases" that too has changed radically in the last few years. Libraries are no longer the warehouses for knowledge but are now the gatekeepers of knowledge.

Unless you live in a very well to do neighborhood the good resources, the valuable resources like Lexis/Nexis are too expensive to buy, and their costs are increasing annually at what looks like an exponential rate.

Sure, some places can buy access to a watered down version of Proquest but even that won't be affordable much longer, or the subscription will get cut to like "two local newspapers" which are probably online already.

Face it, public libraries are nearly obsolete.

Nope - Some of the best verified, concrete and fully researched information on any subject is ALWAYS on the book.

The internet is rather more like a rough draft of basic information, really current events or new theories yet to be tested.

To completely verify info, you need the library. It's a researcher's haven. You can try to find the book online (unlikely), buy $1,000 worth of books that take up your home real estate OR What do you know, go to your local library.

I came here to see naughty librarians.
Now I'm disappointed.

CrispFlows: Nope - Some of the best verified, concrete and fully researched information on any subject is ALWAYS on the book.

The internet is rather more like a rough draft of basic information, really current events or new theories yet to be tested.

To completely verify info, you need the library. It's a researcher's haven. You can try to find the book online (unlikely), buy $1,000 worth of books that take up your home real estate OR What do you know, go to your local library.

Right, which is exactly why Google is digitizing books.

And don't try to tell me that public libraries are where people go to do real research. Real research is being done almost exclusively in academic libraries.

I work in an academic library and went to library school. You're not schooling me on this topic, son.

PoopStain:
Why do we still have libraries? We should convert them all to public internet cafes, and they should serve delicious coffee and beer.

Because "libraries will get you through times of no money better than Starbucks will get you through times of no money".

timmy_the_tooth: CrispFlows: Nope - Some of the best verified, concrete and fully researched information on any subject is ALWAYS on the book.

The internet is rather more like a rough draft of basic information, really current events or new theories yet to be tested.

To completely verify info, you need the library. It's a researcher's haven. You can try to find the book online (unlikely), buy $1,000 worth of books that take up your home real estate OR What do you know, go to your local library.

Right, which is exactly why Google is digitizing books.

And don't try to tell me that public libraries are where people go to do real research. Real research is being done almost exclusively in academic libraries.

I work in an academic library and went to library school. You're not schooling me on this topic, son.

I also work in an academic library, so I'm having trouble seeing your viewpoint--a large part of the collection of my library is made up of old journals and long out-of-print books that very likely will never be digitized.

And since many people don't care for reading novels--or any book--on a computer screen, I can't see that public libraries are likely to be obsolete for a while. Not too mention the fact that most public libraries have extensive music and movie collections as well.

"doing their job a little to well"

Scandalous books in a library are not offensive, but headlines with such poor grammar being greenlit certainly is...

timmy_the_tooth: CrispFlows: Nope - Some of the best verified, concrete and fully researched information on any subject is ALWAYS on the book.

The internet is rather more like a rough draft of basic information, really current events or new theories yet to be tested.

To completely verify info, you need the library. It's a researcher's haven. You can try to find the book online (unlikely), buy $1,000 worth of books that take up your home real estate OR What do you know, go to your local library.

Right, which is exactly why Google is digitizing books.

And don't try to tell me that public libraries are where people go to do real research. Real research is being done almost exclusively in academic libraries.

I work in an academic library and went to library school. You're not schooling me on this topic, son.

No, I'm referring to your everyday gotta-know-how-to-do-this research. Not academia. Even the lowest denominator researches. Trust me, If it comes to electrical wiring, I'm not gonna rely on the net.

TastyEloi: I also work in an academic library, so I'm having trouble seeing your viewpoint--a large part of the collection of my library is made up of old journals and long out-of-print books that very likely will never be digitized.

And since many people don't care for reading novels--or any book--on a computer screen, I can't see that public libraries are likely to be obsolete for a while. Not too mention the fact that most public libraries have extensive music and movie collections as well.

It's true that many libraries have deep collections but I see a not too distant future where people will be accessing those collections online.

And they will do so via devices like the Kindle and the iPod touch. The Kindle is already proving more popular than most library folk expected; especially among librarians.

Finally, there is ample evidence that people are using libraries more, but as a place to access electronic resources, book checkout, video checkout, and music checkout are all down.

And as all these things get cheaper and more ubiquitous fewer and fewer people will be willing to fund all but the most arcane and deep libraries.

They could have done something to save themselves, but they didn't. And when the DMCA was passed libraries were doomed to be second class citizens in the new digital age.

CrispFlows: If it comes to electrical wiring, I'm not gonna rely on the net.

Seriously? For something like electrical wiring the last place I'd go is the public library.

I'm exactly the opposite because I know how to evaluate online resources, I guess.

PoopStain: Why do we still have libraries? We should convert them all to public internet cafes, and they should serve delicious coffee and beer.

Did you know that if you have a library card, you might be able to access a lot of subscription-only electronic databases online through your library? For example, I have a New York Public Library card and can access Consumer Reports from home, online, through the library. An annual subscription to the online edition of CR costs $$. My library card cost nuthin'.

Lots of others, too, of course, CR is just the one I used most recently. It's not the most important thing in the world, sure, but it does come in useful sometimes, and it's nice being able to get it for free, legally.

Libraries have kept up with technology pretty well and have quite a few electronic resources that are getting easier to use all the time.

I read a lot of bestsellers too. Every time I see an interesting book mentioned, instead of putting it on my Amazon wishlist, I go straight to my libary's website and put the book on reserve. A few days later, I get an email that the book is waiting for me at my local branch. Easy-peasy, and, of course, free.

May as well utilize your local library's resources to the max, get something out of your taxes that you will actually find useful and maybe even enjoyable.

YouTube video of artist with shots of the piece. It kinda sucks regardless of the imagery. Link is all poppy.

timmy_the_tooth: Libraries have to do something to regain relevance.

We'll always have libraries, as long as there are homeless who want to poop indoors.

hb0mb: Benevolent Misanthrope

You sound like you work at a library.

What was your first clue?

The Google project will take YEARS, and there are still legal challenges that can/will be floated.

One of the major problems with digitizing books, is the formats that are used and making sure that everyone else who does THEIR libraries use either the same or at the very least a compatible format.

We have Google/the Vatican/some Colleges/Dead sea Scrolls etc. ALL with their own libraries, all different and none are search able from the other (I'm not even sure the dead sea or the Vatican's books can be)

The couple of colleges doing it SHOULD be book/page search able but they might just be jpg/tiff etc.

It might be interesting to see if as one of the jobs programs the Library of congress was given a bunch of more book scanners and people to scan the books (40-50 scanners,2-3 shifts)

Still take about 10y but it will be going full bore (film preservation side WAY harder considering how they collapse so fast)

timmy_the_tooth: Libraries have to do something to regain relevance.

I used to say the same thing till I had to take my kids to the library for some homework help. Even in Texas, where "educated" is often used as an insult, libraries are a lot cooler than when I was a kid. If you're a trivia junkie, an hour spent wandering through the general science section is an hour that passes too quickly.

(not to mention they have free wireless access, or you can use one of their computers for free if you don't have a laptop handy.

SpeelChuck: PoopStain: Why do we still have libraries? We should convert them all to public internet cafes, and they should serve delicious coffee and beer.

[...]

I read a lot of bestsellers too. Every time I see an interesting book mentioned, instead of putting it on my Amazon wishlist, I go straight to my libary's website and put the book on reserve. A few days later, I get an email that the book is waiting for me at my local branch. Easy-peasy, and, of course, free.

Agreed. I don't have lots of money to spend on... anything really, but especially not on books I'm going to read once (fiction, I tend to remember too much about the books for too long to reread), or that I may not be able to use (nonfiction that doesn't have the info I think it does, or the dozens of books I only need one little bit of info from). I like to see books before I buy them if I can, and given the general selection of REAL ecology books (not the green fad stuff they call ecology), other not-generally-popular biology subjects (i.e. pretty much anything but layman-level genetics and evolution, subjects I already know in more depth than those will touch) and my favorite animal groups (cats, even big ones, are strangely unpopular) at even the 6 or 8 biggest local bookstores combined, the library is my best bet. It's not so great for my main subject of interest since that goes to a depth that public libraries in general can't be expected to reach, but if I think of something new I want to know (random examples - how to knit, how to write in a certain style, basics of some philosophy/religion) it's a really good place to go, especially as some seemingly simple subjects are difficult to find material about on the internet, even with good searching skills.

/my library does home delivery
//but since they're talking about cutting costs (going as far as considering closing branches and cutting hours, according to the survey they did some months ago) they should probably at least -offer- pick-up at the branch of your choice (I make the trip to take the stuff back, picking it up wouldn't take much longer), and also consider limiting delivery to people who really need it

I'm an offensive librarian
so I'm getting a kick out of these replies
you stupid kunts

My academic library has a shared lending deal with public libraries. which is cool cuz I can get a lot of popular stuff for free, if I'm willing to wait a few days.

Libraries are about information, regardless of format.

timmy_the_tooth, sounds like you need to go back to library school, "pops." Don't worry, though, you are in good company; my library has its share of curmudgeonly, pension-sitting union monkeys that have crapped all over the ideals that brought them to the profession, too. You should be pretty proud of yourself for posting on Fark, though... most of them have trouble attaching a Word document to their email.

/shush