Hobbies

Why do so many hobbies result in stuff? Like, knitting, you end up with sweaters or socks or cute stuffed animals or hats and stuff. Crocheting, you end up with blankets and scarves and washcloths and stuff. Painting, you end up with paintings--more stuff, and there's only so many walls in the world. Baking--you make stuff. And then eat it. Unless you know someone who will take it off your hands. So many hobbies generate stuff!

There are things like writing, which can be all digital, but it's still a lot of files that you have to deal with. And, I dabble in photography, which means a LOT of photos on my computer and then I have to keep moving them across hard drives and computers, or I have to print them. And then what do you do--albums? Scrapbooks? More stuff.

There are hobbies like running and other athletic things, but I was not blessed with great ability or joy in most sports. (I do like volleyball, but it is a little hard to do solo or just anywhere). I could take up walking. I don't mind a good walk. And I do have some new winter boots to break in, if it ever decides to snow. And reading! Which, there are libraries, so you don't actually have to buy books, which is delightful. And it's a hobby, right, so it doesn't have to produce a thing. It can just be fulfilling.

I do wish there were a few more options, but how many hobbies does one really need. 

Who are those cows, anyway?

In archives, it is common to come across photos that don't have any description. So, a lot of unidentified people.* And sometimes unidentified places, and other unidentified things as well. And, when describing archival materials, it is best practice to include what you don't know, not just what you do know, so saying "unidentified" is an easy way to let people know that you absolutely don't know who those cows are.

Yes. Cows. In my institution's catalog, we have not one, not two, but 11 photographs with one or more unidentified cows.

As I said, it is best practice to include what you don't know. But somehow, this feels like, well, overkill. Did anyone expect that we would know the cows' identities? It would be more shocking if we did know their names. I'm not saying that the cows didn't at one point have names, but I'm not sure the names are historically relevant. If one of the cows was, say, a mutant cow superhero, then yes, I would hope to know the name. And probably would. So, it just feels unnecessary to state that they are unidentified. It's best practice coming up against practicality, and a small thing that doesn't really matter in this instance.

That being said, I do actually love that we have 11 unidentified cows in our catalog, described as such. I get a real kick out of it. I think this is a new challenge for AI tools. Can they do facial recognition on cows? I mean, what if the 11 photos really are all of the same two or three cows? Is there a way to track cows, like a cow census or something? 

I'm considering hanging the photos up around the building, just to see if anyone knows who these cows are. I mean, it would be hilarious.*** And would really confuse people. And make me laugh. 

In the meantime, though, I'm going to brainstorm some other goofy things to search for in the catalog. Maybe more unidentified stuff, or who knows, something totally new. Archives are great for that sort of thing. 

*Be kind to history. Label your photos.

**In our catalog we also have an "unidentified aerial photograph" taken on an unknown date. Look, most things have value in the right context. If anyone can think of the context in which an unidentified aerial photograph with no date has a lot of value, I'd love to hear from you. I'm not saying there isn't value. I just haven't figured out the scenario yet.

***At the very least, I am going to hang them up in my boss's office the next time he goes on vacation. Long story, but it's kind of a tradition, and he is the one who discovered that there are in fact 11 of them.