Free to All

I’ve learned about Andrew Carnegie’s role in American history as a Robber Baron and even as a philanthropist but Van Slyck gives a lot of good information about what his philanthropic projects did for libraries and their communities. I really liked the architectural history perspective that she used because it was a concrete place from which to make her claims but she still had to make well informed and reasonable arguments when she gave her interpretations about library architecture and space.

The relationship between the profession of American architecture and librarianship was fascinating because both were searching for validation as legitimate and important fields and both had to content with desires of the client and more practical considerations. Still, I can’t help but think that librarians (or library boards) were more at fault for not resisting the beauty and grandeur of, for example, the alcove design and its foreseeing problems. Did American librarians not have any dialogue with European librarians about the shortcoming of the medieval monastery inspired design? Maybe the library boards that approved such designs were guilty of the same feelings of paternalism that philanthropists like Carnegie had and wanted patrons to be constantly reminded of the relationship.

The main way that Van Slyck portrays the evolution of public library architecture is by showing how in general they became more and more user and librarian friendly. Van Slyck points out that a lot of the reforms in Carnegie library design was for financial reasons; funds could be made better use of going to things beside elaborate buildings. The issue of open versus closed stacks had financial ramifications too because as the price of books when down it was less imperative to keep the collection from patrons who might damage texts. The presence of multi-purpose and lecture rooms especially in Bertram’s “Notes” show that while Bertram warns against moving away from the library’s book-centered-ness he also thought that some library space could be used as the community wished. The need for extra space be it for expansion or rooms for community groups was also important when one considers that libraries didn’t always use space for what it was designated for in the floor plan. Design suggestions offered by Bertram gave libraries wiggle room so that they could keep up with the needs of librarians and patrons.

Like Garrison, Van Slyck makes claims about the feminization of librarianship. In chapter four she briefly mentions the role of women’s clubs in rallying support for Carnegie libraries. These women cited their morality and inherent mothering skills to give their calls for public libraries authority. Women and men made these same claims for why women were suited to be librarians. As part of her analysis of library space Van Slyck also examines libraries as a female work place. According to Bertram’s “Notes” the changing desk was to be centrally located so the librarian could keep an eye on patrons but Van Slyck doesn’t mention that at the same time patrons could see her too. The position of charging desks between the entrance and the stacks let the librarian oversee the movement of people but it also restricted the size of her work space (so that it looked similar to those of typists and phone operators) and again everyone could see what she was doing. Van Slyck doesn’t make it sound like these interior design choices were intentionally meant to do what they did (much like how the club women didn’t consider the ramifications of their appeals based on gender) but contemporary librarians still have to contend with the effects.

Van Slyck gives a lot of good information on the role of female librarians in the formation of children’s collections. There seems to have been some contention over how home-like children’s space in the library should be which contrasts with Garrison’s assumption that female librarians always exerted a homey and feminine influence on the library. In the pictures that Van Slyck includes there is little difference between the aesthetic of adult and children’s reading rooms until you read her comments about the presence of parlor-like tables and child scale chairs. It seems like the attitude toward children’s libraries started out with them being a place where children could go in order to keep out of trouble but then ended up being a place that paid attention to the unique educational needs of children. Van Slyck doesn’t really get into it but I would be interested in knowing want the view of child psychology and education was in the public school system at this time. Simply realizing that child weren’t little adults seems to have been a big advancement in education in both the school and the library.