Samford Hall in the 1890s, complete with the chimneys that were removed during the renovations of the 1970s |
But none of that changes the fact that, yes, Auburn wasn't all that great at documenting the past, but they've almost gotten worse at documenting the present. The yearly student yearbook, The Glomerata, is the perfect example. I have spent many hours on the Auburn Digital Library's archives of nearly every single Glom (stops at around 2003 or so), and have scoured maybe 80 years or so worth of volumes. I recently purchased a few classic Gloms (1934, 1952, 1975 and 1976), and truly enjoyed inspecting each volume. It was great to see just how much campus had changed, and trying to piece together the campus then as best as possible.
The story of Hurricane Eloise was completely lost on me - I had never even heard of this specific storm. But the 1976 Glomerata had a wonderful spread on Eloise's impact to Auburn and the community. In contrast, the 2006 Glom I picked up with the other four was a true let down. The formatting of the pages was completely different and nearly ineffective. Yes, I understand styling changes over the course of 30 years or so, but the latest Gloms fall well short of the previous volumes.I love Angel's Antiques. So much Auburn history. So much I had to leave behind... pic.twitter.com/SPrdYcal2b— Clint Richardson® (@Clintau24) May 3, 2016
I've collected four Gloms during my time here at Auburn, and I'm ever disappointed every time I crack them open. As I said before, I have spent a ton of time viewing the archived volumes, specifically for uniform research. The 2015 Glomerata really frustrated me by posting photos of baseball and softball from YEARS prior. Not the year before, not practice photos, none of that. But game photos - that were already dated and tagged by the various photographers - and placed on the spread as if they were from the specified year! This is completely inexcusable. It bothers me more because I spent a ton of time researching the uniforms worn during a specific athletic season, and these misrepresented Gloms make such research very difficult. Again, I know uniforms are very low on many people's list, but the premise stands. Many of the players depicted on their respective sport's spread weren't even part of the program anymore! It's just lazy on the editor's part.
As I said on Twitter, Auburn's history is already poorly documented. It doesn't take much effort to better document present day Auburn. If we can do that, we'll save a ton of trouble for future generations that want to better understand Auburn and it's storied history.
No comments:
Post a Comment