Regarding Paul Doering's draconian judgment of album-splitters, I say,
"Whoa, whoa, whoa!" not to mention "wrong, wrong, wrong." You cannot
make such a broad sweeping statement about albums. It all depends. There
is a question of judgment here. Sometimes you have to remove the objects
from an album in order to protect them, BECAUSE they have value as
artifacts and you don't want an album with "inherent vice" to ruin
them. Albums constitute special problems, which should be solved by the
wisdom of several heads, ideally one with a curatorial background, one
with archival experience, and another with a conservator's knowledge. If
you can computerize and photographically reproduce the contents of an
album, you can jolly well do the reverse: photographically and otherwise
document the album, its materials and features, as well as the original
order and layout of its contents, then separate the album from the
photographs, art work or other contents of the album specifically to
preserve them. Many albums were cheaply made, far inferior to the
materials preserved in them, and the albums are themselves causing
damage. Many cheap albums are in very poor condition and it frankly is
often just not reasonable to invest heavily in conservation for them. In
some cases there is absolutely no alternative but to separate materials
from the album housing them. You can still document the original order
and appearance of the album through photography, videotape, etc., and
keep both the album and its contents. In still other instances, the
album may not be worth saving at all. In the area of 20th-century
albums, for example, why keep dozens of similar cheap albums in your
collection, let's say with vinyl covers and clear vinyl sleeves, which
will help destroy the photographs contained therein?
    It's one thing to be insensitive to the value of an album as an
historic museum object, or to be insensitive to the informational value
of original order --but it's quite another to assume that any and all
disassembly of an album constitutes "vandalism." All the factors I've
described need to be taken into account and evaluated. I believe totally
in maintaining both the physical and intellectual integrity of any
historic object or document whenever possible (and in my museum I"m
probably responsible for preserving more related old containers and
associated "junk" with primary objects than ANYONE else), but sometimes
it is NOT feasible, necessary, or advisable to save everything. What I
have always tried to do, however, is to DOCUMENT everything I've had to
disassemble, disrupt, or discard.
     We're talking about a judgment call here. Paul Doering is operating
on the assumption that an album is always more important or significant
than its components, and this is simply and demonstrably not true;
occasionally an "album" can be shown to have been nothing but a
temporary convenience whose preservation in album form could be totally
misleading. For example, I recently acquired some photographs in cheapo
albums which I assumed were original and intended to keep; by chance I
discovered that the donor had inserted them in the albums immediately
prior to the donation! She assumed we'd WANT them that way! And the
order, by her own admission, was haphazard. I'm returning the albums,
rearranging the photographs for my own convenience in description, and
returning the albums to the donor, strongly suggesting that she not use
them. I hope you won't consider this a dismissible offense, Paul.

--David Haberstich