Money VS IT Capitalism
I find this book “Free to All” is another very pleasant to read one. It allows me to explore through circumstances and evidences while adding to my knowledge many invaluable points on how the cycles in history illuminate concepts and their causes (why something exists or happens in a particular way) of reality, actions, and relationships among human subjects as well as processes of such action toward the aspects on social, cultures, and the professional. To me, the reading draws my thinking back to the idea of building as a venue for people with or without something in commons. They can choose to use it as a place to socialize with others or even socialize with information, or to become isolate in their private worlds. It is amazing to see many controversial transactions occur inside the frame of architecture and building that planned to serve as provider and controller at the same time. Also, the issue that Carnegie’s libraries have similar patterns or floor plans make me wonder if this is a way to introduce the profession that the service should flow within this particular design. I am wondering how much and to what extent do the impacts of the design have on the library transactions, task orientations, users understanding of the service and their perception of the global picture of the library structure, and etc.
The quote that reads “we must look at all buildings as evidence of social processes in which a variety of attitudes are negotiated in specific social and cultural settings” (p.xxi) is very provocative to me and unburdens my thinking. I am wondering how this uniqueness in Carnegie’s libraries reflected to or was reflected by American libraries in the following decades. Is there a similar trend imprinting the roles of Carnegie’s libraries in other parts of the world?