Flickr Mashups and the Tiger

I’ve been reading a novel in which a riddle is posed to a group of suitors, the man with the correct answer winning the bride. They have to guess what two “opposing forces” are woven into a tale depicted in her tapestry. Somehow, this train of thought led me to wondering about the forces at work as libraries and patrons embrace 2.0 technology. In the above story, the issue was about nomadic peoples of Iran (circa 1900) facing changes to their society and entire way of life. (The suitors guessed such things as “stability and change”, “seen and unseen”, “dark and light”, “tradition” and “departing from tradition.”) The library 2.0 concept addresses 2 forces you could call “real” things and “virtual” things. Investigating Flickr, I was thinking that a real tiger is “real”, and a photo of a tiger could be considered less real. But is a digital photo less real than a paper one, and is that image less “real” because it can be transmitted anywhere in the world instantaneously? If a map link then tells you that the tiger is very likely on a particular mountain, and you can “virtually” go there, what does this mean? All the ways of discussing the tiger and sharing it, cross referencing it, comparing it, are fascinating. They aren’t the tiger but they are ways to know a lot about it.

I've opened a Flickr account, and uploaded a few of my pix of the library. The entry sculpture by Larry Kirkland has always left me in awe. According to Flickr guidelines, I must link back to Flickr my use of it on this blog. As soon as I figure out how, I'll post it. One way to "mash" that photo up would be to choose a watermark for it, which is one option. There are so many others, but figuring out their usefulness? I will keep you posted.
Probably need to do some more research on Flickr mashups.