User:Grrrreat/thematic1/notes-16-01-12

Gap between neural memory and social location of memory.

Formerly (Humanist perspective): The Archive as obejctive tool to preserve the "prestige of the past" (Halbwachs) in the form of documents. The idea of document in that context has since then gained a wider and wider sense. Documents can now beartifacts, monuments or even parts of a city. Here the document's inherent spirit is the driving force of the archive. Thus the archive is sacralized, resulting in a split of memory and desire.

Foucault questioned the objectivity of the archive by looking at the design by which the traces in the archive are produced. He sees the archive not as way to preserve accidental and/or precious traces of collective memory but as way (or tool) for authorities to selectively construct this collective memory.

Besides Foucault's dark and dystopian views of the archive there is a more neutral perspective to the archive. Documentation should rather be seen as intervention, and all archiving as part of some sort of collective project. The archive is not just a place to keep memories that might be interesting for collective memory, but more of an anticipated form of the future collective memory which the archive is being built towards.

Due to the Internet and it's free-for-all capability to build, edit and maintain archives and the lack of stately curation of these archives, the archive is being brought back closer to it's original state of being a "deliberate site for the production of anticipated memories by international communities".

New to this form of the archive: natural social collectivities build memories out of connectivity, virtual collectivities build memories out of connectivity. These are the acted out fantasies of restoring agency (power) to the game of sociality, not a way of seeking escape from the social as such.