no ethic, no narrative

A lot of questions raised across these readings - from the impulse to archive (or make work based on archives) to the effect of the archive within our culture (helps memory, or destroys it?).

One issue raised in a couple of readings that most interested me though was the question of the nature of archive:

"At the end of modernity archives are, next to and beyond their functional aspect, an embodiment of cultural heritage ... archives do not carry ethical characteristics ... people make sense of archives, not the other way around." (subREAL)

"Archives, like collections, are built with the property of multiple authors and previous owners. But unlike the collection, an archive designates a territory and not a particular narrative. There is no imperative within the logic of the archive to display or interpret." (Cummings and Lewandowska)

There was a question in class the other day about the selectivity of an archive, and whether it was really neutral. I argued that since an archive was always partial (how could it really be complete?) that there was necessarily a bias - some kind of criteria that was used in the selection of the items in the archive. (Although I realize that my assertion about an archive being partial relies on the idea that the archive represents things-in-the-world in a 1:1 binding... and I'm not sure that's a sound assumption)

I don't think the two quotes argue against a bias necessarily, but they do suggest a kind of 'neutral' character to the archive. I don't quite agree, while I think many narratives/readings/ethical lessons could be pulled out of a given archive - I think they must to some degree be bound by the original bias that existed during the formation of the archive...