Retracings

How can there be neutrality in a trace (a photograph per say) if interpretations are made by the imagination? If we are witnesses to what is absent from the scene, how does our knowledge wreak havoc on the archive? Language allows us to retrace archives in order to re-articulate them. Is it because we have a desire for absence in the "Other?" Counter-readings of traces within an archive strive to take on new meaning. How does one (such as an artist) create new narratives and knowledge of an archive which is of as much importance as the structure, power, or institution, which represents the archive? How does the artist come to control archival information?

It appears that retracings does not lead to a truth or facticity but instead there is a goal to challenge the cultural hegemonies of each archive. By attempting to serve as a foundation of neither truth or fact, is The Atlas Group attempting to rewrite the History of Lebanon or create a subjective narration which overthrows the hegemony that has used language and power to create a specific knowledge?

Lastly, I was really mesmerized by the following quote in Zaatari's text "Photographic Documents/Excavation as Art:"

"Photography is subject before it is a medium...work on photography than with photography..."

If an artist is interested in a photograph as a photograph, that how does this differ to the institutional knowledge known as the "History of Photography." It would seem to me that, if we look at photographs just as photographs and not the subjects of the photograph, we are pigeon-holing ourselves to look at only half the picture..the half which deals with photograph as object and disregarding the other half that deals with photograph as subject...

After reading the Archive book, I think I am left with more questions than answers.

Have a good week!!!