When is Archiving Too Much?

Larsen’s photo not taken fits in perfectly with Derrida’s theory: the “new dynamic” that both her and her subject’s paths take is in direct correlation with Derrida’s archive “producing as well as recording”. This also gels nicely with Wood’s idea of preserving all time for all time.

I’ve very much enjoyed reading these articles on archiving. My family this summer had several revelations about our genealogy, and almost all of them were because of the use of various archival records, be they books, maps, or the Internet. A “photo not taken” scenario figured in as well: There was a house built by our ancestors that was actually in the area, but no one in any book or map had taken a photo of the front or provided a detailed description or address of where it was located, and we eventually had to find it ourselves.

The mere fact that I am able to trace my lineage directly back to Charlemagne (I’m his 42nd great-grandson) shows me how useful and informative archives and records can be. However, take into account that it could also be dangerous to hold so much information for such a long period of time. Could Wood have been wrong about the lifespan of maps and archives? Every photo not taken, every map not drawn, and every archive not recorded could probably be said to be full of things we don’t know – and maybe that’s for the better sometimes.

On the one hand, it’s fascinating to have windows to the past, like the video that went viral a few years ago of an elderly man on the 50’s game show I’ve Got a Secret, being the last living person at the time to have seen the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. On the other, those windows hold immeasurable power and significance, as the US government found out when the Iraqi archives were destroyed. Where should the line be drawn?