Does the Archive Become Metaphorical in Multi-Media Space?
Does the Archive Become Metaphorical in Multi-Media Space?
复制标题
档案在多媒体空间中是否变得隐喻？
DOI：
10.4324/9780203643839-14
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
P. Scarabin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Canonico;C. Straczek;E. Oger;G. Plu;P. Scarabin
本文主要从两个方面论述（多）媒体考古学：第一，对“媒体考古学”这一术语的认识论反思;第二，文学个案研究。但是，在我开始（arché）之前，我想反思一下“多媒体考古学”这个术语本身。作为一名历史学家，一名古典主义者和一名考古学家（在学科意义上），我一直对叙事作为处理我们过去知识的单一媒介的主导地位感到不安。从理论上讲，像米歇尔·福柯的《拯救考古学》1和海登·白色的开创性的《元历史学》2这样的著作帮助我用历史想象的修辞表达了这种不安。然而，它采取了一种新的沟通现实的基础设施-数字媒体的影响-把这种批评的历史话语到媒体考古学的条款和实践。但要注意：即使我们声称进行媒体考古学分析，我们也很容易回到讲述媒体故事。正如我们从福柯那里学到的那样，知识考古学研究的是不连续性、空白和缺失、沉默和断裂，这与历史话语相反，历史话语赋予连续性概念以特权，以重新确认主体性的可能性。“档案与记忆无关，而是与丢弃、擦除、消除的必要性有关。”[3]历史编纂学建立在目的论和叙事闭合的基础上，而档案则是不连续的、破裂的。像所有类型的数据库一样，“它不是基于原因和结果，而是通过网络形成关系”;档案不是一种宣泄记忆的媒介，“档案是创伤性的，不是与过去成功相遇的证据，而是雅克·拉康所说的”与真实的错过相遇“的证据4-也就是说，一个不可能弥合差距的寓言。考古学，正如福柯以一种有点戏谑的、迟缓的方式使用的那样，是一个并不意味着寻找起点的术语;它并没有把分析与一种地质挖掘联系起来。因此，它与《牛津英语词典》对考古学的定义有很大的不同：“指的是任何东西的构成或组成的材料或物质。”那么，如果我们把这个福柯的术语应用到媒体的谱系中，会发生什么呢？
In this paper, I address (multi) media archaeology in two parts: fi rst, an epistemological refl ection on the term “media archaeology” and second, literal case studies. But, before I begin (arché), I want to refl ect on the term “archaeology of multi-media” itself. Having been trained as a historian, a classicist and an archaeologist (in the disciplinary sense), I have always felt uneasy with the predominance of narrative as the uni-medium of processing our knowledge of the past. Th eoretically, works like Michel Foucault’s L’Archéologie du Savoir1 and Hayden White’s seminal Metahistory2 have helped me express this unease with the rhetoric of historical imagination. It took, however, a new infrastructure of communicating realities—the impact of digital media—to put this critique of historical discourse into media-archaeological terms and practice. But caution: Even when we claim to perform media-archaeological analysis, we easily slip back into telling media stories. Th e archaeology of knowledge, as we have learned from Foucault, deals with discontinuities, gaps and absences, silence and ruptures, in opposition to historical discourse, which privileges the notion of continuity in order to re-affi rm the possibility of subjectivity. “Archives are less concerned with memory than with the necessity to discard, erase, eliminate.”3 Whereas historiography is founded on teleology and narrative closure, the archive is discontinuous, ruptured. Like all kinds of data banks, “it forms relationships not on the basis of causes and eff ects, but through networks”; instead of being a medium of cathartic memory, “the archive is traumatic, testimony not to a successful encounter with the past but to what Jacques Lacan has referred to as the ‘missed encounter with the real’”4—that is, an allegory of the impossible bridging of a gap. Archaeology, as used by Foucault in a somewhat playful, delusory way, is a term that does not imply the search for a beginning; it does not relate analysis to a kind of geological excavation. Th us it diff ers substantially from what the Oxford English Dictionary defi nes as archaeology: “indicating the material or substance of which anything is made or consists.” So what happens if we apply this Foucauldian term to the genealogy of media?