The two required readings for the Mishandled Archives conversation were incredibly valuable for me. The main takeaways I had after reading them fall into two categories: writing style and my archive.
Writing Style
I have been in dialogue with my supervisors for some time about the use of writing style in an academic thesis. It was very helpful to read a piece of research that was woven so well with the voice of the writer/artist/researcher while still communicating the theoretical and conceptual ideas present. In my own writing, I find a swing back and forth between these two poles. I either use too much voice which drowns out the content, or I go all in on the academic side and write too dryly to be enjoyable. I’m trying to work out how to land somewhere in the middle or oscillate successfully between the two. This piece of writing was a great example of how to accomplish this.
Another insight I gained from these two readings in regard to writing style was the vast difference between short-form and long-form writing. I work in communications and spend a good part of my time condensing long reports down to very short blurbs. I enjoyed seeing how different the project was perceived merely by the difference in length. Obviously, the longer version is going to have more information to read about. But more than that, the longer version had more space to develop a voice, which gave an entirely different perception to the project. I’m now thinking about my own writing, both in my day job and in this program, and thinking about how to establish a voice quickly, or is that even needed? Not sure. But something good for me to think about.
My Archive
The timing of this reading and conversation is very timely for me and my work. I am about to embark on making a series of work about my maternal grandfather. This is a series I’ve wanted to make for many years but have put it off until now. A big reason for putting it off all this time is due to the nature of memory and the archive in creating this kind of work. Reading the introduction to Tara Fatehi’s book brought many questions to my mind; nothing is more productive for my ideation process than filling my mind with questions. One particular question is about the use of “cross-contamination” when talking about the archive. She writes:
“It is, rather, to view it as a site of thinking and sensing that we can inhabit. A place where the ‘appositionality’ of things, to borrow Fred Morten’s word, forms a creative force for cross-contamination and new production. The drive for cross-contamination and inter-animation between artist and archive has allowed me and the histories I have been working with to mutually affect each other.”
I like her use of “cross-contamination” here, but I think in the way I’m engaging with and employing the archive, this term doesn’t quite fit. I’m not sure what I would use instead, and that question excites me. I want to explore more ways of thinking of the archive, and more importantly, explore how I would describe my use of the archive in my own work. Does it change from series to series? (I’m certain it does). What drives each use of the archive for me? When does it feel natural or challenging or tedious or useless?