Machines appears as they where beautiful and complicated. What is the necessity for these machines to be put on display but only for the audience to gasp at something higher then the common machine in our daily life's. I am not saying that this is of any truth but I am more asking of what necessity there is of these machines of an existing.
Artifacts are stored and categorized. Aspects of the artifacts becomes placed in a sequence of what has been accomplished as it would be on a stage, but what is beyond this surface of machines and artifacts?
The collective memory is not only one thing but many. There is in other words not one story to tell but many, given an opportunity to connect different documents in relations to each other. I would like to debate that the archive is written/categorized in a non Democratic view of what is our history. Is then history as linear as it appears in this archive? Are archives linear, only for us to open them and understand them but not necessarily true to there own history? Or is it all but a given index for the reader to locate the documents. I have been interested in the artifacts from the archive that is both man made and the artifacts collected from the archaeological site. What was brought to the space and brought back from the space.
Viewing the archive a sci-fi fiction is not far away from thought, where movies have inspired the archive or vice versa has become hard to sort out. Fiction suddenly becomes truth. Should we then embrace this fiction or destroy it? It is within these questions other questions emerges, of why they chose to display these object and not another, and why I in their archive choose these images?
In my project I find that it is within the artifacts I find my interest. My archive exist within the version of the original archive, it is not any attempt to claim my source as true or not but it is simply one of many discursive formations.
In relations to my earlier works memory and time has been my overall interest to research, and has not yet lost my attention. Where earlier works have been pin pointed; to time, as where and how it is being present in fiction. Mainly utilizing the information from film to film as a tribute to fiction. Merging a line between the fiction and the real. In collective space I have found myself more interested in the artifacts of what is left after something has or may have been present, as the archive appeals to call that some things are really true. Objects/Documents that are clear to be standing in the same present space as my own body. Taking a step back, and not add new images to the archive and restrain myself only allowing to work with already existing images from the original source.
Theories that has brought my attention is from what you can in some way say is a part of the archive. Texts from Michel Foucault on The Archaeology of Knowledge.
For Foucault the fantasia of the library is the experience of the labyrinth; of seeking connections between text as well as the contents. The practices of the library institutionalizes particular arrangements of texts, but Foucault argues that one can work within these practices to create new labyrinths, new perspectives, and ultimately, new worlds. The library becomes an instrument of possibility rather than a place where possibility seems exhausted.
My research has also come across writings by Jorge Luis Borges The Library of Babel and Ferdinand de Saussure, thorough texts from Marianne Wikgren in Critical realism as a philosophy and social theory in information science?
Collective Space, Black and White prints, Wooden frame with glass. 2010
