<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hah! Re: Emily’s suggestion that the archive rot. To which I’d say: who’s archives? What about the ones we don’t know about yet?<div><br></div><div>I’m relatively inclined to agree; though I’ve been sitting with the process of composting and find that more seductive myself: a cycle of metabolizing matter at the end of its useful life through heat, pressure, and time to yield new fruit and more compost. It’s discourse, really. <style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style><div><br></div><div>But then I also think of the race to digitize early video art, on media that only has one play left. What is chosen to be digitized, to be “saved”, vs. that which literally crumbles a generation later? I know of one curator committed to preserving early video work by women—which is a critical step in correcting the way histories have been written in ways that privilege some voices over others. I do believe it imperative to illuminate the histories that have always already been there—but are harder to see because they haven’t yet (or ever) won the affections of institutions/collectors. I want these lesser seen archives, much in the ways Cheryl Dunye works with (a Zoe Leonard created) archive in her endearing film, “Watermelon Woman.” </div></div><div><br></div><div>I remember a mentor of mine telling me that, at the time, most film prints in India were not stored in climate controlled conditions—and as a result were melting into chemical pools. I think of melting celluloid, crumbling tape, and corrupted drives often. </div><div><br></div><div>Anyone else? </div></body></html>