The Stolen Archive

The Stolen Archive was an interesting piece of work to explore. In the author's statement, Alice Gambrell lays out her vision and goals for the work. 

"As an experiemntal archive, Stolen Time means to encourage visitors to think about the mixed significances communicated by any public collection of pirmary doecuments and objects; an archive is a practical resource, of coures, but it is also (by virtue of practices of inclusion, exclusion, arrangement, annotation, display and mode of access) a kind of argument. 

This attitude, and the set up and functions of the archive remind me of Werner and Voss's text, which we read earlier. The idea of an archive serving as multiple functions is definitely embodied here. The archive is the site, yet it is also what every indidvudal does on the site. By observing research, more research is observed. It is an extremely experiemntal way in which to observe the writing process. 

I'm not sure how effective I think it is. I really enjoyed reading both the author and the designer's statements and views more than the actual archive experience itself. 


I agree that I'm not sure how effective the archive is. Yes, it was interesting and cool to look through, but is that all it means for an archive to be effective? I don't think so. I'm still not quite sure if it is effective, but I'm leaning more towards 'no' because it's so broad and the topics are so varied that it makes it hard to understand the implications of each project.

Stolen Time is definitely one of my favorite things we've explored this semester.  It was so interactive and and different from the other archives we studied.  I thought that the author and designer's statements were really helpful going into the archive to understand what exactly was going on.  I think that the creativity of the archive made it successful, coming from a person who really enjoys the creative side of things.  For people who are more interested in just the content, I can see how the Stolen Time archive would be distracting or not as interesting or effective as other archives we have studied.