History, the archive, and the appropriation of the indexical document

The idea of reevaluating the archive that arised in the 1980's is very interesting. This method of searching for evidence of something different than what other historians had previously seen, presented by the New Historians, was a very interesting perspective. I think I lean more towards the perspective of generating a new narrative/counter-narrative of the past, as a way of treating found footage. These two ideas of archival media exist in their own territory, but I think it is important to draw the line between the two, as "something not previously seen" could easily be turned into a false narrative rather quickly.

The whole idea of the archive seems very muddled to me, as their doesn't seem to be a consensus on what it is. There is no universal definition on how to treat it or what sources are truly "archival" which could be it's flaw or its strength. On one hand, it limits the ability to turn it into a particular subset of art, with key dictation on what can and can't be done. But on the other hand, it allows for a lot of creative freedom with the medium, and really has the ability to be molded however the artist dictates.