The context within which something exists is important; context shapes perception. What confuses me, however, is how the archivist separates the context of the object from themselves. I've never been to an archive, although I have been to museums. Even there, the description of the object fails to make me appreciate it--and after reading the article I guess I become suspicious even there. Is it a stone ax, or is it an ancient golf club? How could one decide if it's either? The question of "what" is the first obstacle between contextless truth and just the truth.
What am I looking at? Apparently some would posit I was looking at children being hurled overboard (with a why provided without evidence). This question of what is troubling.
No comments:
Post a Comment