Epilogue
Archiving as inherent aspect of the creative process
Since the artists see their work as a process, it is self-evident
that the notion of 'archiving during the process' was being raised
also by the interviewees as an important practice. Next to the
pragmatic reasons of keeping the records organized because
of accountability, the artists also have to keep up with their
documentations otherwise the context would get lost. This is a
crucial point. Human memory fades away and the fragments
from the long-term memory are sometimes reinterpreted in the
light of new events. This mechanism is also highlighted by a
performance artist, who has recently been busy with organizing
his archives on his website, and now he regrets that he didn't
describe all his performances accurately. He thinks that at this
moment he describes a performance differently than he would
have done at the moment when he was actually busy with the
project. This way, he will give a different interpretation of his work
than it was meant originally, since other layers of meaning also
have been attached to the piece during the course of time.
Another artist also added that a work also gets reinter
preted with re-enactment. When you make a performance,
you have a purpose with it in a particular context. If you re-enact
a performance after half year or even later, you don't make the
same performance in the sense that the context has changed
and you are in a different phase in your artistic career, with
other experiences and other thoughts. This shows us again that
performance is a process which should be documented
constantly otherwise it is as good as lost.
The archive as the real end product
"The archive is sometimes more important than the actual
performance": this remarkable claim was mentioned by two
artists and strongly challenges the notion of theatre as an
ephemeral art. In both cases the interviewees talked about
street performances. Such events are of course important at
that time and at that space of the performance for both the
creators and spectators, but as they are archived and shared,
they can reach a much larger audience than during the
actual, live event. As one of the interviewees puts it:
"Your performance only becomes important if they talk about
it and sometimes it is only possible if you document it!"
Furthermore, if there is a performance in the street, it can
sometimes be perceived as a rather ordinary phenomenon, but
when archived, it becomes more significant. The reason for this,
next to the fact that a performance documentation can reach
more spectators, is that in a video-footage the recording can be
edited in a way that every part of the performance is included,
even if during the live performance one couldn't see everything
at the same time. In this manner, 'liveness', at least in its literal
meaning, is taken away, but in turn, the performance in its
documentation may become artistically more developed and
well-rounded.
The above cases show us that archiving in the theatre is not only
a process by its very nature, but it is also an emotional one.
Furthermore, it is not only easier to document during the process
of the production, but it also gives a sharper result, since the
memories are vivid and not mixed with newer ones. As we have
seen, theatre archive isn't only a very detailed memory, but also
evidence and heritage for the posterity. The case of the DNO
demonstrates that even at a large theatre institution it can be
accidental what will remain available for the future generations to
research. In my opinion, this can largely depend on the one(s)
'busy with archiving', on their individual practices, their
conceptualization of the archive and their other tasks within the
organization.
