Silo Dreams
Mountainous silos create a new space with strong spatial awareness, breaking away from everyday architectural forms. In the bustling traffic of grain and goods, in the city built with railroads, bridges, and cranes, and under the booming city skyline, a stupendous vertical of concrete stands steeply, against all that surrounds it.1
As the inaugural exhibition of Keyi Gallery in Hefei's New Grain space, “Silo Dreams” begins with the establishment of this special exhibition space–silos built at the end of the century, transitioning from grain storage infrastructure to the locus for contemporary cultural production. The architectural transformation and contextual shifts of the exhibition space mark the functional change of social space. The exhibition sees it as a projection of ongoing transformations in social activities and economic development, specifically demonstrating the flow of postmodern labor and production relations dominated by emergent technology industry, algorithmic logic, and platform economy. Through non-linear connections between social relations and spatial structures, the exhibition outlines and explores the current situations and challenges facing contemporary cities. Bringing together paintings, videos, sculptures, and site-specific installations by 12 artists, the exhibition analyzes and responds to contemporary modes of production relations and organization based on drastic changes in the social production structure and its resulting spatial-temporal mobility. It seeks to offer perspectives for interpretation, reflection, and tackling of socio-spatial practices that are present, and will be more prevalent in the future.
The predecessor of New Grain–Anhui Mechanized Grain Depot–was constructed in 1992 as a complex for grain acquisition, storage, processing, and trade to promote grain reserves and circulation, responding to the social contexts and demands of the time. Today, the 6 grain silos, as industrial heritage, have been repurposed as art spaces, and New Grain has been reconstructed as a new cultural and commercial venue in urban renewal. As Henri Lefebvre pointed out in The Production of Space, social space is the production and reproduction of social relations, a projection of labor relations and social formations objectified in reality and changes with the mode of production, mapping economic transformation through Second Nature.2 The granary’s functional metamorphosis symbolizes a shift in the microcosm of everyday social life and stands as a representation of the changing social practice. Its concrete walls, still bearing rice husk residues, stand as a monument chronicling epochal shifts; The architectural substance and meaning of the ganery itself become an index revealing the social and productive transformations of space. Wan Chaoqian’s depictions of domestic interiors defined by household appliances capture modern life as reshaped by technological advancement. Chen Pai’an’s digital paintings and giclées restore the smooth texture of industrial commodities in modern scenes, using technology to convey a new, stylized spatial visual experience. They are acute witnesses to the results of modern production. Like grain silos, they have always addressed and illuminated the critical issues within social production relations, regardless of changing forms or functions.
However, although modes of production project social relations onto space, and this physical reality in turn reacts to social relations, there has never been a direct, immediate, transparent, and easy-to-grasp connection or definite relationship between the two.3 As Song Long uses living objects as psychological mappings, and alienates the habitual experiences of life to reveal the unexpected connections between humans and their living spaces; Li Tao, through reconstructing, appropriating, and recreating industrial materials and ready-mades, reflects on the contradictory unity of the urban space between collectivist planning and individual choices. The social condition of humanity, as the intersection of these relationships, projects its complexity and even reflexivity—as crucial attributes—onto the urban space where the exhibition is situated, mirroring key issues of contemporary labor and production relations.
Located in Hefei, the New Granary sits at the heart of a city rapidly propelled by high-tech innovation and industrial transformation in electric vehicles, intelligent manufacturing, and semiconductors, which forms an integrated industrial chain of “new productivity”. At the same time, the algorithmically managed Subsistence sector coexists with the modern sector represented by high-tech industries, where labor force has always been confronted with a decentralized and discontinuous dual economy.4 Li Xindi contrasts the temporary spatial extension of delivery shelves with upright and solid furniture, alluding to the flexible yet unstable nature of transitional employment. Post-Fordist elasticity intensifies within platform economy structures, where the total digitization and intellectualization of contemporary labor under algorithmic economies shifts traditional workforce control into remote control of labor itself through dotted connections. The replaceability and mobility of labor accelerate in tandem,5 as seen in Jing Ao's sculptures, where materiality transforms and occurs spontaneously across environments, and complex dynamics persist between random potentiality and heightened control. Thus, the gig economy is not only a pressing issue in contemporary labor and production relations but also reshapes completely different social relations and landscapes in the cultural practices of algorithms.6 Li Guanshuai portrays the universal situation of complexity, mutilation, and confrontation through the oscillation between humanity and divinity, while Li Li Ren imagines the commonality between humans and non-humans through biological interpretation, dismantling anthropocentrism as transcendental interpretations of contemporary instability.
As socio-economic and labor structures grow increasingly complex, flexible, and decentralized, facing the elusiveness of hidden organizational framwork, Xing Wanli reassembles fragmented elements to reconstruct the virtual reality of images, texts, and memories in the digital age; Li Penquan transforms transcendental moments into mysterious and absurd self-speeches; and Gong Bin depicts fantasy landscapes through spiritual wanderings, where the accidental slippage of consciousness and algorithmic imagination become methods for excavating the space of subjectivity and starkly divergent social spatial experiences. Xie Linyou combines artificial intelligence, multicultural migration waves, and the surreality of video games and prose poems to depict dystopian illusions that point toward the future. Guided by the complex interplay between urban spatial reconfiguration and social production, the postmodern labor force and social relations of production, shifting toward temporariness and instability, not only reflect the present but also foreshadow the new normal of future labor, always open to reflection and reimagination. Regardless of the changing times and architectural functions, the granary’s unique space, with its reverence for labor supremacy, always sows fertile and romantic ground for present discussions.
筒仓，算力，垂直之梦
高耸起伏的筒仓，以极强的空间意识和突破日常的建筑形式创造了全新的空间，在装载着粮食与货物的熙攘车流中，在铁路、桥梁和吊车构建起的城市里，在蓬勃生长的城市天际线下，一个巨大、垂直的直面混凝土建筑陡然矗立，与周遭的一切相映成趣。1
作为可以画廊于合肥新粮仓空间的开幕首展，“筒仓，算力，垂直之梦”始于这一特殊展览空间的建立：兴建于世纪末的筒仓由存放储备粮向当代文化内容生产的转向。空间的建筑改造与情景轮替是社会空间在功能上的转变，展览将其视作社会活动与经济发展转型的投射，具体展现新兴技术产业、算法逻辑和平台经济主导下后现代劳动力与生产关系的流转更迭，以社会关系与空间结构间的非线性联系勾勒并探讨当代城市的发展现状与面临的挑战。展览集合了12位艺术家的绘画、影像、雕塑与特定场域装置作品，剖析并回应以社会生产结构剧烈变化和由此引发的时空流动性为基调的当代社会生产关系与组织形态，希望为显现于当下，并将在未来更为普遍的社会空间实践体验提供解读、思考与处理的视角。
新粮仓的前身——安徽省机械化粮库——于1992年立项修建，作为粮食收购、储存、加工、商贸的集合体促进粮食储备与流通，回应了当时的社会情境与诉求。如今，6个粮食筒仓作为工业遗产被再利用为艺术空间，新粮仓亦在城市更新中重筑为文化商业的新场域。如列斐伏尔在《空间的生产》中指出，社会空间是社会关系的生产和再生产，是劳动关系与社会形态对象化于现实之中的投射，因而社会空间“随着生产方式（mode de production）的改变而改变”，以第二自然的方式映射了经济转型。2 粮仓空间功能的轮替象征微观社会生活场境的转变，成为社会实践变化的表征。仍然残存着稻谷壳的混凝土墙壁筑就了记录时代变迁的纪念碑，粮仓本身的建筑质性与意义也随之成为揭示空间的社会与生产变革的索引。宛超前以家用电器定义的家居空间提供现代生活的画像，关注技术发展对空间与生活经验的重塑。陈拍岸以数码绘画与微喷还原现代场景光滑的工业产品质感，借科技传达新的风格化空间视觉体验。它们是现代化生产结果的敏锐见证，与粮仓类似，无论其形式功能之更替，始终处理并帮助理解着社会生产关系中的主要问题。
然而，虽生产方式将社会关系投射于现实空间，这一现实又反作用于社会关系，两者间始终不存在一种直接的、即刻的、能迅速被掌握的透明化联系或决定关系。3 如松郎将生活物品作为心理映射，间离式地异化生活末枝处的惯常经验以展现人与其生存空间的意外联系；李涛通过对工业材料和现成品的重构、挪用和再造，思考城市空间在集体主义规划与个体选择间的矛盾统一，人的社会性处境作为上述关系的交点，其复杂性乃至自反性作为重要属性影射于展览置身的城市空间中，亦反映了当代劳动与生产关系的重要议题。
新粮仓所处的合肥依高新技术飞速发展，以新能源汽车、智能制造、半导体领域的产业转型形成了实践着“新质生产力”的完整产业链。与此同时，算法管理下的零工经济生计部门（Subsistence）与以高精尖产业为代表的现代部门共存，劳动力始终面对着分散、不连续的二元经济结构。4 李昕頔以外卖货架临时的空间延伸对照端正稳固的家具，指涉过渡性就业灵活不稳定的处境。后福特主义（Post-Fordism）的弹性在平台经济组织结构中加剧，当代劳动模式在算法经济下的全面数字化和智能化使过去对劳动力的控制转为对劳动本身点状连接式的远程控制，劳动力的可替代性增强，流动性也加快，5 如经傲的雕塑中材料物质性在不同环境中偶然转化与发生，随机潜能与高度控制间总存在复杂的动态。由此，零工经济不仅是当代劳动与生产关系中的迫切问题，亦在算法的文化实践中重塑了全然不同的社会关系和文化景观。6 李关帅以人性与神性间的摇摆博弈刻画复杂、残缺、对抗的普遍境遇；任莉莉则通过生物学诠释幻想人与非人的共性混淆，瓦解人类中心主义，即是对当代社会不稳定性的超验阐释。
当社会经济结构与劳动关系越发复杂化、灵活化、分散化，面对难以掌握的隐匿性组织化结构，邢万里以碎片化元素重组电子时代图像、文字、记忆的虚拟现实；李喷泉将超验瞬间转化为神秘荒诞的自我言语；龚斌以精神游历为线索描绘幻想中的景观，精神的偶然滑脱与算法想象成为了挖掘主体性空间、回应迥然社会空间体验的方法。谢林佑集人工智能、多元文化背景下的移民潮、电子游戏和散文诗的超现实，描绘出反乌托邦的虚幻世界而指向未来。以城市空间重构与社会生产间的复杂关系为引，后现代劳动力与社会生产关系向临时性、不稳定性的变迁不仅反映当下，更预示着未来劳动形式的新常态，永远开放予反思和再想象。无论时代变化抑或建筑功用更迭，粮仓这一特殊空间对劳动至上的尊重，终为当下讨论的伊始奠定着丰沃且浪漫的象征。
- 1 Adapted from Erich Mendelsohn’s description of grain elevators when he visited Buffalo City in 1942, from Miriam Kelly, Following Function: Putting the Industrial Buildings that Inspired the Modernist Movement Back to Work.
- 2 Henri Lefebvre, La Production de L’Espace, 1974.
- 3 ibid.
- 4 Temin, Peter. The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy. MIT Press, 2018.
- 5 Ping Sun, Transitional Labour, 2024.
- 6 ibid.
Ghost Dance
In Archive Fever, Derrida traces the etymology of “archive,” and argues that one of its meanings originates from the Greek word arkheion—referring to magistrate’s or ruler’s house, the place where official documents were stored, and as the locus of authority.[1] Traditionally, the archive, as part of the “commence–command” structure, points to violent, centralized governance and interpretation. However, Derrida points out that the archive is also a dynamic paradox, a specter suspended among past, present, and future. The impulse to archive stems from humanity’s “life instinct” to counteract the transience of life and extend history by preserving objects as tangible memories. Conversely, “death drive” reveals the archive’s self-destructive tendencies.[2] In the cyclical contradiction of ongoing archival construction and destruction, continuous evolution and regeneration of meanings give rise to the “anarchive.” Thus, archive is not a static collection of texts, images, or objects but a state of perpetual transformation, summoning the “ghostly” unfinished. While archives, as carriers of power discourse, obscure marginalized communities, their ongoing evolution may activate alternative narratives to deconstruct themselves as a persistence between life and death, resisting the structural amnesia inherent in the term’s original etymology.
When globalization and modernity lead to the discreteness of time and space, social connections are extended beyond local contexts into vast stretches of time-space by geographical migration and information flow.[3] “Diaspora” becomes a norm, with people scattering, migrating, and resettling in different geographical spaces. Geographer Alison Blunt points out that “diaspora” is essentially a geographical concept, where community diaspora inherently involves a double rupture of identity and geographical space.[4] If this rupture once constructed and nearly realized the globalization dream through transnational flows, in the increasingly polarized world today, fragmented diasporic experiences have, however, turned right into a dual loss of self-identity and geographical belonging. Archival violence festers within the fissures of fragmentation, further silencing the voices of the diasporic to be lost and buried in the shifting fractures of time and space. Yet, the remnants of archive intertwine with memories that have not entirely vanished, coexisting as specters, persistently unsettling the unresolved threads. Revisiting archival and historical sites amid the entanglements of diaspora, archives, and geographical spaces offers an opportunity for an archaeological rediscovery of the past, informed by the understanding of the present. It may traverse time and build a revisitable spatial-temporal site for reconstructing individual and collective narratives, providing a brief respite from the disorientation and unease of migration.
Based on this possibility of dynamic reproduction, artists use images as language and blueprint, re-examine existing archival materials, and enter the fields where the events took place, attempting to link the concretized historical facts with current life, while continuously scrutinizing and inquiring into the dialectical relationship between the two. Starting from a group photo, Lee Kai Chung imagines and weaves the identity dislocation and power dynamics of diasporic history through site visits and filming. In the project A Chinese Question, Andong Zheng continuously visits the relics of the Transcontinental Railroad and mining towns in the American West, using archival research to document and reconstruct the often-overlooked history of Chinese laborers in American society. Juxtaposing official records and family photographs in moving images, Hester Yang reveals the hidden history of the compulsory deportation of Chinese laborers in post-war Liverpool and explores its resulting intergenerational trauma. Carô Gervay connects her photographic practice across Vietnamese archives and social organizations in the UK and France through independent ethnography, exploring the complexity of collective archiving and identity in cross-cultural contexts. Yang-En Hume collects anonymous portraits of women from European flea markets and recreates through hand-sewn collages their obscured features, neglected by history, offering a gentle alternative imagination of diaspora. As these research and creations generate new discourses, the ongoing archiving and overwriting recall and renunciate marginalized narratives, where transcontinental diasporic histories become heterochronic references for the present.
Documentary field and archival studies problematize the gaps in institutional archiving and reveal the inherent power relations of imagery that parallel the archival system. Although photography carries evidential expectations due to its indexical nature of directly recording reality through technology, the photographer always selectively intervenes and reconstructs reality based on his or her role and perception. Images can be reproduced and rearranged in new contexts, given preconceived meanings, and re-involved in specific discourses. When images’ commitment to the authenticity of memory is invalidated, and archives cannot be objectively perpetuated, they can only transform into ghosts wandering between space and time—as both inscription and confiscation of memory, preoccupying the future by confiscating the past.[5]
When artistic deconstruction turns to the medium of imagery itself and takes as its departure an intimate connection across migratory routes, it essentially ruptures the traditional archive to the point of abolishing the meaning of objective reality. Image archive extends from the phenomenology of the hauntological experience of discrete encounters to the spectral nature of the medium itself, evoking an emotional aura for both creator and viewer. Roland Barthes describes “punctum” as a moment of emotional resonance of an image that penetrates the “studium”—the analytical cultural understanding—to the level of irrational perception.[6] Camille Carbonaro and Christine Chung, through their similar collection of family photographs and documents, excavate and imagine genealogical maps, each narrating the hauntological qualities and complex emotions of Mediterranean and East Asian cultures within their lives. Laura Chen weaves into the collage montage of the family album her father’s oral history of her unknown grandfather, tracing her Dutch-Chinese identity where intimate emotions, memories, and narratives of personal archive, along with family history, redefine objective, rational classifications of archiving. At its core, this might not be a subjective reaction to archival violence[7] or deconstruction of power, but it is precisely due to intimate nostalgia and reminiscence, that the amnesia of official records has given rise to contemporary personal archives, wherein subjectively re-archived material and discourse point toward the persistent apparition of future digital ghosts, sustaining emotional connections and memory reconstruction within diaspora experiences.
The memorial reconfiguration of family migration and the self-overwriting of archival images imply the coexistence of spectral experiences in both diasporic experiences and archival mediums. It is not eternal, but rather an enduring iterative haunting of ephemerality. As media archaeologists Garnet Hertz and Jussi Parikka raise the concept of “zombie media”—It never dies, but rather persists as “living-deads”; “They decay, rot, reform, remix, and get historicized, reinterpreted, and collected.”[8] Using archives as blueprints, Ance Janevica expands memories and imaginations of cultural heritage through the multi-sensory experiences promised by contemporary technology, freeing the data regeneration of history from the dual confinement of archival violence and digital rationality.
At the intersection of technology circuits, diasporic experience, and image archives, all that was once inscribed is dismantled into a heterochronic genealogy, living with specters in an anti-archaeological, anti-chronical, and even anti-archival guise—a productive opening of meaning pointing towards an unformulated future.[9] Tianyi Zheng captures the state of existence exiled in the in-between, freezing the suspended identity that drifts between memory and imagined futures. Meanwhile, Beichen Zhang directly features “ghosts” as characters in his film, whose ever-changing appearances in the pursuit of historical questions become the eternal companions of those seeking truth within the cracks of time and space. The image is once again deconstructed and archived, as the inherent archival tendency toward self-forgetting and reconstruction; Dance of ghosts weaves hidden emotional threads from the diasporic schema, where lived experiences transcend time and space, reinterpreted in a silent dialogue.
Ultimately, all the images within archives, or related to archives, will once again form the archive of "Ghosts Dance," with countless perceptions of sound and light transforming into new images and textual data—How will media archaeology, as a dynamic archival medium, archive itself in the post-digital age? As new ghosts wander through the exhibition’s time and space, the archival images oscillating between creation and dissolution, reflect human anxiety about existence while responding to a yearning for the future. Through relentless self-archaeology and regeneration, these images, in their endless dance with ghosts, open up infinite reflections on space-time, memory, and identity.
幽灵舞
德里达在《档案热》中追溯档案的词源，其中一层意义源于希腊语中的 “arkheion”——特指执政官和最高法官的房屋，意味着储存官方文件的地点，亦是权威的起源[1]。传统意义上的档案作为“起源-特权”结构中的一环，指向暴力性、中心化的管理和阐释。但德里达随即指出，档案更是动态的矛盾体，如幽灵悬置在过去、现在和未来之间。记档的冲动来自人类的“生本能 (life instinct) ”，意图通过保留物件作为记忆的实体，对抗生命的消逝，延续历史，而相对的“死亡驱力 (death drive) ”，提示着档案同时也具有自毁倾向[2]。在不断建档和毁灭其物质存在的循环矛盾中，意义生成并迭代，引发“无档案” (anarchive)；由此，档案并非文本、图像与物件的静态组合，而是在永恒的变动中召唤着“幽灵”般的未完成性。若作为权力话语载体的档案将边缘群体隐匿，则其持续的更迭便得以激活替代性的叙事来消解自身，作为一种生与死之间的续存，对原词义带来的结构性失忆形成抵抗。
当全球化与现代性引发时间与空间的分离，地理的迁徙和信息流动将社会联结从地方性的场域中延伸至无限的时空地带[3]，人们在不同的地理空间中分散、迁移和再定居，“离散” (diaspora) 成为一种常态。地理学家艾莉森·布朗特 (Alison Blunt) 指出：“离散”本质上是一个地理概念，社群离散总包含着身份认同与地理空间的双重断裂[4]。如果说这一断裂曾构筑并无限接近了跨国流动的全球化理想，在世界格局日益分化的当下，碎片化的离散经验则右转为自我认同与地理归属的双重迷失。档案暴力便在碎片的罅隙中作祟，越发弱化离散者的声音，直至它遗失湮没于流动的时空断层中。而残存的记档与未曾完全消逝的记忆交织在场，伴生为时空中的幽灵，仍然搅动着未解的线索。在离散、档案、地理空间的纠葛间重访档案与历史现场，基于此刻的认识对过往进行再“考古”，或能以跨越时间的方式，为个体与集体的叙事重构可再访的域限空间，以短暂安置迁移中的迷失与不安。
基于动态再生产的可能，艺术家以影像为语言和蓝本，重新审视现有的档案资料，并进入事件发生的田野，试图链接既定的史实与当下生活，并持续地审视与追问二者的辩证关系。从一张合照出发，李继忠通过实地走访与拍摄，想象并编织出一段离散历史中的身份错置与权力动态。郑安东在项目《中国问题》 (A Chinese Question) 中基于档案研究持续走访美国西部太平洋铁路遗迹与矿业小镇，以影像鉴证并重建华人劳工在美国社会中常被淡化的历史。杨越乔通过动态影像并置官方记录与家庭相片，揭示战后利物浦华人海员遭强制驱逐的被隐史实及其引发的代际创伤。Carô Gervay以摄影串联英法越南档案馆与社会组织的实践，探讨跨文化语境中集体记档与身份认同的复杂关系。Yang-En Hume在欧洲跳蚤市场收集匿名的女性肖像，并由手工缝纫揉合拼接她们因被历史忽视而模糊的面貌，以柔软语调重述对离散的替代性想象。当这些调研与创作催生出新的话语体系，持续的记档与覆写召回并重申了边缘化的叙事，大陆间的离散历史成为此刻经验的异时参考。
纪实性的田野与档案研究问题化了机构存档中的空白，同时揭示了影像内容所固有的、与档案系统并行的权力关系。尽管摄影因为具有通过技术直接记录现实的索引性 (indexical) 而承载着证据性的期待，但拍摄者总是基于其角色与认知选择性地介入和重构现实。影像可以在新语境中被复制、编排，赋予预设意义后再次卷入特定的话语。倘若图像对于记忆真实性的承诺已然失效，档案亦无法客观永续，它们唯有化作徘徊在时空之间的幽灵——是记忆的铭刻，也是记忆的没收，通过收缴过去预先占据未来[5]。
而当艺术解构关注影像媒介本身，并以跨越迁移始末的亲密联结为出发点，它便在本质上与传统档案形成断裂，以至取消了客观真实的意义。影档由离散经验中幽灵体验的现象学蔓延为其媒介本身的幽灵性，唤起创作者和观者的情感灵韵。罗兰·巴特 (Roland Barthes) 用「刺点」 (punctum) 形容图像引发情感共鸣的瞬间，其穿透「知面」 (studium)——即分析性的文化认识，进入非理性的感知层次[6]。Camille Carbonaro与Christine Chung 默契地通过收集家族相片及文件，考古并想象血脉地图，分别叙述了地中海与东亚文化在她们生活中的幽灵属性与对其的复杂情感。Laura Chen将父亲口述的祖父人生经历编织入家庭相片的拼贴蒙太奇，探寻自己的荷籍华裔身份，家庭历史及个人记档中的亲密情感、回忆和叙事重新定义了以客观理性为特点的分类学。其核心并非对过往档案暴力的主观反动和权力解构[7]，但正因亲密的怀旧与惦念，官方记档所引发的失忆 (amnesia) 得以促生当代私人影档，被主观拆解后归档的物证与话语，指向未来数据幽灵的持续显影，维系着离散经验中的情感联结与记忆再生。
家庭迁移的回忆重构与档案影像的自我覆写意味着幽灵体验在离散经验与档案媒介中共存，它并非永恒，而是转瞬即逝之物的持续迭代萦绕。如媒介考古学者加内特·赫兹 (Garnet Hertz) 和尤西·帕里卡 (Jussi Parikka) 提出“僵尸媒介” (zombie media) 的概念：它永远不会死亡，而是作为“活死者” (living-dead) ，如幽灵般顽固地续存：“它们会衰败、腐烂、移形、重组，并被历史化、被重新解释、被收集起来[8]。”Ance Janevica以旧档为蓝本，依托当代技术允诺的全方位感官体验拓展有关文化遗产的记忆与想象，历史的数据化再生得以摆脱存档暴力和数字理性的双重禁锢。
在技术回路、离散经验、影像档案的交集之处，曾被铭刻的一切拆散为异时性系谱，以反考古学、反编年史观乃至反档案的样貌与幽灵共存，将意义开放予未定的未来[9]。郑天依以被放逐于中间地带的存在状态，定格在回忆与未来想象间飘荡悬置的身份处境。张北辰则直接将“幽灵”作为影片中的人物，以其在历史追问中不断更替的面貌，成为当下追忆者在时空裂缝中寻求真相的永恒伴随。影像又一次的解构与记档，如档案本身的自我遗忘与重构倾向，幽灵之舞从离散的图谱中勾连起隐秘的情感脉络，跨越时空的生命经历在无声的对话中被重新解读。
而最终，所有档案中的影像，或关于档案的影像，将又一次构成“幽灵舞”的档案，千万种对声与光的感知再度化为新的图像和文字数据——后数字时代下，媒介考古影像作为动态归档的媒介又将如何归档其自身？当新的幽灵于展览的时空中飘荡，在生成与消解间游移的档案影像既映射了人类对存在的焦虑，也回应着对未来的渴望。通过不断的自我考古与再生成，它们在与幽灵共舞的无尽循环中，开启关于时空、记忆与身份的无限反思。
- [1] Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 1-4.[2] Ibid. [3] Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 19-21[4] Alison Blunt, “Geographies of Diaspora and Mixed Descent: Anglo-Indians in India and Britain,” International Journal of Population Geography 9, no.1 (2003): 282.[5] De Baecque, Antoine, Thierry Jousse, and Peggy Kamuf. “Cinema and Its Ghosts: An Interview with Jacques Derrida.” Discourse 37, no.1-2 (2015): 39.[6] Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, trans. Richard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), 25-6.[7] Derrida, Archive Fever, 7.[8] Garnet Hertz and Jussi Parikka, “Zombie Media: Circuit Bending Media Archaeology into an Art Method,” Leonardo 45, no.5 (2012): 429-30.[9] Colin Davis, “Hauntology, Spectres and Phantoms,” French Studies 59, no.3 (2005): 377, 379.