While reading Aasamn’s Saving Private Reels, I’m interested in the four successive archival frameworks: archive relating to the state-an institution of power; archive representing a more historical perspective on the nature of records; archive reflecting society more than before in all its pluralism, diversity, contingent nature; archive collecting documents about the inner life of people. The archives, though evolving separately from raw materials to digital memories in these four different stages, reveal themselves in a way of embracing the four frameworks together with the help of modern technology. The definitions by UNESCO that explains the considerations about the moving images as an archiving tool impressed me a lot as well. The technology has made it possible for films and videos to establish the cultural identity of the public and to “form an integral part of a nation’s cultural heritage”. Storing the moving images, as an important part of digital memory, has reconstructed the way we record our history and culture and built up a new form to voice for the ideas and thoughts not only by professional archivists but also by ourselves, which seems like a victory of “democratic spirit”.

What Ernst has discussed is thought-provoking for me: “…the technology is not an archive”, for “Net archives are a function of their software and transmission protocols rather than of content, to which technology is indifferent” (Ernst). Actually, Aasam also comes up with the similar idea that“…further consideration should be given to recent shifts in memory recording practice and memory archiving practice”. On social network, like Facebook, YouTube or Instagram, people prefer to upload audio or video record to track their lives, which are much more vivid and direct than texts, but not all of these records, in my opinion, can’t be regarded as archive, for a certain number of videos are uploaded just out of personal preference and interest. Only by collecting in a logical and technological way, can these self-made multimedia become a rich resource for researchers.

Aasman argues that films go through a long time shifting from collectible items to archives, during which people need to “be willing to hand over their personal material, and archives” and “be willing to accept intimate images that may directly represent public historical events”. It is true that we have to face these problems, while posting the videos of ourselves. Basic historical perspectives on archives and technology skills are both needed in order to better archive the history we live through. My understanding is that it seems that there is still a long way to go to achieve the goal of “archive now makes itself responsible for safekeeping our culture and identity ‘and personal and collective memory” by Aasman, which is presumed to be a whole new dynamic concept of archives.

I’m curious about Ernst’s words “the archival regime is being extended from text to audiovisual data…this extension changes and dissolves the very nature of the archival regime”, which inspires me to reconsider the “nature of archival regime”: namely, does this kind of nature really exist in spite of the developing method of archive? Or the nature of archival regime change itself as time goes by?