Exploring through numerous digital archives online has gradually offers one a “real historical touch” with the excess and the absence of meaning of the pervasive computerized record-keeping system of the internet. (153) The digital archives have their own ways to deal with the exceeding numbers of items housing in it. As Baron argues in his book, The Archive Effect, that the search engine has now taken the position of an archon in guiding the access into the constituent documents online, a specific question on selecting, filtering and organizing the digital archives comes to my mind. (142) When the “absolute authority” of an archon has been replaced with an automatic search engine, the power has no doubt been transferred to somewhere else. People might say that the search engine is all behind the curtain—-manipulating the results showing on the pages. The search engine really does its job in selecting the items, but it certainly cannot erases the fact that the invisible hand further behind the search engine has entered into the power realm. Numerous cases have shown that some videos are intended to be listed at the top on YouTube. Change the key terms whatsoever, it might end up with the same videos on the top. For most of the cases, videos like that are related to advertising and propagandas. The ads company pays for a website to put their videos on the top just for spreading their products. Or it might be the amateur film of someone who pays for the website to advance his fame with some ambitious goal to move on the social ladder. The seemingly “democratizing” searching tool no longer holds its neutral stand. Or it might never hold it before. It strikes me that the power within the archives always functions its way be it explicit or not. As people celebrate the idea that the authoritative power finally comes to its end in the digital age, they ignore the fact that power always exits in one way or another with its transferring between hands.

 

As “democracy” of a search engine becomes gradually problematic, “conformity” seems to be another issue arouses much concern. (152) The majority of the “Gangnam style dances” videos are but parodies of the original Korean version, be it Egyptian style, farmer style, Navy style, etc. Viewers, in the split-screen, could examine the sameness of the way the performers shake their arms, raise their legs and spin their hands. Apparently it does not do the performers justice if the singularities of their movement are erased completely. They certainly have their own unique features within themselves. Their differences exist in their precise similarities. (149) This has no doubt advanced the statement of the recognizable conformity among the individuals of the world despite their races, ethnicities and classes. (152) It appears to me that the culture industry still sweeps the world with its ever-present and ever-pervasive power. People make their own choices to conform with certain fashion patterns because they want desperately to fit in. The miraculous charm of the digital archive certainly resides in the way it shows conformity in a split-screen, which is unknown to the generation before. The four small windows shockingly manifest the movements of different groups of people, reveals how powerful the mode of fashion can influence people and how eagerly the performers aspire to go with the wind. The strong visual contrasts among them certainly worth a thousand words to say out aloud the fashion of today. No more need to be talked about on the topic of “Gangnam style”, the eyes of the viewers can detect it themselves. This is what the physical archive cannot achieve in the former times with only texts and old photos. It evidently shows the powerful function of the digital archive in unfolding the social scenes and emphasizing on the social issues.

 

One thing seems ironical to me is that the videos entitled as the “parodies of Gangnam style” laugh at the fashion of the dances of the original version as well as their own. Those who come up with their parodies with the “Gangnam style dance” have already given the dance itself the rewards. You would probably not make a parody to something that does not hit the fashion. The fact the performers imitate the singers of “Gangnam style dance” means that they really think this dance is something to them. But still they make up their mind to mimicry the dance and direct their sarcasm to the so-called fashion. They do not realize that they have already formed another “fashion” to be laughed at. They are doing exactly what somebody else is doing. They do not single themselves out by the way. There exists nothing creative in their parody dance. This could be particularly shown from the split-screen of the movements almost at the same pace with each other. The “sense of the digital archive” can also be clearly detected from this moment of fashion parody. (147)