Archive Fever, and The Historical A Priori And The Archive both made zero sense to me.
In the case of Archive Fever, I felt as if I was reading something completely foreign – the author did not seem to want to make his point very clear. The allusions to Freud and the Classics may indicate the author’s education level, but did little to convey anything to someone, like myself, who did not spend years studying those subjects. I have no comments on the reading as I got nothing out of it.
The Historical A Priori And The Archive was a little more readable, but still did not convey its point clearly (or at all), and as such, I have no comments on it either.
As a general comment on these sorts of readings, it feels as if the authors purposely shroud their text in pompous language, so that the only readers who might understand the texts are fellow academics with similar knowledge bases. While it may be that this language is essential to convey the exact points and feelings the author is trying to make, it does nothing to help anyone else understand what they are trying to say.
Archiving a Revolution in the Digital Age, Archiving as an Act of Resistance and Reading an Archive: Photography Between Labor and Capital were much more enjoyable reads, just by virtue of them being readable.
I like how Baladi gives a history of and context around the protests during the Arab Spring, and helped me better understand exactly how technological advances of social media and mobile telephony helped fuel and make feasible such a large-scale protest.
I also liked how Sekula brought up interesting points about the significance of context for understanding the power of images, and archives. Both the context of which the image is presented, and the viewer itself, can completely change the meaning and feeling of a photograph. With archival, this context can be warped, or even stripped away. reducing photographs from images, to just pure visual information.