Position of the Memories and Knowledge

What is the purpose of the photography? Depending on the profession or the situation, or even the devices. It can be various. Most of the time, especially with my phone , I take photos to remember the moment that I was there, or I found something to remain as a resource. Where is it mostly? In this case, iPhones GPS — places function is efficient to show where mostly I’ve taken the photo. It doesn’t show purpose of it, but at least it reveals where I’ve been most.

When I checked the photo again on the “places,” I realised two places where I most took the photography. Camden and White City. Almost 3000 pictures at the Camden area in two years and 1400 pictures at the white city area in a half year. If we think that memory is a montage of the images in some moment, then maybe this GPS images can represent my memories in one area without the purpose. How can I describe this memory? Although there are slight subjective meaning on each of the pictures, mostly it is based on the GPS data by the software. This collective data can be a knowledge? How’s different between the knowledge and memory?


  • Photo and Video together
  • Composition
  • Can it be Live? (Maybe through Insta? ➡︎ Is that possible to upload image automatically by location?)
  • Architectural Memory? Is that space?


Frank Stella

Hyena Stomp 1962 Frank Stella born 1936 Purchased 1965 http://www.tate.org.uk/art/work/T00730

# 202003091517 — Archaeology of Knowledge

Reference: Foucault, Michel, ‘Introduction’, in Archaeology of Knowledge (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013), pp. 3–19


  • For many years now historians have preferred to turn their attention to long periods, as if…the movements of accumulation and slow saturation, the great silent, motionless bases that traditional history has covered with a thick layer of events.


  • Recurrent redistributionsreveal several pasts, several forms of connexion, several hierarchies of importance, several networks of determination, several teleologies, for one and the same science, as its present undergoes change: thus historical descriptions are necessarily ordered by the present state of knowledge, they increase with every transformation and never cease, in turn, to break with themselves (in the field of mathematics, M. Serres has provided the theory of this phenomenon).
  • Lastly, the most radical discontinuities are the breaks effected by a work of theoretical transformation ‘which establishes a science by detaching it from the ideology of its past and by revealing this past as ideological’.
    • L. Althusser, For Marx, London, Allen Lane; New York, Pantheon, 1969, p. 168.


  • In short, the history of thought, of knowledge, of philosophy, of literature seems to be seeking, and discovering, more and more discontinuities, whereas history itself appears to be abandoning the irruption of events in favour of stable structures.


  • scholars have asked not only what these documents meant, but also whether they were telling the truth, and by what right they could claim to be doing so, whether they were sincere or deliberately mis- leading, well informed or ignorant, authentic or tampered with.
  • the document was always treated as the language of a voice since reduced to silence, its fragile, but possibly decipherable trace.
  • history is the work expended on material documentation (books, texts, accounts, registers, acts, buildings, institutions, laws, techniques, objects, customs, etc.) that exists, in every time and place, in every society, either in a spontaneous or in a consciously organised form.


  • To be brief, then, let us say that history,
    • in its traditional form, undertook to ‘memorize’ the monumentsof the past, transform them into documents,
    • in our time, history is that which transforms documentsinto monuments.


  • Documents ➡︎ Monuments
    • First consequences
      • The proliferation of discontinuities in the history of ideas, and the emergence of long periods in history proper.
      • In the traditional form: it was simply a question of defining the position of each element in relation to the other elements in the series.
      • The problem now is to constitute series: to define the elements proper to each series, to fix its boundaries, to reveal its own specific type of relations
    • Second consequences
      • The notion of discontinuity assumes a major role in the historical disciplines.
      • For history in its classical form, the discontinuous was both the given and the unthinkable
      • Discontinuity was the stigma of temporal dislocation that it was the historian’s task to remove from history. It has now become one of the basic elements of historical analysis. Its role is threefold.
    • Third consequence
      • total historybegin to disappear, and we see the emergence of something very different that might be called a general history
    • Fourth and last consequence
      • The new history is confronted by a number of methodological problems, several of which, no doubt, existed long before the emergence of the new history, but which, taken together, characterize it.


  • All these problems are now part of the methodological field of history.
    • First, because one can see to what extent it has freed itself from what constituted, not so long ago, the philosophy of history, and from the questions that it posed (on the rationality or teleology of historical development (devenir), on the relativity of historical knowledge, and on the possibility of discovering or constituting a meaning in the inertia of the past and in the unfinished totality of the present).
    • Secondly, because it intersects at certain points problems that are met with in other fields – in linguistics, ethnology, economics, literary analysis, and mythology, for example.