artists and the film archive: re-creation—or archival replay
TRANSCRIPT
ORI GIN AL PA PER
Artists and the film archive: re-creation—or archivalreplay
Rachel Bracha
Published online: 5 July 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Artistic engagement with the archive is on the increase and takes many
forms. Archive-based artwork does not always contain or display its archival
source. However, in some cases the archives themselves—rather than the infor-
mation or evidence they hold—are utilised to form part or all of the work. This is
particularly true where visual and audiovisual records are used creatively. The
archival record is thus interpreted and re-created, giving rise to potential tensions
and discord. Focusing on the film archive—and in particular on documentary film
originally created and collected for the purpose of recording and accountability—
the paper addresses this act of creative interpretation and re-creation. Firstly, it
considers the use of archives in the creation and/or destabilisation of national
identity and collective memory. Specifically, it examines the re-use of visual
evidence of the Holocaust and its aftermath. Among others, it discusses the work
of artist Eyal Sivan, whose use of archival material from the trial of Nazi war
criminal Adolf Eichmann has caused great controversy. Secondly, Walter Benja-
min’s concept of aura and its application to archives is used to highlight the
conflict that such forms of creative engagement may bring to the archival arena
and to questions concerning the role and responsibility of the archivist as access
provider or gate keeper.
Keywords Art � Film archives � Collective memory � Identity � Aura � Holocaust
Introduction
During the late twentieth century, a strand of visual art practice that engages with
the archive has evolved. Artists have used the archive to explore a wide range of
R. Bracha (&)
CAIS, University of Dundee, Tower Building, Dundee, Scotland, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141
DOI 10.1007/s10502-012-9181-6
topics, including culture, identity, memory and collecting, social systems and
politics. Their contribution to culture and society, and consequently to the formation
of our collective memory, is therefore significant.
Artistic engagement with the archive broadly fits into three main categories,
which inevitably, often overlap: (1) artist as archivist, (2) artist as archive user, and
(3) artist as archive theorist/commentator. Each of these has been manifested in
numerous combinations, resulting in thought-provoking commentary on our past
and the way that society and its institutions deal with it. Some examples: in
Enthusiasts: archive artists researched and collected films produced by amateur film
clubs in Poland under socialism. They then restored and digitised the films and
created a searchable online archive of them, available under a Creative Commons
licence (Lewandowska and Cummings 2004). A later project, Screen Tests, saw
artists using material from several UK regional film archives, the British Library
Sound Archive and the Library of Congress to create new artworks (Lewandowska
et al. 2006). Finally, The Wiener Library (London) fits into the third category
involving consideration of the archive as concept and as institution in its own right
(Orlow 2000, 2006).
This paper will focus mainly on the second category of artists who use archives
as source material in their artwork. Firstly, it will consider the creative use of
archives in the ongoing formation of national identity and collective memory within
the context of the Holocaust and its aftermath. Secondly, it will use Walter
Benjamin’s concept of aura and its application to archives to highlight the conflict
that this practice may bring to the archival arena and to questions concerning the
role and responsibility of the archivist as access provider or gate keeper.
Art, the archive and the holocaust
There are countless examples in the literature of artists working with archives
(Spieker 2008; Enwezor 2008; Merewether 2006; Connarty and Lanyon 2006;
Mokhtari 2004; von Bismarck et al. 2002; Schaffner and Winzen 1998) and
numerous examples of artists working in this particular area relating to the
Holocaust and its memory (Gibbons 2009; Bathrick et al. 2008; Guerin and Hallas
2007; Hornstein et al. 2003; Apel 2002; Kleeblatt 2001; Zelizer 2001). In the last
few decades, artists have played a significant role in the representation of the
Holocaust. Dora Apel (2002) refers to them as ‘secondary witnesses’ who do not
witness the Holocaust—and the past—directly, but instead bear witness to its
‘memory effects’ as filtered through the prism of the present.
Susan Hiller and Jeffrey Wolin are two artists who broadly fit into the first
category of ‘archiving/collecting artists’. In the J Street Project, the artist
researched and documented all 303 streets in Germany whose name contains a
reference to Jews and created a visual index of them (Hiller 2005a, b). Through his
Written in Memory photographs, Wolin (1997; Wolin nd) has effectively undertaken
an oral-history project, interviewing Holocaust survivors and creating compelling
visual records of their testimonies.
134 Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141
123
In The Writing on the Wall, ‘archive-using artist’ Shimon Attie engaged with the
history of the former Jewish quarter in Berlin. He used several municipal, state,
press and private archives firstly to conduct research and then to obtain visual
records to use in his work. Over several months, he then projected archive
photographs of the neighbourhood as it was in the 1920s and 30s, when inhabited
mainly by the orthodox Jewish community, onto the surviving buildings occupying
the same (or nearby) spaces as the archival photographs (Attie 1994). This creates a
striking visual effect, but also raises questions about the area’s history and the fate
of these former inhabitants—the ghosts of the past. It also forces an examination of
the history of the area through its buildings: what took place there after this archival
record was created? Who moved into these buildings after their Jewish inhabitants
had ‘moved out’; and under what circumstances and legal arrangements? German
society has been dealing with its painful history for over 65 years now. The
documentation is there in the archives for anyone to examine, to remember, but also
to forget. When used creatively as in this project it has a different, more immediate
affect on the collective memory. As the artist discovered, while some residents were
very interested and excited by the project, others found it unsettling, with some
becoming increasingly hostile and threatening towards the artist (Attie 1994). The
work clearly touched a nerve and arguably threatened the collective memory (and
forgetting) of some groups.
As well as affecting the collective memory of their audiences, all of these
projects have created a new, more complex, and in some cases, more comprehensive
archival record of Jewish presence and absence in Germany and of the ongoing
impact of the Holocaust on our society today.
Boaz Arad is an Israeli artist who in 2000 was the first artist to bring the visual
image of Adolf Hitler into an Israeli cultural institution outside the context of
Holocaust education and commemoration. In a series of short videos, Arad used
archive footage of Hitler’s speeches to take and exert control over what has hitherto
been taboo in Israeli society. In one of his films, Hebrew Lesson, Arad had
painstakingly dissected the film into phonetic speech blocks, which he then
reassembled to make Hitler speak Hebrew. Rather symbolically, it appears that
Hitler was quite resistant to the idea and after months of work Arad was only able to
‘drill into him’ the following brief apologetic message: ‘Shalom Jerusalem, I
apologise’ (Arad 2000a). In another film, Marcel Marcel, Hitler’s moustache has
been animated and extended to comic effect, reducing his speech to pompous, self-
indulgent rhetoric while still hinting at its venomous nature (Arad 2000b). Through
his subversion of the original content and context of the archival footage, Arad
sabotages its original function and in so doing takes ownership of this icon of evil
and legitimises its display in a cultural setting in modern-day Israel. At the same
time, viewers are forced into an uncomfortable position of experiencing being
Hitler’s captive audience. They, just like his original audience, are listening intently
and engaging with their mortal enemy. Interestingly, the response to these films
when first shown to an Israeli audience was histrionic laughter rather than outrage
(Azoulay 2003). What was up to then taboo has, through this creative and humorous
use of archives, become an acceptable representation of an event that remains a
strong undercurrent within Israeli politics and society.
Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141 135
123
Eyal Sivan’s The Specialist and archival practice
Arad’s artistic intervention with the historical record has been accepted without
causing much controversy, but this is not always the case. Commenting on the
photographic archive, Allan Sekula has observed that
In an archive, the possibility of meaning is ‘‘liberated’’ from the actual
contingencies of use. But this liberation is also a loss, an abstraction from the
complexity and richness of use, a loss of context (Sekula 1987, p. 116).
Archivists, who strive to preserve context, may have reservations about creative use
of archives when they know this may help eliminate their carefully exercised
intellectual control over the archives. Furthermore, removal of context by artists
may impact the future ‘reading’ of the original archives. As Sekula (1987) notes
‘…new meanings come to supplant old ones, with the archive serving as a kind of
‘‘clearing house’’ of meaning’. Eyal Sivan’s work is a case in point.
Sivan is a Europe-based Israeli artist who is highly critical of Israeli politics
throughout his work. The Specialist (Sivan 1999a) is a film composed entirely of
archive film footage of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, which was
held in Jerusalem in 1961. In her discussion of Holocaust representation, Apel refers
to Roger Simon’s concept of remembrance as a ‘strategic practice’ which is
‘dependent on a moralizing pedagogy’ (Apel 2002, pp. 5–7). The Eichmann trial
served as a ‘moralizing remembrance strategy’ for the Israeli government. Through
this instrument, it sought to educate the younger generation and to teach other nations
a moral lesson. It used the trial to demonstrate that only through the existence and
power of a Jewish state could the perpetrator of crimes against the Jewish people be
tried and convicted. The Specialist is Sivan’s audiovisual interpretation of the Jewish
philosopher Hannah Arendt’s textual report of the trial: Eichmann in Jerusalem: aReport on the Banality of Evil, published in book form in 1963. Arendt’s report
critically questioned some of the judicial proceedings of the trial and its ideological
premise—namely that Eichmann was a blood-thirsty monster whose crimes were
fuelled by raging antisemitism and should therefore be considered as crimes against
the Jewish people specifically, rather than against humanity as a whole. As a result,
Arendt was effectively boycotted in Israel. Eichmann in Jerusalem was not translated
and published in Hebrew until 2000, a year after The Specialist was released.
Sivan makes it clear from the outset that his intention is not to produce a
documentary of the trial, but to offer a visual interpretation of it, inspired by
Arendt’s thesis. He refers to the film as a
…courtroom drama painting the portrait of a zealous bureaucrat who has
immense respect for the Law and hierarchy, a police official responsible of the
elimination of several million people, a modern criminal (Sivan 1999b).
In an interview included in the DVD of the film, Sivan has been very candid about
his methodology, which deliberately removes the original context of the trial by
employing various editorial and visual devices. These include interfering with the
original chronological order of the trial and of its archived footage, including
witnesses’ replies to questions and interaction between defendant and prosecutor,
136 Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141
123
and adding various audiovisual and sound effects to scenes throughout the film
(Sivan 1999a; Raz 2005). Not all the effects employed by Sivan are immediately
clear as later additions. The former Director of the Steven Spielberg Jewish Film
Archive has also compared the original footage with the film and has commented
critically on Sivan’s intervention (Tryster 2007a). His examination led to an
application to Israel’s Attorney General to instigate legal proceedings against Sivan
on the grounds of forgery. The application was denied, citing freedom of expression.
The Attorney General’s office explained that
High Court of Justice rulings over the years have expanded the concept of
freedom of expression to include expression and creation dealing with
historical events, ‘‘which don’t reflect the truth’’ (Pinto 2005a).
Nevertheless, these are all intentionally designed to express the artist’s concept of
the trial vis-a-vis Arendt’s book. By removing context and denying the archival
linearity, Sivan challenges the logic of the Zionist narrative, which the trial was
originally used to reinforce. However, when it comes to removal of context from
archival material—especially archival material of a deeply sensitive nature—
Sivan’s work raises many ethical, political and professional questions. While it is
beyond the scope of this paper to explore all of these, it will focus on the role of the
archivist in this context. Is it acceptable to allow archive material to be
misrepresented out of context? Where exactly does our professional duty to defend
the moral integrity of our archives begin and end?
Tackling such questions in practice may cause tension in the relationship
between archive and user. Some archives have tried to pre-empt such conflict by
setting out clear boundaries regarding creative use of archives. For example, until
quite recently the UK’s Northern Region Film and Television Archive (NRFTA)
had a very clear policy on such use:
We promise that we will only allow… copyright material to be shown in a way
which is ‘faithful to the conceptualisation of the original’. In other words, we
will only allow footage to be re-edited and incorporated within another film or
TV programme if this is done in a way which does not give a false impression
of the style or content of the original. We believe that it is not ethically right to
allow primary historical evidence to be deliberately misinterpreted, and
occasionally we do not allow some proposed uses (NRFTA 2006a).
This statement was reinforced by the archive’s access policy and deposit agreement
documents, which were available on the archive’s website (NRFTA 2006b, c).
NRFTA has since reviewed and modified its policy documents, which now conform
to the code of ethics of the UK Film Archive Forum (FAF) and the Federation
Internationale des Archives du Film (FIAF) (NRFTA 2010). Its current access
policy states that the following restrictions may apply to access requests for
purposes deemed unethical or illegal:
We may deny access to any deposited material if, in our judgement, the
intended use would not be sensitive to the original content or to the depositor.
For example, if you wish to use footage of a political address which you then
Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141 137
123
reedit to convey a false impression of the speaker’s argument, we may deny
the request. (NRFTA 2010, p. 5).
Sivan obtained the archive footage used in The Specialist from another archive, the
Steven Spielberg Jewish Film Archive in Jerusalem, which holds all the surviving
footage of the trial. If the Steven Spielberg archive had such a policy, it could have
prevented Sivan from creating the artwork he made. But whose interest would this
have served? The above statements seem to imply that there is a ‘correct’
interpretation already inherent in primary historical material. They also suggest that
archives (and archivists!) possess both right and ability to first establish what this
‘correct’ interpretation is, and then to judge if a user has interpreted correctly.
Interference by users with (a copy of) the archival source is seen as undermining its
character and authenticity, with certain usage of parts of the original ‘whole’ seen as
ethically wrong.
Archives, aura and archival vertigo
Walter Benjamin’s notion of the aura of original artworks may help to illuminate this
line of thinking. Benjamin (1992) described the aura as comprising the authenticity
and authority of an original artwork by virtue of the context of its creation, custody
and use. His ideas resonate with archives: archivists could be seen as striving to
preserve objects with their auras intact. It has been observed that it is the aura that
imbues objects with power to resist attempts at appropriation of meaning (Claude
2002). Removal of archival context equals elimination of aura and creation of a deep
absence: what has been termed a ruinous aura (Sand 2005). Interpretation therefore
depends on a degree of loss of (original) context, which in turn is replaced by (the
interpreter’s) new contextual layers, allowing new meaning to emerge. Significantly,
information control can also give objects this power to resist appropriation of
meaning (Claude 2002). The archivist’s role inevitably involves the same projection
of power. Returning to Sekula’s (1987, p. 116) notion of the archive as a ‘clearing
house of meaning’, it is up to archivists to regulate the level of control in order to
facilitate appropriation of meaning, interpretation and creativity.
An attempt to control creative use of archives indicates a desire not only to
protect archives and their auras, but also to defend against some of the ruinous auras
that may arise from interpretation. This is clearly problematic—especially when it is
applied to reproducible copies, which Benjamin (1992) considered devoid of aura
due to their lack of historicity. It is as if by the removal of context in the derivative,
interpretive work, the user exposes the original record and its aura to some form of
cross-contamination. Alison Young (2005) has coined the term aesthetic vertigo to
denote a state where the unbearable proximity of a ‘disgusting’ artwork causes a
shuddering sensation—usually associated with sighting or contact with abject
phenomena—in the spectator. It appears that archives too can suffer ‘archival
vertigo’ when they are threatened metaphorically by potential contamination from a
‘disgusting’ interpretation or a ruinous aura. Or do the archivists who protect them
suffer it on their behalf?
138 Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141
123
Re-creation or archival replay?
The Steven Spielberg archive took issue with Sivan’s artistic re-creation. Following
the release of The Specialist, the archive’s former director, who was in office at the
time of the film’s production publicly denounced Sivan and his work, accusing him
of misleading, fabrication, dishonesty, plagiarism and forgery (Tryster 2007a, b;
Pinto 2005a, b). He and the artist have since engaged in an open, heated public
debate, acted out through the media and the blogosphere. Interestingly, the
director’s criticism was not limited to Sivan’s use of the archives but also related to
the artist’s political stance as demonstrated both in and outside the work. He
maintained that Sivan was inciting antisemitism through some of the statements he
had made in connection with the film (Tryster 2007a). This seems to transcend a
professional conflict over use of archives. There were also allegations in the media
that Sivan’s film portrayed Eichmann in a favourable light (Israel media watch
2007; Ronen 2007; Ben Gigi-Wolf 2007; Pinto 2005a). Arguably, it seems
impossible to imagine anyone watching the film getting a sense of Eichmann as a
sympathetic character or feeling empathy towards him. What this claim and the
other heated responses indicate is that the Israeli public found it difficult to accept
an (arguably still negative) view of both Eichmann the man and his historic trial that
differed from the accepted image enshrined in the nation’s collective memory.
Sivan has since argued for freedom of access to crimes-against-humanity
recorded trials to enable the possibility of narrative reconstruction and creative
interpretation. In his view, this is fundamental to a democratic process of truth
construction (Sivan 2001). The Steven Spielberg archive allowed such access to its
records and may well have regretted the decision following the controversy that
ensued. Despite this, it is not clear that the archive’s association with The Specialisthas undermined its long-term status or reputation. On the contrary, it prompted a
public debate on what has been one of the nation’s memory corner stones and in so
doing, allowed the process of memory construction to continue unhindered. Before
The Specialist, these archives were only used and replayed to cement a particular
political moralizing remembrance strategy. Sivan’s creative re-creation of archives
threatened and disrupted the collective memory and identity of Israeli society.
Arguably, it also ‘unblocked’ a memory ‘drain’ and enabled a new generation to
reconsider their collective past, history and identity. Isn’t this exactly what archives
are there to facilitate?
References
Apel D (2002) Memory effects: the holocaust and the art of secondary witnessing. Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick
Arad B (2000a) Hebrew lesson. Youtube clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_76BbM3oqMM.
Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Arad B (2000b) Marcel marcel. Youtube clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pusgUhBvI. Acces-
sed 10 Mar 2012
Attie S (1994) The writing on the wall: projections in Berlin’s Jewish quarter. Edition Braus, Heidelberg
Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141 139
123
Azoulay A (2003) The return of the repressed. In: Hornstein S, Levitt L, Silberstein LJ (eds) Impossible
images: contemporary art after the Holocaust. New York University Press, New York, pp 85–117
Bathrick D, Prager B, Richardson MD (eds) (2008) Visualizing the Holocaust: documents, aesthetics,
memory. Camden House, Rochester
Ben Gigi-Wolf N (2007) For the glory of the state of Israel? Weekly column in Hazofe newspaper.
Available on Israel’s media watch website. http://www.imw.org.il/english/article.php?id=265
[English translation]; http://www.imw.org.il/hebrew/article.php?id=309 [original Hebrew version].
Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Benjamin W (1992, first pub. 1970) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In: Arendt H
(ed) Illuminations (trans: Zohn H). Fontana Press, London, pp 211–244
Claude G (2002) After digitopia: the internet, copyright and information control. In: McClean D,
Schubert K (eds) Dear images: art, copyright and culture. Ridinghouse, London, pp 241–252
Connarty J, Lanyon J (2006) Ghosting: the role of the archive within contemporary artists’ film and video.
Picture This Moving Image, Bristol
Enwezor O (2008) Archive fever: uses of the document in contemporary art. Steidl, New York
Gibbons J (2009) Contemporary art and memory: images of recollection and remembrance, 2nd edn. I.B.
Tauris & Co Ltd, London
Guerin F, Hallas R (eds) (2007) The image and the witness: trauma, memory and visual culture.
Wallflower Press, London and New York
Hiller S (2005a) The j street project: 2002–2005. Compton Verney and DAAD, Warwickshire and Berlin
Hiller S (2005b) Index: the j street project 2002-5. Artist’s website. http://www.susanhiller.org/Info/
artworks/artworks-JStreetindex.html. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Hornstein S, Levitt L, Silberstein LJ (eds) (2003) Impossible images: contemporary art after the
Holocaust. New York University Press, New York
Israel media watch (IMW) (2007) protest letter to the Council for Cable Broadcasting and the
Rabinovitch Fund, Jerusalem. http://filesdot.imw.org.il/scans/sivan_complaint.pdf [Hebrew ver-
sion]; http://filesdot.imw.org.il/scans/sivan_compl_eng.doc [English version, which does not
include the allegation that Sivan’s film portrayed Eichmann in a favourable light]. Accessed 10 Mar
2012
Kleeblatt NL (ed) (2001) Mirroring evil: Nazi imagery/recent art. The Jewish Museum and Rutgers
University Press, New York
Lewandowska M, Cummings N (2004) Enthusiasts: archive. http://www.enthusiastsarchive.net/en/index_en.
html. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Lewandowska M, Cummings N, Simpson E, White B (2006) Screen tests. http://www.chanceprojects.
com/node/21. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Merewether C (ed) (2006) The archive. Whitechapel Gallery, London
Mokhtari S (ed) (2004) Les artistes contemporains et l’archive: interrogation sur le sens du temps et de la
memoire a l’ere de la numerisation/Contemporary artists and archives: on the meaning of time and
memory in the digital age. In: Proceedings of the symposium, PU Rennes, 7–8 Dec 2001. Saint-
Jacques de la Lande, Rennes
Northern region film and television archive (NRFTA) (2006a) Frequently asked questions: question 11.
http://www.nrfta.org.uk/faq.html#faq_q11. Available through http://web.archive.org/web/20061006
150210/http://www.nrfta.org.uk/faq.html#faq_q11. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Northern region film and television archive (NRFTA) (2006b) Access policy, 3rd revision. http://www.
nrfta.org.uk/downloads/access.pdf. Available through http://web.archive.org/web/20061006150340/
http://www.nrfta.org.uk/downloads/access.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Northern region film and television archive (NRFTA) (2006c) Agreement for the deposit of films with the
northern region film and television archive. http://www.nrfta.org.uk/downloads/deposit_ourcopy
right.pdf. Available through http://web.archive.org/web/20061006150402/http://www.nrfta.org.uk/
downloads/deposit_ourcopyright.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Northern region film and television archive (NRFTA) (2010) Access policy 2010. http://www.
nrfta.org.uk/geisha/assets/files/Access%20Policy.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Orlow U (2000) The Wiener library (London). Artist’s website. http://www.urielorlow.net/2006/01/
the-wiener-library-london/. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Orlow U (2006) Deposits. The Green Box, Berlin
Pinto G (2005a) ‘The Specialist’ is almost entirely a perverse fraud. Ha’Aretz News, Jerusalem. http://
www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/the-specialist-is-almost-entirely-a-perverse-fraud-1.148832
. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
140 Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141
123
Pinto G, Ha’Aretz Correspondent (2005b) Hebrew university: film of Eichmann trial is mainly a forgery.
Ha’Aretz News, Jerusalem. http://www.haaretz.com/news/hebrew-u-film-of-eichmann-trial-is-
mainly-a-forgery-1.148762. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Raz G (2005) Actuality of banality: Eyal Sivan’s The specialist in context. Shofar Interdisip J Jew Stud
24:4–21. doi:10.1353/sho.2005.0199
Ronen G (2007) ‘Anti-Zionist’ director chosen to promote Israel. Arutz 7: israel national news.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122203. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Sand CK (2005) Ruinous aura: from sunset boulevard to mulholland drive. In: Petersson D, Steinskog E
(eds) Actualities of aura: twelve studies of Walter Benjamin. Aarhus University Press, NSU Press,
Svanesund, pp 106–122
Schaffner I, Winzen M (eds) (1998) Deep storage: collecting, storing, and archiving in art. Prestel,
Munich and New York
Sekula A (1987) Reading an archive. In: Wallis B (ed) Blasted allegories: an anthology by contemporary
artists. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 114–127
Sivan E (1999a) The specialist: portrait of a modern criminal. Feature film DVD, including interview with
artist. Momento !, France
Sivan E (1999b) Eyal Sivan: moving images: The specialist: synopsis. Artist’s website. http://www.
eyalsivan.info/index.php?p=movingimg&id=13. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Sivan E (2001) Archive images: truth or memory. http://www.eyalsivan.info/index.php?p=written
&id=253. Accessed 10 Mar 2011
Spieker S (2008) The Big archive: art from bureaucracy. MIT Press, Cambridge
Tryster RSH (2007a) Eyal Sivan, Eichmann, lies and videotape. Posting on E Eshed’s Universe, online
blog. http://no666.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/eyal-sivan-eichmann-lies-and-videotape/. Accessed
10 Mar 2012
Tryster RSH (2007b) An honest filmmaker? http://filesdot.imw.org.il/scans/sivan_forgery_eng.pdf.
Accessed 10 Mar 2012
von Bismarck B et al (eds) (2002) Interarchive: archival practices and sites in the contemporary art field.
Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, Koln
Wolin JA (1997) Written in memory: portraits of the Holocaust. Chronicle Books, San Francisco
Wolin JA (nd) Written in memory: portraits of the Holocaust. Portfolio of images on artist’s website.
http://www.jeffreywolin.com/written.shtml. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
Young A (2005) Judging the image: art, value, law. Routledge, Milton Park
Zelizer B (ed) (2001) Visual culture and the Holocaust. The Athlone Press, London
Author Biography
Rachel Bracha is a PhD student at the University of Dundee’s Centre for Archive and Information
Studies (CAIS) and a graduate of the Centre’s MLitt programme. She also has a first degree in
photography and a Masters degree in fine art. This previous fine-arts background feeds her recent
interdisciplinary research, which has centred on the relationship between artistic practice and the archive,
focusing on access provision and intellectual property rights issues. Over the past 10 years, she has
worked as Archive Coordinator for World ORT, an international NGO. Most recently she has co-edited a
history of the organisation: Educating for life: new chapters in the history of ORT (World ORT, London,
2010).
Arch Sci (2013) 13:133–141 141
123