The method of this web page is constantly threatening to take over it's content, to become its sole content.

It is an Archive of quotations and commentaries - and Archive theory looms over all of it.

Its method is that of the Arcades Project. That is the main thing - it began with scraps of paper and categorizations of them. But the connections between them became convoluted (Convultes) too quickly.

The connections here are partially automated - the machine links the quotations as much as I do.

The singularity of the quotations is emphasized, they are not listed together on page after page, but each on its own electronic page.

Each quotation, commentary, source is on the same level as the others, none is especially foregrounded.

The narrativity of a paper, the narrativity of academic discourse, here is subjected to the same fragmentation that is subjected to language, tradition, meaning by the Parable and by the Arcades Project. Is such a fragmentary thing submissible for grading?

Would Benjamin have considered the Arcades Project finished if he had been able to put it online with this method? If I cannot finish this web page, is it nonetheless of value?

Related Fragments:
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )