Personally, I disagree with the end result of Tercerunquinto’s analysis. While Langton’s history is important, not as nostalgia but as the foundation for the context under which we engage new artists and produce new projects, the physical archive has little to do with that history in psychological terms. That history has been documented in several publications and has resurfaced in exhibitions which think forward while understanding the evolution of the past (not just of Langton’s past but of the trajectory which has formed various types of practices both locally and internationally).

In truth, Langton, doesn’t have the space or appropriate facilities to house archival material of any sort for extended amounts of time. The archive is inaccessible to almost everyone and therefore exists, even now as more of a psychological space than an actual resource. For this reason, the archive would be in better hands elsewhere, and Tercerunquinto has successfully pushed the conversation of the archive’s future life to the fore in a non-profit that tends to move slowly where questions of identity and possession are concerned.

What continues to concern me though is the assertion that the archive itself is the most valuable asset Langton has, and that it forms the core of Langton’s identity. I find this assertion to be dangerous in that it strays our emphasis from what I believe to be the core of Langton’s identity which is the production of new, experimental works. It is artists and curators who push Langton and who continue to mold and remold the institution from within.