What is an "original"? Why and how must we preserve "originals"? This paper will be a search for an answer to this troublesome question.
  First I would like to confirm the meaning of "original" and "originality". These words signify many different meanings, but they are generally understood as: "the first," "the true or proper," "unique" and "sole or only".
  Of those four meanings, the two definitions - "the first" and "unique" - stand as the signposts of what we today conceive of as "original". The emphasis on a return to the "first" state can be found in 19th century historiography established by Schleiermacher and Dilthey. Modern aesthetic theory, which highly values the creative act of the artist as a genius, planted the seed of sublime value for the "unique" in the hearts of mankind.
  However, from the latter half of the 20th century, cracks began to appear in the previously unassailable supremacy of the "original" amidst the great upheaval caused by the re-evaluation of the "modern". Similarly, advances in technology have prompted the further reconsideration of the "sole or only" nature of the original. Such phenomena as the "reinstatement of replication" and the "collapse of the myth of the original" have been discussed in my paper in the journal Studies in Western Art No. 11 (published by Sangensha, 2004). For example, some researchers address the history of reception, focusing on the "re-use" and "collection" of works after they were made; some examine the characteristics of arts in Asia and so-called "Third World" countries by distancing themselves from western aesthetics; and others turn their attention to the actual practices of visual culture in the realm of subcultures and replica arts, which have long been regarded as minor and inferior in comparison to the realm of mainstream "original" cultures. This tendency is becoming increasingly evident in the West and other parts of the world.
  Thus we might ask, is the issue of the "original" no longer a problem? That is not the case. Even in today's ongoing paradigm shift, we are still required to positively accept the past as single individuals who receive and interpret it and to continue to clarify the "true veracity" of the past without beautification or exaggeration. Further, the unavoidable selection or abandonment that occurs in the act of reception, the impossibility in relativizing the material attraction of the work, and the actual limitations embodied in reproduction technology all remain as problems not easily solved.
  Given these circumstances, all manner of things are expected from archives. However, an archive's fundamental mission is not the provision of clear imagery produced by superior technology or the enactment of an "original" with a sense of presence. As can be clearly seen in a tracing of the linguistic roots of the term, "archives" originally denote publicly shared resources. An archive goes beyond a simple gathering of records; it supports the publicness of the collective memory that we develop through our subjective act of editing and compiling of history. What we seek in an archive is nothing other than the ongoing provision of accurate, just and effective materials to preserve "originals".