As Jacques Derrida stated in Archive Fever, nothing is less reliable or less clear than the word “archive.” Nevertheless, it is precisely within the semantic openendedness of this notion that contemporary discursive practices of cinema and art have developed, thus reconfiguring the very idea of the archive. The single disciplines involved in this broad field – film and art history, film and art theory, aesthetics, semiotics, philology, etc. – are now beginning to question the concept of archive even in its “negative” sense: in other words, they are now starting to investigate – following Michel Foucault – what the archive is not, or does not seem to be. The archive is not the “library of libraries” or the “encyclopaedia;” it is not “memory” or a “database.” In recent years, much attention has been focused on these ideas, revealing new “impulses,” “turns” and specific forms of art (“art archive”), as well as highlighting how the notion of archive has gained importance on different interrelated levels (aesthetic, political, ethical and legal) across diverse disciplinary fields.