Historical interpretation changes quite frequently. Does it not seem odd that one of the more prominent forms of public history cannot be changed? Statues and monuments are literally set in stone. When historical interpretations change, it is much easier to re-write history than it is to re-carve it.
With this in mind, do statues and monuments still have their place in public history? Ultimately, I would suggest that the best application of statues to public history is in the form of symbolism. Eileen Eagan notes in her article Immortalizing Women: Finding Meaning in Public Sculpture that women are typically portrayed as symbols of good citizenship and embodying stoic values. I find this the best type of public history as these characteristics maintain their longevity. Statues and monuments of recognizable historical figures represent only their accomplishments, and rarely depict the overarching symbolism that should be displayed.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
ON FILMS AND PUBLIC THEORY
Recently a class discussion was held regarding historical film and public history. The most interesting article we read in preparation (in my humble opinion), was The (Un)Making of a Historical Drama: A Historian/Screenwriter Confronts Hollywood written by Daniel Blake Smith. In brief summation, the article followed Smith’s trials and tribulations in his attempt to write a historical film script that would be produced into a Hollywood film. Eventually, Smith’s script was given to another screenwriter, who removed any semblance of historical accuracy. In a roundabout way, Smith criticizes Hollywood for its refusal to stick to historical accuracy in favour of popularizing its scripts. Thus, I began to explore the question of whether or not it was possible to create a Hollywood film that was truly a product of public history.
Smith lamented the fact that all of his scholarly research was pushed aside in favour of creating a script which appealed to a wider public. The question I struggle with is whether or not the initial product (Smith’s script) encompasses the ideas and values of public history, or whether the commercialized version of the script was legitimate public history.
To begin, Smith’s script was written using scholarly research, including many interviews and primary sources. Despite its roots in scholarly practice, the information was adapted to a more public medium: film. This process is similar to that of a museum exhibit, in that it is rooted first in scholarly research before being interpreted for public consumption. Analysis of Smith’s methodology allows the reader to conclude that he was indeed practicing public history.
The second script, which was adapted from Smith’s original work, allows for more speculation. Indeed, it made use of original research in order to produce a form of public history. However, it is unclear which aspects of historical research was used, and which was simply adapted. As a result, one would have a difficult time determining what information has its roots in historical fact. In this instance divergent opinions clash – historical material is being interpreted by an interlocutor in order to create a work that is solely meant for public consumption, thus, it is public history; conversely, the new script was written without the aid of research, using the original script as its basis for historical fact.
Is it possible to determine a cut-off point for diluted research, or, is it all just public ‘history’?
Smith lamented the fact that all of his scholarly research was pushed aside in favour of creating a script which appealed to a wider public. The question I struggle with is whether or not the initial product (Smith’s script) encompasses the ideas and values of public history, or whether the commercialized version of the script was legitimate public history.
To begin, Smith’s script was written using scholarly research, including many interviews and primary sources. Despite its roots in scholarly practice, the information was adapted to a more public medium: film. This process is similar to that of a museum exhibit, in that it is rooted first in scholarly research before being interpreted for public consumption. Analysis of Smith’s methodology allows the reader to conclude that he was indeed practicing public history.
The second script, which was adapted from Smith’s original work, allows for more speculation. Indeed, it made use of original research in order to produce a form of public history. However, it is unclear which aspects of historical research was used, and which was simply adapted. As a result, one would have a difficult time determining what information has its roots in historical fact. In this instance divergent opinions clash – historical material is being interpreted by an interlocutor in order to create a work that is solely meant for public consumption, thus, it is public history; conversely, the new script was written without the aid of research, using the original script as its basis for historical fact.
Is it possible to determine a cut-off point for diluted research, or, is it all just public ‘history’?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)