History & Historiography in Process
August 9, 2011 § Leave a comment
The notion that there is a unbridgeable gap between now and then as the “…past is seen as completely different from the present” which calls for greater continuity in History is put forward by Anders Schinkel. Personally, when I visualise something from ‘then’ I impose a filter of illusory; as though ‘then’ is not the reality, in spite of the factual accounts and circumstances. Hence, I cannot help but think of History in the context of a narrative. Conversely, Schinkel suggests that in modern philosophy “…the distinction between appearance and reality is grounded upon the distinction between subject and object.” Thus the world is an “experiencing world” where the objective and the subjective occurs simultaneously, “…it experiences and is experienced.” So then, Schinkel suggests, as an idea that is broadly accepted, that our experience is always subjective, therefore, we cannot know reality itself, but only its appearance.
Then I could say that this project within which I encompass an essence of historiography is inevitably a subjective experience founded upon an objective event. It is true to reality in its core facts asserted, but it would be difficult to ascertain the truth to reality of history in the way it captures the ‘atmosphere’ of this certain time, as “…historical interpretations can be colored too strongly by subjective factors.” which is what my illustration would infer as a result.
In context of my project, I think that it falls under subjective truth. As you are given the general facts and circumstances of this history, yet the illustrations encourages a subjective experience as an outcome of perception.
Schinkel, A. 2004, ‘History and Historiography in Process’, History and Theory, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. pp. 39-56.