History as Art the Past Is Not

History As Art

The past is not real, nor tangible. We cannot revisit the past as we are forever placed here, in the eternal now to navigate our existence. History provides our imaginations with concepts and ideas that allow us to seemingly describe the past. It must be remembered and heavily emphasized that history is in fact an art. It is not a science and it has no capability of being inductively reasoned and scientifically applied.

Although these limitations are often ignored by many historians and scholars, who feel that history is a guiding force, ignores the pulling forces of the needs of the future for mankind. The purpose of this essay is to explain the various considerations of diverse groups and how these themes impact the way we see the past. This essay will attempt to explain the thinking of other groups as it relates to history by giving several examples. The inevitability of history's forcing of multiple opinions and the perceptions surrounding these opinions will be discussed to help frame the many problems that history has as a relevant intellectual approach and its failures to capture a true reality.

History Is Not Real

History is the art form of essentially controlling the thoughts and emotions of the present, using the events of the past as a stimulus for hopes of a certain future. To suggest that the totality of any one single event may be captured in a document or written expose, sells the human experience short in so many awful ways. The hubris attached with most historical documents suggest that something bigger is at work. Some may argue that history is nothing more than propaganda. It is a historian's job to produce compelling imaginations from research, based on other compelling imaginations, to develop new and relevant ideas that can be applied in the present, in order to justify or negate a particular idea, person or action. It is not that history does not have its place, it is just that there is too much belief that history is "real" and should be taken as fact.

When considering the incestuous actions by most academic groups when it comes to protecting their own point-of-view and dismantling others', history is more a less a rhetorical competition that seeks to mesmerize and hypnotize its consumers into states of belief that somehow make them feel as if their way of thinking is more acceptable than another's. History is mostly books written about books written about books.

History is more like a court case, where scholars present their cases with so called evidence. Napoleon once said "history is a set of lies agreed upon" and many famous men have uttered that "history is written by the winners." In essence, history is relegated to the place of myth as time draws towards infinity. While the actual historic events do not mean so much, myth, on the other hand does provide some guidance and help to our present cause. History is the seedling of myth which eventually grows into something larger and more elaborate, perhaps based on a small modicum of truth, but evolved into something much different and complex than its material genesis.

Examples

By examining American history in the short time span of 1870-1900 we can see how the history machines have done to promote a certain viewpoint while basing it on very little understanding of the situation. Forner (2010) revealed many such incidents during this time which demonstrate this point. Forner explains America's adoption of an imperialistic state after the reconstruction era of the country. Forner explains that roots of today's American empire were born in this time, and hence makes it ok and acceptable. American's imperial stance in today's world cannot be underestimated. Hence, we, as a collective have a myth to look to in order to help us understand.

Zinn (2003) also used these tricks with words as he promoted his own brand of populous history. Zinn dared to collectivize the American memory in his book when he wrote " my viewpoint, in telling the history is different: that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country presented as the history of a family conceals fierce conflict of interests." Zinn does not necessarily hide his distrust and contempt for an objective reality, but merely accepts the shortfalls of his art and is relegated to promoting his own brand of populous, labor-based, history that can sell books and ideas to those who need that mythology to help them motivate themselves in their own present condition.

The Arrival of Differing Views on History

When history and historians begin to understand the impossibility of total objectiveness then, and only then can it be properly used in the important process of myth creation. Zinn appeared to understand this, and choose to characterize his historic art in the populous aesthetic. He said as much when he wrote " I don't to invent victory for peoples movements. But to think that history writing must aim simply to recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat."