Theory of Knowledge at SOS-HGIC: QUESTION OF THE WEEK 20TH MARCH 2009: IS THE HISTORIAN MORE LIKE A PHOTOGRAPHER OR A PAINTER?

Friday, March 20, 2009

QUESTION OF THE WEEK 20TH MARCH 2009: IS THE HISTORIAN MORE LIKE A PHOTOGRAPHER OR A PAINTER?

IS THE HISTORIAN MORE LIKE A PHOTOGRAPHER OR A PAINTER?

(NB: Thanks Chris for anticipating our question. This happens to be the question of the week)

40 comments:

Julian H. Kitching said...: Chris,

Good that you are using this blog to say things that didn't get said in class. That's one reason why it's here.

You seem to be implicitly suggesting that the difference between a photographer and a painter is that the painter makes mistakes and misinterpretations and the photographer doesn't.

Can we examine this more closely?; March 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM
kamau_j said...: Chris anticipated our question of the week, and here is his response:

This is just something i was going to say in class but could not because of time. Concerning what Mr. Oduro said about the painter and photographer, i think that a historian should ideally be a photographer but because we are all humans and are prone to making mistakes, the historian becomes a painter in that he/she misinterprets some of the facts in order to suit his/her explanation.; March 20, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Dirac "Elridge" said...: I basically think that the historian is more of a photographer, because if you look at what a photographer does , he comes and takes a photo , but, the photo that was taken is limited , since it only shows what it wants to show , but not actually what is going on, example: is the fact that wehn people take a photo , they usually will take it were the site suits them, so historians tends to favour what seems important to them or what is important, meanwhile there might have been something else which could also have been there , but because other things being more important that it , it is outweight, and not revealed , on the other hand a painter... sorry have to go.; March 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Dirac "Elridge" said...: Oh yes to complete what i wanted to say, it can also be seen as a painter since it evidence historians, they draw up their conclusions based on their own intrepetation, which is basically effected by their emotion and hence reasoning based on this , so the end conclusion come up with could also have another side, which could be revealed by someone else , and that is what we see in history, there are usually more than one side to a story...This usual phrase" there's more than one side to a story" , what do you think of this pharse , in terms of historian research. if this phrase is true? then should we accept everything said in history?; March 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM
G said...: I think the historian is more of a painter because he tends to give his own intepretations of what happened in the past. For example when they try ascribe reasons as to why people act in particular ways; something i do not agree with because i think that human behaviour is fundamenatlly unpredictable and does not always follow strict rules like those of bijective functions. I believe a painter captures what he sees to be essential and is as such biased toward bringing to the fore what he deems as more important.

Unlike a camera, which cannot(debatably) be biased, captures everything in the picture (of course subject to its resolution) without necesssarily leaving out somethings delibrately.

I always hear the saying that "History is written by the victors, " which is another reason why i believe that historians are biased (although not necessarily delibrately) and as such are more like painters. But, of course one may argue that that is restricted to the past because there is much more media coverage on events hence making it difficult for lies to survive.

However, if we take the case of the recent Russian-Georgian war (which i followed with keen interest), my opinion will be buttressed because even in the light of all the media coverage on the net, radio, television and even newspapers, one could not get a report that was not immediately contradicted by another depending on which side it came from.

That immediately brings to mind the question, "Can we only trust historical accounts that we have directly witnessed?"; March 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Julian H. Kitching said...: I like the contributions so far. It's great.

But see how the responses to the last question (explain/predict) have developed - we now have some really interesting examples to illustrate the views expressed. Now we need some historical examples to show what we are saying here...; March 20, 2009 at 8:42 PM
~ said...: Blast! I tried to contribute earlier but somehow i lost all that i typed. However, i shall try to recap all the thoughts that came to me.

Like all the others before me(unless my faculties are not coordinating) i believe that the historian is more of a painter than a photographer.

A photographer from whatever angle he takes a picture cannot alter the image he takes. His work is simply a representation of what his lens captures for him and hence, elements of emotion, bias and different interpretation of factual truth are removed.(this ignores the development of airbrushing)

On the other hand the painter is left solely his own interpretations of subjects. Even 2 painters were painting a person with the same measurements and dimensions the two pieces would invariably differ. this is because many things go into the work of a painter(emotion, setting, subject). It is for this reason that there have been many renditions of The Birth of Venus, all being different from each other in structure, color, mood etc.

Likewise, the work a historian produces will vary from that of another historian for the very same reasons of interpretation. Sometimes facts may even oppose each other, as seen in the cliche/classic example of the Hutus and the Tutsis, just as has been demonstrated in art over and over again. As Gartaa said, this obviously does not help much in the search for truth.

Hence, even though ideally the historian SHOULD BE the photographer, inadvertently, inevitably he(she-no sexism intended) IS the painter.; March 20, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Julian H. Kitching said...: Yes, antye504 - I know that feeling when your post vanishes into the ether...

Let's examine the photographer/painter comparison a little more closely. Doesn't the photographer select what to photograph? Compose a shot? Choose the type of film? Determine the shutter speed, etc.? What about more recent developments in photography?

In what sense is this different to what a painter does? What precisely is it that is different? I'm not dismissing what some of you have said above - I just think it would be helpful to explore the comparison more deeply so that we can get a more profound insight into the work of the historian.; March 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM
G said...: I think i see where Mr. Kitching is coming from but, i would also like to say that i think that in analysing something we try to simplify it to a form in which we can treat adequately. Hence in taking into consideration everything that he mentioned we will end up talking hours unend because we have introduced many parameters. As he himself put ever so wonderfully in one of his insightful presentations ,"If you talk about everything, you talk about nothing."

I think many people who have commented on this issue have done so under the assumption that we were talking about the same shot, angle and time. Hence in their and my opinion the camera is still more accurate.

However, that said, i think that we would need to consider more parameters in order to exhaust the issue and avoid the oversimplification of the question.; March 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM
ThePrez said...: Okay this time, i don't have to stay up late to comment....

If you ask me, the Historian is more like and artist, in that, there are times when the historian is not very accurate and has a lot of bias, not necessarily his own but probably from a source, and there are times when the image is more accurate and so he's more like a photographer.

If we look at accuracy, even though the shot taken is a portion of reality, it is still in essence more accurate than a painting. It's the interpretation that becomes the problem, because the image is sometimes isolated from the entire scene.

I think an interesting angle we can take with this is to consider applications/programs like photoshop, which are intended to improve picture quality. In our class we discussed how at times photoshop is used by the photographer to create the actual image he/she saw, or what he intended to capture. Do historians distort the truth in their attempt to present it as they saw it, or for that matter how they wanted it to look?; March 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM
GIFT M said...: well depending on the situation a historian can be either of the two.
suppose that he is talking abt something that happened 15-20 years ago, i can say he is a photographer(if he was there when the things happened) because he has more information that is at his disposal and can be accurate to a greater degree.
however if he happens to be digging far then he will be a painter. im sure that artists paint things according to the way they perceive them, so with this a historian can do the same, choose what should be known and what shouldn't.
Anyway a photo can always be edited ( with curent tech) and a painting can also be re-drawn thats making history subject to CHANGE.; March 22, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Vladimir40041756 said...: Niiicee....we have some serious intellectual capacity here o...

Ok, I think that the historian is a graphics designer, i.e he sometimes takes pictures, sometimes paints, and other times, paints in the missing parts of the photos he takes, or, uses a picture to complete the missing parts of the painting....

I think this for a number of reasons. One of which is that, in photography, the ANGLE from which a picture is taken greatly affects the resultant image and hence the impression created. What I sense so far is that cameras/ pictures don't lie, but I'll give a real-life situatin that applies to us all- when we take pictures with sun light shinning directly in our eyes, we all seem to have light brown eyes, irrespective of how dark or light our eyes are. If we saw that picture, would we not think that the subject had brown eyes? Or at least question whether they did seeing as we KNOW what UV light does to eyes?

Cameras can really really lie! Aside the fact that you can photgraph one part of a set-up and leave the rest, here's another example from the arts- I picked up an art magazine in the art room and was flipping through it, and saw a very hairy arse (sorry! its true) I read the caption beside it and it was actually an elbow of a hairy man. The picture was then zoomed out, and it was confirmed that the picture was of the division in a hairy man's folded arm. We do not always need to paint to depict what we want and change meaning.

This is much like what lawyers do- take an event (picture) and with their skill, make you read into it what they want you to see.(ANGLE)

Likewise, lighting, and position of the subject can alter the true content of the images. In fore-shortening, parts of a body seem bigger, or closer, than others. This gives an impression that something is bigger than another, because of perspective. Even in photgraphs, perspective affects the outcome. This is just like how painters alter reality.
A practical example is that of the cold war and how the agreed perpetrator differed from school of thought to school of thought. One side looked at it from a GIVEN PERSPECTIVE, and the other side from ANOTHER perspective.

However, when it comes to painting, historians can infact add or enhance a given event to obtain an exaggerated effect. For example, in history, when Hitler's government altered German history, they came up with the idea that the German race was superior to all races. This was PAINTING, but in fact they used elements of reality (picture) to formulate these theories. They used the fact that Germany once had more land than they did. They attributed this loss to the fact that the treaty of versailles affected them. This was true! But the creation that the German race was superior wasn't. This is how the historian can paint and take pictures, and combine the two in very different ways.

May revise this later, because I am now thinking that if a historian can greatly alter pictures just by lense, lighting, angle, etc. then ideally he shouldn't need to paint, unless his emotions or another reason draw him to think that history should have been another way.; March 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Femi said...: i dont think the historian is a photographer nor is he a painter.does he gather facts on all the issues and things that have gone on in the past and "paint" a logical story out of it or does he just present these facts as a "picture" of truth.The thing is without a picture be it mental or physical the painter will not be able to paint a picture. but like Vladimir said pictures can turn out to be a total lie depending on the angle it is taken from. these angles will influence the painter on the kind of painting he would make.but yet again the painter could also leave out certain details of the picture thinking that they are too hard to paint or that they are not relevant.and what if the facts to be photographed have also been painted out in such a way to hide the truth.; March 22, 2009 at 8:29 PM
aki said...: In my candid opinion, historians are both. When events take place, they try their best to record the details of a happening as objectively as they can. They do not only strive to filter their primary and secondary sources of any subjectivity or prejudice, but also make an attempt to avoid making the same mistake. But unfortunately, as we all know quite well, historians are human beings just like as and are therefore prone to adding some subjectivity to their findings. This limitation in their quest for the objective recording of history from my view point is responsible for their tendency to be painters rather than photographers.; March 23, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Femi said...: just to add to my earlier post.... another question we can ask is does the painting become the picture or the picture becomes the painting?; March 23, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Da Peace said...: As we have learnt in the four walls of our various TOK classrooms,a historian is a person who studies and writes about history and in this area of knowledge the historian is authority photographer. Ask me why!!!!
WHY?????
Well, as we know history is not just narrating the past events which have had significant impacts on mankind, but also giving our own interpretations to it. In this light, we can then go ahead and compare the painter and the photographer, to see which fits the historian better. In giving our own interpretations to past events, we add some effects to the piece of information we have and this is the beauty of History.
On one hand is the photographer who just captures scenes or situations as they are without giving it a meaning. On the otherhand is the painter, who while painting takes his time to add effects to his painting through his colour schemes and other things which the artists are in the best position to tell us.

Also, History is a continuous process and Historians deal with continuous and systematic narratives. The photographer just captures the image but then the painter or rather painting is a continuous process and a painte r has to take time to bring out the effects. In addition, when a picture is given to you, you tend not to give any interpretations to it. However, most paintings give rise to different interpretations. For example, there was a time when Harriet drew a flower pot with a snake on it. Nana Takyi said it maent that your bestfriend could be a worst enemy and i said that all that glitters is not gold, but then it was just a painting of a pot.
This goes to show that a historian is more of a painter than a photographer but does his paintings appeal to everyone? That is a question we should ask oursselves.; March 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Julian H. Kitching said...: There are some more good insights above - keep them coming.

Some of you might want to explore the question alongside a variation of it - namely, the descriptive and the normative enquiries:

IS the historian more like a photographer or a painter?

SHOULD the historian be more like a photographer or a painter?; March 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Sharon said...: personally, i think the historian is supposed to be more of a photographer than a painter. the historian is supposed to take diffeent kinds of shots to give us readers an idea of the different angles the event that took place could be seen from. the photograph is more of the historical fact and the different angles from which the photograph was taken could be the different interpretations of the fact. however, the historian is more of a painter than a photographer purely because i think he is human. he is biased towards his work, and thus, will try to depict what happened in the past, but will choose what to paint, leave out the details he finds unnecessary from his painting. thus, he is more of a painter because of the emotion he attaches to writing history.i find this question interesting though.; March 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM
mizz r! said...: photographs and paintings alike are both biased. paintings, however tend to be more biased than the photographs. no matter how hard the best painter in the world tries to depict an image as it is, it is most likely that it would not be exact. i say this because many things and aspects and choices go into painting. lets take the hue of the paint for one, the artist chooses that, the size, the backround the setting, the general idea of the setting. these all contribute into making the painting what it is. this is the same way the historian chooses what to include, what he thinks is relevant and not, even his choice of words form some kind of bias. this is a true depiction of what a historian is (in my opinion). also, the photograph could also depict a scene as it is because it serves as valid proof that so and so did actually take place, no doubt. however, we have to think about who takes the picture in the first place. no matter how hard we try, humans tend to be biased in one aspect of their lives. i am very sure that when photogaphers take pictures, the deliberate where to take the picture, what the subject should be, from what angle the picture should be taken. even though there is SOME underlying bias,the proof is still there. and nothing can change that (apart from photshop!!) but lets just say the picture has not been tampered with. the historian should be more like the phographer where he depicts things as they are, with as little bias as possible.; March 25, 2009 at 1:48 PM
ThePrez said...: Okay so i haven't quite read all the other posts, after Vlad's, but i would like to comment on something he said. He was talking about cameras lying... but i think this is not really the case. this kind of ties in with my TOK presentation. the thing is, any image which reaches the eye, or in this case, the camera, be it a mirage, or whatever is true. that is to say more or less that what you see, is what is. Now the problem here is how this data is processed, or interpreted.

here's an example.... (i know it's better to use concrete examples, but I'll have to be hypothetical for now.) say a child breaks a really expensive vase and is being beaten by his mother (at the scene of the "crime"). now i take a picture, and in the frame i have only the mother beating the child, and not the vase.... i think you see where I'm going with this. the image captured in itself is true, the child was getting a beat down, but how would it be interpreted without the broken vase? as child abuse maybe? but that doesn't make the picture false, it just gives a false impression. theres just not enough knowledge to draw an accurate conclusion.

Now consider the hairy arse example... quite the same thing, based on the image provided, and the knowledge you have, u are led to think that it is an arse but this doesn't make it a picture of an arse, because in truth, that is not what it is. it reminds me of something JHK (I think)said "knowledge can be dangerous when you don't have enough of it" (it's paraphrased but i think i have captured the main idea.)

Hope I've made some sense...; March 25, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Aoise Minjiba said...: Is the historian a painter or a photographer? Should the historian be a painter or a photographer? Personally the second question is 'better'. Lol!

Now seriously,
To the first
i think that the historian is more a painter than a photographer. Those that have argued the photography and painter bit have talked about camera angles and interpretations and yadayada like.

As both a photographer and a painter, i first want to say that a photograph may be more accurate in the sense that it takes a picture of what is there? but we're all familiar with optical illusions and flaws of sense perception and the list goes on. Personally when a the photographer selects an image he picks it because he wants to and so indeed selectivity an aspect of the historian's task may be observed here. However, in this case the analysis and interpretation,another important aspect of history is left to the viewer in the sense that we perceive the image how we wish to perceive it and as such it means something different to us.

The historian as a photographer thus puts the bulk of the interpretative task in the viewer's hands or mind.... This for me makes the historian less like a photographer because history is presented to us from a ready-baked opinion. We are human and that personally precludes commendable objectivity especially when we analyze records of the past that our close to home...i hope my argument can still be followed.

Thus the historian acts more like a painter in the sense that he incorporates his sentiments, ideas, perspective and persona into the work that creates. Indeed the image created may not be altogether objective but even if it were a photograph it would not be too accurate though more accurate. This leads me to the second question, should he be a painter or photographer? i think that he should be a painter because it gives us a more human-like, life-like representation of the past. i used to believe that we needed to know exactly what happened in the past but now i realize we don't. we simply need to know everyone thinks happened because indeed wars usually happen not because people have all the facts but because people form misconceptions. Take WWI, the Korean civil war and even WWII.

The major events in history are as a result of perspective not fact..in my estimation anyway. Thus it is important that the historian is a painter because farther removed from the incidents we can later look at these paintings in all their glorious bias and pinpoint the causes and shortcomings. A painter contrary to what appears to popular belief does not simply ignore what lies before him, a rose is a rose is a rose, but like life often shows us you cannot just report the incident as it was...that would be objective but that would not be history. imagine i said the world war started because the Austrian archduke as shot by Serb terrorists and the Austrians didn't like the Serbs and they knew Germany would support them so they attacked them but then Russian are Slavs so they got involved and so the Germans got involved and then Germany attacked Belgium so they could get to France and Belgium had a neutrality treaty so Britain had to protect them so there was a world war.

I don't think you would be satisfied with that, you need motivation, cause, effect and all these other things that the painter historian incorporates into his work. It gives us an interesting perspective. We know what the interests of the leaders are at a time based on the sort of historical documents they leave behind, whether it is records of their kings' affairs or perhaps the exploits of their great warriors, or perhaps in China now, the records of technological advancement and whatever it is they are teaching the kids.

My point if, it may have been hard to find in all of this is that the historian must be a painter so that we can actually learn from history. We learn both about the events and about the individuals from the nature of the interpretations that we get.; March 26, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Hot Ice said...: An Historian is more like a painer rather than a photographer.The integral aspect that links them is selectivity in their work.
A painter select the the tools to use such as coulours so is an historian who select the kind of information he should include in his work based on the people the work concerns.An historian will only write what he want people to know and in doing this bias comes in.; March 27, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Gossip Girl!...shhhh said...: Well i think...
since the painter cannot get all the intricate details of whatever it is that he is painting, he is more like the historian who has to interprete the information from the past.
It is impossible to provide the information for consumption without attaching any emotion or point of view which the photographer does not do.; March 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM
chocol8 ch!p said...: This is what he SHOULD be like...
A historian is more of a photographer because he captures life forms and other objects as they are, no alterations. on the other hand, a painter feeds of interpretation. His painting is a translation of how he views the world around him. If his sense perception is limited in some way then the true nature of the object he is painting becomes altered, a "twisted truth" in effect. however, it actully does not work like this in all situation. Bias kicks in and then historical facts are changed and devalued.; March 27, 2009 at 11:48 AM
mariama said...: I think the historian is more of a painter because its the historian that gives us a bit of detail about what happened, how it happened etc but one thing we should know is that when the historian is giving the details, emotions, sense perception and even pressure from outside all add up to what he or she will say but if the historian was to be more of a photographer, we would be able to get all the information as no details can be missed from the picture. Then we the students looking at the source or picture would be more of a painter if we try to see what the thing is about. But we shouldn't forget that even the photographer that we may think is better also uses his or her emotions, sense perception to take the picture then in that case i believe there's actually some sort of bias in every history source.; March 27, 2009 at 11:51 AM
K B said...: IS THE HISTORIAN MORE LIKE A PHOTOGRAPHER OR A PAINTER?

I think that some historians are like photographers and others painters because, like a photographer he will zoom in to capture all the things he/she wants in the picture and leave out the things he/she wants little of. from this a photographic historian will give all the facts about what suits him/her and give little or no information about what they do not want to be published. A painter on the other hand paints what they see, by this your position determines what you see and therefore what you paint, your painting may have some features that the picture/ study does not have because that is what they see. For a historian he would write based on his position in the situation, and misinterpreting what they see and this would be seen as writing what suits because that is what they want to see and not what is actually there.; March 27, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: In relation to the first question, I feel that a historian is more like a painter because a painter can be selective and affected by bias and this reflects in the work he presents, whereas with a photographer, he takes a picture and all that is visible is seen (“photoshopping” aside), a problem with photographs is that they don’t show all that is happening.

Now that I have read Mr. Kitching’s post umm lets see….although a photographer can be selective of what he takes pictures of , his emotions cannot directly affect the final outcome of his photograph, whereas like a painter the historian as earlier mentioned interprates a something as he wants.

Should the historian be more like a painter or photographer?
Well, that is like asking whether emotions should be used in knowledge gain?( what is it about me and emotions…)
I would have originally said that a historian should be a photographer since he is less biased, but first of all I know this is not possible. Additionally, the emotions of a historian indirectly enable readers to know how some people reacted to a historical event from how he reacts to it. If an American historian interprates the Cuban missile crisis he will most likely blame the Cubans for this situation and this lets us know how some Americans were feeling.; March 27, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Lena Korsah said...: Historians to me can be painters sometimes and then they can also be photographers at other times. However more often than not they are just like painters because though they may capture the images of what took place quite accurately they cannot help the fact that their emotions and personal views influence the overall picture to a large extent. As I said before sometimes historians can be photographers they may tell the story as it is however some small details may be blown up to seem so big when they ideally should be left as they are. On a whole I think that historians should neither be painters or photographers because they can only capture little parts of the story and can only tell us what happened at the moment the picture was captured when we should know what took place in each major historic figures past that led up to the historic act.

The item that for me best captures the role of a historian should be is an author/ narrator in a story. This is why I think historians should be narrators like in a story book. They should go back and forth into the lives of the different people that contributed to this historic act and just report the story just as it was so that the public may understand exactly what happened ( without the historians opinions influencing them) so that they may make their own judgments from there; March 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM
*FRANTIC*STRIVER*^_^v said...: History is basically about studying the past events. Historians analyze what happened; what caused to happen; and also seek for 1) “patterns in attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of causes and effects that determine the events.”

To answer the question above, I think we need to consider the purpose; aims; motives of photographer, painter as well as historian and history itself.

First of all, in a basic sense, photographers most often take pictures to capture the beauty of nature. Or most cases, they take pictures to convey real image of something in an objective sense. The fact that historians have to narrate past events objectively shows some links between photographers.

On the other hand, painters paint objects or abstract ideas on a paper
/canvas in a very subjective position, in most cases with, large involvement of emotion. But, when we involve emotion we can hardly be objective. As an example of art movement, 2)“Characteristics of Impressionist paintings include visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, the inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles”. This shows that painter emphasizes or changes or can even distort entire image of an object. That is not what a historian has to do. He is not supposed to emphasize or distort the fact and add something to the narration of past events. Historians can well be likened to the photographers.

However, thinking once more about photographers, they also can convey image in the way they want it to be. For example, they can use different angles. They can use “photoshop” to remove some flaws in the picture. But, still, there are more similarities between photographer and historians than between historians and photographer. Last meeting, Ibifa said something about capturing images in different angle, 2 people being captured in an angle such a way that they look kissing. But, the fact that they are not kissing does not change. It is still objective. It is how it is viewed. It is a possibility that they are kissing. But, we can’t say they are kissing until we have seen them from a different angle.

For example, it is still controversial who was responsible for WW1. Some people say France is responsible because they had devised plan-17 against possible attack against Germany or it is Russia who sent ultimatum to Serbia or even Britain who allowed Germany to expand their navy raising the tension to its highest point. But, their claims are possibilities from different angles.

Of course, if a historian changes some of past events just like photographers using photo shop to erase some flaws on a picture, would not be described as an objective historian.

In conclusion, historians are more like photographers because they narrate past events objectively in various angles, perhaps, inciting different reactions and contributions from on-lookers, observers or readers.; March 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Sampomaa said...: Ok, so i know im late and all that....errm i think historians are more inclined to be painters than photographers. Painters view scenes, objects, i.e their inspirations then they begin to piant, however, their painters arent always,or even remotely similar to what they paint, becaus their paintings incorporate their interpretation and emotions.
However, in my opinion photographers are more like recorders. Though they can select what they take pictures of, thereby showing their emotion at the time, their work is not entirely intepretative pieces.
History, by virtue of the fact that it is a discipline that takes interpretation into account, can be likened to painting.
For example,in the period of the cold war the events that occured were the same regardless of where in the world one lived. However, the USA and USSR had differents interpretations of the very same events that occured.Is this the work of a painter or photographer?; March 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: i believe that histroy is more like a painter since it is present traces of the past so it might not make the real image of the past since in history our emotion is involved as a way of knowing and hence it might be baised.Therefore, indeed history is more likely a painter; March 27, 2009 at 3:52 PM
LJwella said...: A mon avis, the historian should be a painter. if this is not the case, after the "picture" has been taken, it would leave too much room for individual interpretation and the will be no generally accepted interpretation.; March 27, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: In my opinion the historian exhibits the traits of both characters.firstly, it is impossible for historians to completely eliminate the subjectivity in their accounts of historical events. as hard as they try they will definitely fuse some subjectivity in their work as they try to interpret the happening of an event. this reason makes them painters as we the readers do not get the real picture. however, in their attempt to minimize the subjectivity in their work, they can be called photographers. this is because i believe photographers also do not take the exact picture but are close to the real picture. photographers are not able to take the real picture because truly, no one knows the angle at which one can capture the real picture but we know how close we are to that angle.; March 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Fowah said...: I think the historian is more like a painter than a photographer. A photographer takes pictures of what is there and cannot alter the picture. For a painter, his works are based on their inspirations and therefore can be interpreted in any way. He can make his work different from the object in sight and still be able to make a connection.
In some ways, historians are like painters as there might not be accurate and credible information, events are subject to different views and interpretations. I am not saying historians or all historians deviate from an event, one can make connections between their interpretations and the facts, but the fact that there are not enough facts to completely prove that this bit of an event occurred, makes it a bit difficult to say that historians are like photographers, who capture and record the exact things seen.; March 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM
s*N*o*W*y* said...: Sorry for the late post but hope its beneficial. In my opinion i think the historian is more of a painter than a photographer. The photographer just captures pictures from using his powerful device, the camera. After the shoot, he cant alter the picture since the shoot has being taken already. With the painter, he gives his own interpretations of the piece he has produced and this is similar to what the historian does.; March 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM
cydrina said...: well with this issue, l agree to what most of yu guys said and l also want to add ma own oppinion, historians are to a greater extent painters and this is because most of them work with secondary information than a photographer who actually takes the photo and that is he is at present when the event occurs. more or less historians are subject to subjectivity and biasm, of course they select what and what not to be recorded down. in case of a german person writing on some german history, the account is likely to be based under the influence of bias and he is going to leave important things for sure as he might concentrate more on the negatives..but with logic, if people could be different and stop being biased, l think the world would move on. ma problem is like we once discussed in class, who determines what is to be recorded or learnt as history and to what extent are historical evidences true or factual.; April 1, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Ricky said...: In my opinion, the Historian strives to be a photographer as he aims to capture the period of time in reality with exact details and occurences. However, it is impossible for him to do so as HE WAS NOT THERE HIMSELF. The only thing he can do is gather information from a number of different sources and try to give an objective account of the past. A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. I do not think a histrorian has a thousand words to create an accurate photograph of the past. All he has are the words that he creates himself or those borrowed from external sources. Thus the historian is a painter.; April 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM
14ir said...: historian can be related to a painter because in history it is difficult to include what happen in the past and painter can not exactly draw what he sees and observes.When it comes to photography it copy everything which historian is not able to do.; April 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Exemplary Figure said...: I believe a historian to be a photographer as opposed to a painter. A painter would depict an image in a way that would appeal to its audience for a commercial appeal mostly. A historian however is mostly not trying to please but depicts what occurs. Although some historians may emphasise certain points, to get an opinion across I see that as the equivalent to adding shadow to a digital image in photo shop to accentuate a certain aspect of a photo. To describe a historian as a painter is to say that a historian is trying to make history look attractive which is not the case.

EF.; April 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Puppy said...: I think the essence of the question is this: is the historian's job simply to show what happened or is it to be interpretative and expressive and to provide his reader with a pleasant/interesting experience? I think that an historian's job involves both of these (they are not mutually exclusive); April 28, 2009 at 2:09 PM