Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Does True Historian = Objective Historian?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Potts <eric AT revpotts.freeserve.co.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Does True Historian = Objective Historian?
  • Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:53:52 +0100


Dave wrote:

To me, history is like an impressionistic painting. Up close it
consists of individual daubs of paint. We can count and position the
daubs, analyze the pigments and their mixtures in each daub, their
textures, and relate the various daubs together based upon these
characteristics, yet it may still seem to be a chaotic mess up close.
But step back a couple feet and an image appears. It is not going to
be a real person or object, just a representation of it, and we
interpret that representation based upon our own experiences. The more
we know about the painter, the period in which he/she lived, and the
persons or situations being represented, the better we can appreciate
the painting. But never think that an experienced art critic's
appreciation of a painting is not influenced by the colors and
textures of the pigments, binding agents and techniques for their
application, or of the canvas used, etc.! It all makes a difference.

That's an excellent analogy - one I shall store for future use! (With proper attribution, of course!)

Eric.
Eric Potts: Lowestoft, England.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts




  • Re: Does True Historian = Objective Historian?, Eric Potts, 09/19/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page