by Michael Speiler

Created on: May 30, 2009

The historian's craft is an instrumental one in society. It is used for education, fun and the betterment of society in general. History is best described as the record of past events and times, typically related to the human race. While the historian strives to be like a photographer, they are typically more like a painter. Both of these professions that we are comparing historians to are also used to record events also. They do it in visual pictures, as opposed to the historian doing it, usually, through words.

The photographer uses a camera to capture an exact image of an event. They need to be present at the event in order to do that. In that respect the historian is unlike the photographer, because almost all of the time the historian is not present at the time of an event. The photographer captures the exactness of a moment in an event. They only have a very small influence on how that picture looks. Their influence consists of choosing what to shoot and how they develop the film. In the development they do have influence over how the final picture looks. But even after the photographer chooses those things the picture still originally started from the exact moment of the event. The historian strives to be able to achieve the exactness that a photographer can actualize with their picture.

The painter uses their brushes and paints to be able to try to copy or, at the very least, give their portrayal of a moment during an event. The painter has more influence in how their painting turns out. They can try to be as true to the image as possible or modify it to make it prettier or uglier. They have the choice to spin the event in a positive or negative manner. The painter has complete license over how the event will be seen, in a way that the photographer doesn't. The photographer can sway how the event is seen by the picture he decides to take, but the painter can imbue emotions through various forms of his art. In this the historian is similar. They can choose to show events and histories in a positive or negative way. They can describe war and revolution through a heroic and uplifting description and events, or they can show it through the horror and mayhem that the death of war and treason costs. While they are two sides to the same coin, the painter and historian have more latitude to be able to manipulate those perceptions.

The historian is supposed to be unbiased in their writing of history, however, it is difficult for anybody to be unbiased to events. Due to that historians should try to keep their influence to a minimum in the recording of history. In that way, historians should endeavor to be like a photographer and be true to the history of events, like the photographer is true to the moment of an event. However, the historian is more like a painter, in the sense that they do influence how people look at those events, in the way that a painter influences how people see that moment of the event. So this question really defines what a historian is like and what they should try to be like.

Learn more about this author, Michael Speiler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.