by Effie Moore Salem

Created on: September 07, 2009   Last Updated: April 20, 2010

The historian is more like a painter than a photographer, and he become more so the the further back in time he goes to dig for his facts. A historian that has all the blanks filled in and there is nothing to wonder about presents the picture fairly accurately as to the events of the time; therefore they more resemble a photographer. On the other hand if they must fill in the blanks with suppositions and probabilities, they more resemble a painter in that they create much that is not there. Depending on how well versed in his craft whether it be taking pictures or painting pictures will depend on their skill in all three situations, writing being the third.

Whatever, the topic is intriguing and is one seldom encountered. It makes one think and that bring in all kinds of possibilities for arguments and discussion. Also when deliberating on the choices, pictures begin to form in one's mind of ancient history and of art itself. This brings further thoughts into the discussion and enlarges the whole concept of art and artist and photography as it relates to history. Along about this time other facts juggle forward: Art is older than photography; historians have learned facts from art and finally, the man with a camera begins to recede into the background as the man with a canvas and brush looms larger in our view.

Then reality makes an entrance. What difference does all this make to the student of history? Normally, they only want to know what happened in ancient Egypt to cause such enormous buildings to be made, or why of Stonehenge of England, or why all Roads lead to Rome? What does art and picture taking have to do with it? Everything. At present photography shows the historian pictures of what has been and with these they construct facts mixed in with art to show clearer what kind of people lived and worked in past times. Therefore older historians living and writing in ancient times that did not have the privilege of photography had to rely on their own art to recreate scenes of probabilities and to show what most likely happened. Modern historians have no such difficulties. The world is at their fingertips, literally. And if they are gifted with imagination they can paint vivid scenes of ancient times that often seem real.

Through it all, art is art and facts are facts and we are now faced with the problems of what is real and what is only a figment of the imagination of the historian presenting the facts. It is one thing to paint a delightful picture of a real world that is known, or to take a picture of it, but to have a modern mind attempt to project themselves back into ancient times and come up with the truth of the fact of matter is impossible to do.

Many distortions and half-truths and un-truths will parade forward as facts. Lots of what we know as facts of ancient times is not facts but suppositions. Yet, what are we to do when we want to know. Who can we believe the historian, the painter, the photographer, or ourselves? The final analysis is it does not matter whether the historian more resembles an artist or a photographer but how well he resembles a capable historian. Just the facts, please!

Learn more about this author, Effie Moore Salem.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.