Visual History is certainly "real" history

Learning though Visual History

This week’s readings focused on the exploration of visual history.  As I was working through the readings, I was amazed at how one can draw deep and contextual meaning from something as simple as a single painting.  Since the SCIM-C method has been implanted in my brain, I automatically look at something and start to ask the analytical and "trigger" questions.  Hopefully, my students will be able to make connections, draw inferences, and create their own interpretation of an expression of history through art in the near future with as much ease I as do now. 

I really like how Burke (2001) conveys the opinion that viewing history through the lens of artists allow the “power of visual representation in past culture and religion” to be expressed.  Only over a century ago, technological innovations such as the camera weren't in existence.  That meant artists had the sole power to recreate an event as they saw it or someone else described to them.  These pieces of history are certainly shining beacons on historic events in the past.  Burke (2001) argues the visual content is similar to a written record or written text.  Artists in the past were certainly historians in their own right.

Werner (2002) breaks down exactly how many different ways a visual can be read and subsequently draw meaning from that interpretation.  He shows how readers organize their thoughts according to the meaning that they draw from the reading and also the meaning they draw simply from their approach to the reading.  He (and all teachers hopefully) wants students/readers to create agency in themselves by approaching a visual through this differentiated and forked analysis.  Essentially, this relationship of the reader/text creates a level of knowledge where the reader goes from accepting to challenging the author’s intention through his or her image of expression.  This inevitably creates a reader who is questioning, analytical, observant, and critical in his or her thinking.

Finally, Staley (2006) parallels cognitive art as something that communicates a certain level of informative knowledge to the reader.  He states that this form of visual is an essential form for historical research.  Visual content such as images and paintings from the past are as just as important as text in the effort to learn about the past.

All in all, viewing history through the lens of visual content is critical for students to make connections and draw meaning from the past.  Additionally, viewing something such as a painting through the historical lens of inquiry allows each individual to create his or her own personal meaning that could possibly be far different from the actual meaning that the artist intended.  That is the beauty of viewing history through this lens. 

Reflection

Reflecting back on the readings, our classwork this week, and my own work analyzing the Lincoln telegrams and other political cartoons with the SCIM-C and Werner’s (2002) layered reading lens, I realize how important and certainly valid these tools can be in the classroom.  Students get tired of constantly reading textbooks and the opinions and views of historians.  These tools allow students to be the historian themselves.  This method gives students responsibility and ownership in the classroom, which are two critical ingredients for engendering a student who understands his or her own unique role in the world. 

I would like to point to my own work in analyzing the political cartoon created of President Lincoln in his election against his former general, George McClellan.  Students could be given an activity where the class was broken down into groups of 3-4.  Each group would be assigned a particular political cartoon from the Lincoln presidency, or if time permits, the students could be given a list of websites and they could pick their own.  This assignment could be broken down into about 6-7 class periods, as each level of reading the image would take considerable time.  I would not want the students to get bogged down with the specifics of each step and then have information overload.  The students could follow Werner’s (2002) steps to read the image in a different context and organize their thoughts.  Each student would have the chance to make his or her own final interpretation of the image.  After all the groups have spent time formulating their interpretation, the groups would come back together and present their research.  This research could be conceptualized into a visual presentation of some sort.  Each group would essentially be an expert of their own piece of history.  Lastly, the class could engage in a Socratic seminar, discussing their process and how it relates to the broader concept of history and specifically to the unit.

Some of the implications for teaching this way would simply be time.  The students would have to learn how to analyze in Werner’s (2002) fashion or the SCIM-C method.  Hopefully, the SCIM-C method will already be a utilized tool, especially if I am teaching seventh or eighth grade.  Besides the time, I really don’t think there would be any other implications.  I really think this is a new and effective way to create agency in our students, allow them to make real connections with the past, discover bias and truth, and become true historians.