Another discussion brought up an interesting point that I’d like to separate out of the larger discussion on Living History and give its own focus, as I think it perhaps applies to the idea of history as entertainment and public history in general. When it comes to the idea of history as entertainment, it seems as if there is a question over whether historians need to work towards presenting history as entertainment to where there is little to no chance of romanticizing portions of it, or whether it’s okay to risk romanticizing a subject for a larger audience if it means that a segment of that audience is ultimately inspired to do their own critical examination of the topic at hand. Is that payoff of actually inspiring further academic work worth it if it means that some people might take an inappropriate interpretation of a historical concept? Alternatively, is romanticism even avoidable in the long run?
Authors
aarise2
-
adurrell1
ashleybarrett95
blairbanks2438
-
bmforeman
Gage Williams
denihall
LeAnne McDaniel
-
jamyewarren
jeromeali13
jkane303
jmbrown800
-
Kate Wilson
kthornton7
ktippinssylvestre
maddiemcg
-
mfoster38
mransley1
natebonz
pnguyen58
poricha1
-
saylworth
shannonltimberlake
Taylor Rucker
-
veronicahealy
Issues and Interpretations in Public History 
In response to jathompson21, I think you’re right. I think the study of the past does lead people to romanticize it. It is easy to romanticize something of the past because the person was not actually there. I think historians are entertainers and storytellers and it is our duty to present history to the public in a compelling fashion (at least sometimes) and I don’t think we should think too much about people romanticizing any parts of it. Why? The study of history is subjective and is ultimately interpreted by people differently anyway. This goes back to what we discussed in previous classes on the very definition of public history. Public history relates to the general public. It’s impossible to get people to see every aspect of history the same and we should keep this in mind.
I think Nafeesa makes a great point in that people are going to create their own meanings and interpretations regardless of how history is presented or interpreted. A good example is the quote from the Lisa Roberts reading that says, “the reader ‘recieves’ a message by composing it.” That being said the importance of providing history from an entertainment aspect needs to focus on the intent of the person creating or presenting the history. If we are producing history as entertainment the first thing that we must do is to take a reflexive look at our own objectives for doing so. We should be aware of our own reasons for producing the history. If we are romanticizing the history ourselves than that is exactly the product that will be displayed. Ultimately the product is a reflection of the creator. While I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with history being used for entertainment, the person responsible for presenting the history should do so in a responsible way.
I think that romanticism is unavoidable, even with exhibitions there can be a romanticized view of a certain aspect of history, or the difficult aspects may be glossed over. Ultimately, the goal of public history is to attempt to create a factual representation without ignoring the “tough” parts of history.
Romanticism is definitely not avoidable. What is the opposite of romanticism anyways? Complete absolute factuality? I’m not even sure what that would look like or if it would have a look.
This is a difficult question because of the negative connotation attached to the word or notion of entertainment and the assumption that in order to appeal to a large audience there must be some form of romantization that takes place . What do we mean by entertainment? Is it an appeal to the emotions? Amusement? I think that an interpretation can be both amusing and challenging to preconceptions and still be considered entertainment. The key difference between public history and the superficial forms of entertainment is that public history should seek to enhance and challenge where as the superficial forms of entertainment only affirm, affirm, affirm.
As for romantizations, as I already said, It’s unavoidable, but it doesn’t mean we can’t use the word to better understand eachothers place in relation to eachother. I’m not so sure that we should look romantization simply as a very very bad thing that we must ignore completely and discourage always. Romantization is only the product of a person’s interaction with a piece of information. There is always going to be an illusion that is propped up. It’s just part of the simplification of the complexities of life. As public historians I think there is the possibility to use the romantization of the history that is being interpreted as an indicator of the place our audience is in terms of conceptions about the past and could help us create better exhibits, movies, docs, whatever, that are more attuned, more in reference, and more challenging to there preconcieved notions of historical reality.