Histrionics and New Media in History: Sometimes It’s Better to Fail

As the mission statement goes in my Digital History course, it’s better to reach further and experiment beyond known capacities and consequently fail, rather than perform within a comfortable sphere and succeed. In the constant progressive search to present history using both developed and developing tools, there exists a clash between those that fear the mal-construction of history and those who wish to explore and present history in new mediums.

Of course, anytime I, or some peers of mine, hear about this struggle, our instinct is to grab these Luddite historians and shake some sense into them. Nothing seems more frustrating to the young and aspiring historian – especially those working in the fields of public history and involved with new forms of historical dissemination – than the ivory towerian who waves their finger and cries that no one is paying attention to their concerns. And, histrionics and new media are a major concern.

However, there is a dialogue between the concern for ‘good’ history and ‘exciting’ history. The problem is that some are too afraid of botching it up. Yet, it is from the failure that we often learn the most. This isn’t necessarily a failure in manipulating and reconstructing history – there are enough voices, if one listens, raising concern over ‘bad’ history. What we need to fail at is attempting to create new forms of presenting history.

An excellent example of these trials and tribulations is the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois. In a nutshell, the Lincoln Museum has employed the technological wizardry of BRC and their Holavision in an exhibit, Ghosts of the Library (Ghosts of the Library is only one portion of the museum that BRC designed. Journey, the most significant portion, is a life-sized walk through that allows the viewer to immerse themselves in the life of Lincoln). Holograms, voice recordings, and actors bring history alive for the audience who are not only forced to examine and understand why we study history, but they are also able to see and feel history in a completely new medium. Sure, these sound like gimmicks to attract and wow the audience, but are they presenting sound history? The answer is: maybe… It’s open to interpretation. A discussion group was created between the company BRC and historians (state historians, professors, and teachers). Concerns were addressed and an attempt was made to reach an understanding and develop a presentation that addressed both the complexities of the past and the need to attract and intrigue the audience. Now, of course, some are aghast with the presentation of history in this exhibit. However, there are others who are satisfied and enticed with the results. To learn more, see the Washington Post article, Histrionics and History.

Yet, what is really at stake here? What are the real concerns? Do we fear the dramatics and entertainment of history that may result in such things as a terrible historical-based film? Or, is it a showdown between the traditional methods and new ‘flashy’ ones? For me, however, what is of most concern is the audience. We must be primarily concerned with how our audience prefers to receive history. If we can present sound and interpretive history in a creative and new way, such as the Lincoln Library is attempting, then we must try. The only way to find out if it will work is to try, and possibly fail. Maybe the over-the-top dramatics of the exhibit may skew and warp history in an unfavourable way, but fear not, there are enough voices in both the field and in the ivory tower that will be quick to alert the presenters of their misdeeds. This history being presented is a part of the risk, but the greater leap is the attempt to incorporate new methods without the fear of failure.