Excellent note from David, and being the one who suggested the
corporate/history link in the first place I don't disagree with any of
what he says! In fact it is often very complex relationships between
factors that lead to the inaccurate reporting of history. In Lighting
history (which is indeed one of my specialties), The Edison companies had
massive PR efforts, both direct and indirect and some of the most
accessible books on lighting history (or often the ONLY such books)
written in the era are from that particular company. But with David's
processes in mind, often those who followed simply used the GE authored
books as THE account of history, thus the GE account was transferred to
texts that then got read by another generation of "writers".
In this regard it is not the corporate "fault" at all that their "spin"
got placed on history. To this day, almost ALL companies, in their own
writings, make it seem as though they are the only innovators around.
An aspect of this then touches on the society at large. We are all to
prone to believe outright what we read (even in e-mail), and we are often
likely to assume that the writer knows of which they speak. We assume
expertise when perhaps we should not.
E-mail and even "real" research can be far more fun when one holds the
opposite assumptions without baggage. I have fun making "Ketchup"
pronouncements hoping that others on the list realize that I am not a
Ketchup expert! Perhaps someone who IS a ketchup expert can join in and
correct the post but even then I'll have fun because I won't assume that
person IS an expert. If it is an issue that matters to me I will use what
I learn online and check it out more thoroughly on my own.
In fact, the ketchup thing now does intrigue me more than ever. Having
attended Graduate school in the home town of The Heinz Corp. (Pittsburgh),
I had drummed into me that Ketchup was their trade name. If indeed it is
on a Hunt's bottle, it could mean all sorts of things. It could mean that
my perceptions were wrong from the start. Always great to know if true.
But also like the game of Monopoly it could mean that Ketchup is now in
the public domain. In which case, why does Hunt's have the r. symbol
there. Indeed David's point of the over simplification of accounts of
history is a good point.
But here I differ a tad, for even when someone is a "specialist", they
could be a "generalist" in their specialty! And at that level they may
STILL over simplifying things! Again though the problem is mitigated by
simply assuming that all historical pronouncements will have varying
degrees of bias and simplification.
This issue, I imagine is especially important for museum labeling! My
first encounter with this was as a Grad Student in Pittsburgh as a Theatre
Scenic Designer. We had a test coming up in furniture history and a visit
next door to The Carnegie Museum's furniture collection was an excellent
way to study. Once there' though I got upset. The names I had been
learning about were not on the furniture labels! Feeling even more bold,
as a grad student I went so far as to complain to the Curator, and boy did
he chew me out! "When you say I should label that chair as a Chippendale,
do you mean I should say it was made BY him, or by his studio, by a
student, or even by someone else copying him?". So instead they just left
the label at "18th century chair".
I learned a lot from the encounter, first that he was right, but years
later that I was right to some extent as well, for he COULD have said
something like: "In the style of Chippendale". This would have been
accurate, would not have claimed that Chippendale actually made the piece
BUT it would also have helped the public to understand the style names
that ARE associated with design. He could have gone farther even with a
written piece about the problems of determining furniture derivations,
educating us even farther. Like the blind man feeling the elephant, each
of these choices, or the other host of possibilities would have been
"correct", but I feel the greatest insight comes when we are all made to
realize that no matter how much knowledge we may have, we are ALL blind
men in this elephantine universe!
So, my suggestion is to always take info with a grain of saltno matter
where it comes from, and to then consider the info pedegree and to confer
weight accordingly.
Sorry for another long message, but I feel this has been an informative
conversation thread.
RF. (A generalist in many areas, a specialist in others, but YOUR problem
is that you don't know which is which in my case so certainly take what
_I_ say with a grain of salt.....or is that NaCl?)
|
