Interhistorical

In recent years, in museums all over the world, classical art has increasingly been shown in combination with contemporary art. This is often dubbed ‘transhistorical’: showing the past and the present in order to reveal connections between eras, and if possible to discover parallels. In the process, the chronology of art history is abandoned. The classification of art according to time periods has in fact been problematic for museums for a while. On the one hand, it is a top-down approach towards the visitor that no longer suits needs and behaviours. On the other, a younger generation has been raised with achronology, in part due to digital media. A chronological presentation does not fit in with the current structuring of knowledge; moreover, it places every object in an art historical perspective.
This approach comes up against the dilemma of anachronism: a break, intentional or not, in the chronological coherence of situations or events. Many historians feel that anachronism is a serious flaw in the presentation of history. It is such, when it comes to projecting a contemporary outlook on a past in which such an outlook could not have existed and therefore is not relevant. It is naive to believe that a modern-day interpretation can produce a better understanding of a historical event. Anachronism, in that sense, flattens all eras, because everything must resemble the present in order to be explained, and therefore the view of a historical work of art or object is blurred by irrelevant considerations.
In theory
Dutch literature scholar and culture critic Mieke Bal argues that a thorough examination and reinforcement of anachronism can in fact bring the past - and with it classical art - closer. Not as a legacy from the past, but as a partner in a discussion about what matters in contemporary culture. This consideration does not come at the cost of historical differences. On the contrary, it invites reflection on the question of how we can explain history. It is a resource that sharpens our view of the past. Anachronism can refresh our interaction with historical objects. This revival can be achieved by finding different answers to questions from the past in relation to the present. She does not label this method of presentation transhistorical, but interhistorical. Transhistorical merely goes through eras. It shows the present and the past pell-mell, indifferently. Whereas interhistorical points out the relationship between present and past much more, as a meaningful conversation between history and our modern-day culture.
In Practice
The Oude Kerk in Amsterdam shows various eras, from the fourteenth to the twenty-first century. Over the centuries these eras have ended up in the same context, alongside one another. This interplay makes it possible to connect periods in a natural way, and to reflect on differences and similarities. The use and therefore the function of the Oude Kerk evolved throughout these different periods based on diverse cultural and societal needs. Over time, new functions emerged, such as those of Protestant church and museum, and functions vanished, such as those of municipal archives and burial ground. This may have changed its use, but because of the value of the Oude Kerk in terms of cultural history, it did not change the significance of the church. If you were to take a soil sample of the church, all the layers of time and meaning would be visible. Time does not erase them; it juxtaposes them. Posing questions about this in our present-day society generates a meaningful conversation between present and past. This interhistorical method of reflection can ensure that the historical meaning represents a current value for the world of today and tomorrow. By bringing together contemporary outlooks and heritage, new pages are being added to (art) history in the Oude Kerk.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu