In examining the different atlases and maps this past week, a thought kept reoccurring that I haven’t quite been able to work through. There seems to be a significant difference between these historical atlases and text-based historical analysis, mainly in that the writing is more sparse in these visually based works. This makes sense since the primary sources are the focus of the works, but it made me question how historians approach these materials.
It seems as though often visual culture is presented on its own, as if they speak for themselves. This is not always the case obviously, but the narrative explanations often seem thinner than traditional approaches. There seem to be several possible reasons for this. One that I wonder about is whether as text continues to carry less and less weight in our culture, and is supplanted by different forms of imagery, is there a natural inclination to highlight the visual and constrain the text? The question that would follow for me though, is if this is the case, how can we continue to present complex interpretations of history through a combination of primary sources, imagery, and text in an appealing package?
The other point that struck me was it seems as though in assessing the maps presented in Historical Atlas of the United States historians can use visual source material to reform the narrative structure of their work. While Hayes chose to present his narrative in a chronological fashion, I wondered if it might not have made more sense for him to have used a topical approach. It seems that in comparing maps of a “political” or “patriotic” persuasion from different times and places might have been more useful that comparing maps simple from the same era with each other. I’m not sure if visual imagery lends itself to this sort of thematic analysis better than text sources, but it seems to be the case.
Both of the digital sites that I looked at for maps had no historical backdrop for the maps. The maps from the University of Georgia’s rare book collection that I used for my assessment at least had the year of creation and the author, so if I felt so incline, I could do some back up research. National Geographic’s Map Machine had no background on its map…cool tools that let you zoom all over the place, but no context for why those particular maps were there. I had the same though about text becoming less important in the digital culture we live in. Are the fun buttons that allow us to write notes and drop tack on a digital map hindering our ability to require additional data from digital history producers?
I thought Hayes combined both a topical and a chronological organization of his material. By moving away from the pure textual analysis into a combination of visual asset and textual accompaniment, are we loosing any of the content? Or are we just retelling events in a method more appropriate to our audience? I will quite agree with you that the visual elements should not just be thrown before our viewers. First, they will most certainly come to conclusions about the visual based on their experiences, not on the historical context. And second, the visual image is too manipulative and too easy to be manipulated. Besides, we would all be out of jobs if the average student could merely pick up a primary document and understand the history.