Page 598 [598]
OCR
596 Kamila Baraniecka-Olszewska For reenactors, photographs imitating war photos are another means to engage with the history. Reactions of non-reenactors can be completely different, because they do not have the experience of immersing into the past (however, they did not become a part of my study). "1hus I argue that reenacting photography should be analysed not only in terms of photography and its representational and evocational potential but also in terms of Hayden Whites historiophoty (1988). Ihe opinion that we cannot perceive photography as "true" representation of reality and that it is always filtered by the photographers view and his or her political or social aims has already become a truism. With regard to reenacting war photography, it is even more evident that we do not deal with a representation of war but a kind of restaged representation, a sophisticated fake. Moreover, debating ways in which reenacted photos cannot represent the “true” past is fruitless and, as I show further, in this process of merely skimming over the “representation crisis” (see, e.g. Greene 1994; Lutkehaus & Cool 1999); I see a certain interpretative potential here, which can be explored with the help of the category of historiophoty. Reenacting Photography as Historiophoty Historiophoty is a term introduced by White (1988) to define “the representation of history and our thought about it in visual images and filmic discourse”. White derives his considerations from Robert Rosenstone’s article about the reliable representation of history in film (1988). Notwithstanding that both authors reflect mostly on films, they both see dangers of giving visual representations too much credit for describing the past. Furthermore, White underlines that reading visual data of the past requires different tools than the critique of written documents (1988: 1193), thus historiophoty and historiography tend to be separate phenomena, although they are perceived as bound together, since visual representations— for example, photos—are expected to be deprived of their own narration. And such conviction according to White is inconsistent with the whole idea of historiophoty as an autonomous kind of narration of the past. Thus, White proposes a way of representing history in parallel with and supplemental to historiography (not only complementing it, as visual data is granted some autonomy here). Consequently, instead of focusing on reading visual representations of history, I would like to develop a practice of historiophoty. White (Ibid.: 1194) notes that some aspects of history can be more accurately presented by visual media than by writing. Also Bojarska pays attention to form and its adequacy in presenting historical content in her analysis of visual arts representations of history (2013: 8). The conviction that in some circumstances visual media work better is commonly shared. Despite some trust placed in this form of historical representation, White reminds us that “no history, visual or verbal, ‘mirrors’ all or even the greater part of the events or scenes of which it purports to be an account, and this is true even of the most narrowly restricted ‘micro-history” (1988: 1194). This is true of reen
