Society for Historical Interventions
The Society for Historical Interventions was founded in 1998 as a reaction to
the advancing digital revolution and the associated possibilities for
manipulating digital written, photo or audio files. The GFG society
researches existing and advancing historiography for ambivalent people and
events that have not found an equivalent in previous historiography. These
blind spots in historiography (Hoofstraat) are to be integrated into the
collective historical consciousness. In addition to this task, questions about
the claim to truth and the susceptibility to manipulation of historiography are
worked on under the aspect of temporary truth (Hoofstraat).
The society has been headed by D. D. Hennig since 2015.
"When I use the term belief in history in connection with historical
science and its communication, I am precisely describing the
process of perceiving the proportion of truth in what is
communicated historically - that is, the claim to truth that is
inherent in the establishment of historical events. The current
historical consensus. The inclusion of events in this canon of truths
is inseparable from what I would like to call belief in history. This
current historiography includes the status quo of research. One
could therefore also speak of temporary truth, which is valid until a
new status quo emerges with new research results or methods
and the knowledge and assessments gained from them. The
historically relevant find therefore creates the situation in which a
specific chapter of the historical consensus, which relates to the
find and the people, cities, countries or perhaps even peoples
associated with it, has to be supplemented. The status quo of
historiography therefore defines a priori the perspective and thus
the significance of a historically relevant find, based on the status
quo of research. Questioning the credibility of historiography,
dealing with historical realities or historical fictions, supplementing
historiography, integrating new facts into existing or constructed
constellations in order to question them for a new evaluation and a
new way of looking at them, in other words questioning the last
bastion of truth, the museum as an institution for conveying history,
is ultimately the essence of historical intervention. Historical
intervention questions the characteristics of historiography and
questions its authority. The function of the museum as a collector
and preserver of cultural assets, as an institution for conveying
history and thus the function of transmitting truth is called into
question.
Knowingly confronted with a historical intervention, the recipient
must construct their own truth based on the presentation. The
intervention thus creates its own truth in a figurative sense - the
possibility of a historically accepted construction is understood as
part of one's own understanding of historical perception. The
historical framework of the intervention confronts the viewer with
his own historical truth, his idea of belief in history. Thus, the
concept of museum credibility – that is, truth – is deconstructed,
thereby evoking a sensitization of the perception of history. A
process of becoming aware of the status quo of historiography and
thus also of the more temporary historical truth, which leads to a
differentiated approach to museum presentations, i.e. institutional
authority to convey truth in the sense of historiography."
Dr. Jaap van Hoofstraat, excerpt from a speech, Congress on the Philosophy of History,
Berlin, March 1983
01. The model of historical intervention
02. 1964 / The Anastatic View: The nature of intervention in
history
03. Ideal constellation of reception according to Jaap van
Hoofstraat
04. The concept of temporary truth
01. The model of historical intervention
In 1962, Prof. Dr. Jaap van Hoofstraat defined the model of historical intervention. Historical interventions describe interventions in history by historiography itself. A historical time frame is defined using the historical timeline (GZS), which is based on previous, secure findings. The historical intervention timeline (GIZS) runs parallel to the historical timeline. The historical intervention timeline dips into the existing timeline and forms an intersection of the time axes (GSZ) – the intervention in history. After the historical intervention timeline leaves the intersection of the time axes of the historical timeline, the intervention timeline creates a parallel truth strand (PWS) for the further historical course, taking into account the changes caused by the intervention (GZS +/- GIZS = PWS). Over a longer period of time, this further historical course can lead to a fusion of the parallel truth strand with the historical timeline and thus make the integration of the intervention (I) into the historical timeline unrecognizable (GZS +/- GIZS = PWS + I = GZS). Source: Jaap van Hoofstraat, The Model of Historical Intervention, 196202. 1964 / The Anastatic View:
The Nature of Intervention
Intervention is a controlling measure on the part of the teacher or learner, who consciously sets it in order to organize events in the interest of the set goals. Consequently, every sentence, every instruction is an intervention in the learning system. Intervention in this sense is a normal, indeed necessary measure. On the other hand, the normality of intervention should not be misunderstood to mean that more intervention also means better. It is precisely the relationship between intervention and non-intervention that is crucial for success. Recognizing and implementing this is what makes teachers professional. In 1994, van Hoofstraat defined the nature of interventions in history as their credibility, constructed by the observer. The implausible is redefined in favor of a plausible possibility and thus legitimized in context. The nature of history is temporary; all findings only remain valid until new findings redefine the facts. In this context, van Hoofstraat speaks of historically temporary truth. A concept of truth that does not allow for a definitive truth. The knowledge of our inadequacy in dealing with historical facts has led to some curious follow-up and manipulation in the evaluation of history. Source: Jaap van Hoofstraat, The Anastatic View, 196403. Ideal constellation of reception according to
Jaap van Hoofstraat
The theory of reception is a model of text analysis, as developed by Hans Robert Jauß and Wolfgang Iser, among others, which understands texts in terms of their reception history. The starting point is the assumption that the meaning of a text is not fixed or can be identified with the author's intention, but only comes about in the process of reception and is therefore socially and historically variable. Hans Georg Gadamer wrote: The most authentic history of impact requires knowledge of the relevant historical period. Only in this way is it possible to assign works and their impact to the significance they had at the time and thus justified it. In 1958, van Hoofstraat applied parts of the theory of reception to the visual arts and defined the ideal constellation of reception. In contrast to the text analysis by Jauß and Iser, however, van Hoofstraat links the work of art with the author's intention. The artist develops the work of art based on his existential situation, i.e. from experience, taste, inclination, education and sensitivity. The category of the art genre is secondary, so the model is transferable. Based on motivation, idea and inspiration, the artist develops the intention of the work, which is then immanent in the work and thus also defines the knowledge of the historical period according to Gadamer. The existential situation of the recipient corresponds to that of the artist in the ideal reception constellation. Based on his experience, taste, inclination, education and sensitivity, he receives the artist's work. The reception, and thus the interaction of the recipient with the work of art, leads to a conscious or unconscious evaluation, whereby this evaluation is characterized by disinterest, rejection or approval. In the ideal reception constellation, the recipient becomes aware of the access to the artist's intention as part of the viewing spectrum. There are various variants of access, which depend on the size of the access created and represent the incentive. Ideally, the appeal of the work of art is just large enough to ensure that the recipient continues to engage with the work. If the access is too large, then interest wanes - the work of art is judged to be obvious or flat. In contrast to this, there is a lack of access. The requirement for the work to be self- explanatory is prevented by the lack of access, the recipient can neither recognize anything about the existential situation of the artist nor about the intention of the work of art. This situation also applies if the existential situations of the artist and recipient are of unequal constellation. As a rule, the ideal reception constellation is sufficient for this situation and leads to the subsequent the resulting felt evaluation. If access is provided in sufficient form and thus an incentive is guaranteed that leads to interaction between the recipient and the work of art, and thus to an evaluation, the recipient's spectrum of feelings is stimulated in the form of pleasure or displeasure, discomfort or euphoria. This perception will then complement the recipient's spectrum of evaluation and will determine both understanding and interaction in later interactions. Source: Jaap van Hoofstraat, Reception and Constellation, 195804. The concept of temporary truth
In 1959, Dr. Jaap van Hoofstraat coined the term temporary historical truth. The term can be explained most clearly using the example of a historically relevant find. Such a relevant find is assigned historically and the historical significance is, if possible, categorized and chronologically determined. This provides insights into the further historical significance of the find. If this relevant find is supported by another relevant find at a later date, the following situation arises: a new categorization is carried out, the previous assessment, historical classification and historical significance are redefined and may result in a correction of the historical timeline, i.e. the historiography. This status quo will inevitably recur at different intervals due to new and more precise research methods. Van Hoofstraat defines the period between these events as temporary historical truth. Source: J.v Hoofstraat, History in Flow, 1959/60 Imprint
