I was watching a documentary about the Titanic sinking and was struck by the state of the wreck these days. There is a natural process whereby sunken metal is digested by bacteria and altered. It looks very much like stalactites in a cave (here's a neat article about the rusticles). What is happening is that the Titanic is being lost to natural decay. There's already a prohibition on removing anything from the wreck, but this new discovery poses the question: "Should we stop natural decay to preserve history?" Doesn't stopping the decay alter history?
 |
Prow of the R.M.S. Titanic
image credit |
Funny how fragile history has become. We see destruction of monuments and are enraged, yet isn't nature doing the same thing on a constant basis? What about oral history, which changes and is lost as easily as forgetting a phone number. I remember when they were restoring the Sistine Chapel ceiling that they discovered Michelangelo's original paint was actually very garish and bright, which decades of candle smoke dulled, and they actually stopped because we didn't want to see the original--having grown accustomed to the smoked out dullness.
History has always been sensitive to how it's presented. I've seen the same points represented completely differently, simply by having someone else show it. Don't believe me, just go to a national park and listen to various park rangers tell the history (we all put focus on different areas, don't we?).
It's worthwhile to consider such things, because one thing is definitely true about all history--it won't happen again.
- M
No comments:
Post a Comment