Inadvertent naturalistic calligraphic tendencies of literati colour-field non-figuration whose outcomes exemplify not the expression of the individual or its cult but serve the collective documentation, curation and advancement of ascetic-arts knowledge.

Is historiography a valid discipline?

Every academic branch of inquiry takes as read its personal style of writing and thinking in particular regard to points of methodology and product presentation. From a reading of Hayden White's "The Historical Text as Literary Artifact" (1978), I would extrapolate this, that to a large degree the historian's practice consists in measured manipulation of the meanings of events by stressing particular elements and aspects that are set within naïve chronologies traditionally contrived and maintained. I abstract this statement as a tactical enticement towards putting forward the following challenge. What might comprise the applicable aspects to a valid historiological discipline, that is, in displacement of presumptuous distractions penned midst the bureaucentric gridlock of traditional territorialising scholastic discourse?

History has been picked on, no doubt about it. But the object aims of these communal critiques ought to now be turned in upon themselves and to each its shooter the trigger squeezed.


Bleeker, C.J. 1971. Comparing the Religio-Historical and the Theological Method, Numen, Vol. 18, Fasc. 1 (April): 9-29.
Mink, Louis O. 1968. Collingwood's Dialectic of History, in History and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1: 3-37.
________. 1968. Change and Causality in the History of Ideas, in Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, Special Issue: Literary and Artistic Change in the Eighteenth Century, (Autumn): 7-25.
White, Hayden. 1978. The Historical Text as Literary Artifact, in Tropics of Discourse: 92-94; cited in Hardy, Can an Ancient Chinese Historian Contribute to modern Western theory? The Multiple Narratives of Ssu-Ma Ch'ien, in History and Theory, Vol. 33, No. 1, Feb, 20-38, 1994: 32, note 33.

No comments: