I have to write an essay on the article above. Here are the instructions:
Here is a 'Time' magazine essay by file critic Lance Morrow about the film JFK as "history." What does Morrow have to say about the writing of history? About who defines history? About what happens when artists like Oliver Stone use "public events as raw material," when artists "have taken history into theiir imaginations and transformed it"?
Write an essay in which you explain what Morrow has to say about writing history. Begin with an account of what you think are the key issues in his article. WHat does Morrow think is at stake when an artist "distorts" or "transforms" history?
Then, finish your essay by addressing these questions: where do you, as someone who has studied history, stand on this issue? What difference does it make to you?
Can you please give me some advise on how to start this?
Here is what I have so far:
Morrow on Writing History
According to Lance Morrow one must sort through the writings of history to determine what is factual and what is propaganda. He believes that once factual history dies with the past artists create their own vision of it. They let their imaginations run wild recreating the triumphs, tragedies, and conspiracies of the world for entertainment. Although Morrow believes that the writing of history is art, he thinks that when artist distort it with their imaginations. These illusions of art have a negative effect on the younger generations, in which their ideas are mislead.
History plays an important role in society for "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (Santayana 284). If history is tampered with there
Here is a 'Time' magazine essay by file critic Lance Morrow about the film JFK as "history." What does Morrow have to say about the writing of history? About who defines history? About what happens when artists like Oliver Stone use "public events as raw material," when artists "have taken history into theiir imaginations and transformed it"?
Write an essay in which you explain what Morrow has to say about writing history. Begin with an account of what you think are the key issues in his article. WHat does Morrow think is at stake when an artist "distorts" or "transforms" history?
Then, finish your essay by addressing these questions: where do you, as someone who has studied history, stand on this issue? What difference does it make to you?
Can you please give me some advise on how to start this?
Here is what I have so far:
Morrow on Writing History
According to Lance Morrow one must sort through the writings of history to determine what is factual and what is propaganda. He believes that once factual history dies with the past artists create their own vision of it. They let their imaginations run wild recreating the triumphs, tragedies, and conspiracies of the world for entertainment. Although Morrow believes that the writing of history is art, he thinks that when artist distort it with their imaginations. These illusions of art have a negative effect on the younger generations, in which their ideas are mislead.
History plays an important role in society for "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (Santayana 284). If history is tampered with there