History Shaping Interpretation

     Coincidentally, as I worked on my 3rd project, I actually encountered a historical fact that changed some of my interpretations of the particular visual artifact I was studying.  I chose to do my project on the ichthys (or Christian fish) and the appropriations of it by proponents of evolution (i.e. Christian fish with legs, etc.).  I knew that the ichthys was originally a secret symbol that Christians used in the early days of Christianity to denote their faith to others.  In this sense, it was used as a recognizable object that their persecutors would not be able to identify.  However, when I was researching its history, I came across information that contended that the rationale behind the choice of this symbol was more complex.  The ichthys was actually originally a pagan symbol of fertility; thus, it was a symbol that not only was a secret to Christians, but drew upon prominent beliefs of the time, making it difficult to identify since it was so commonplace in Rome.

     I had already intended on focusing on how one ideology (secularism) had appropriated the symbol from another (Christianity), yet this history enabled me to understand that this symbol had been used by various belief systems.  This not only enriched my analysis but also provided me with a more thorough understanding of this visual artifact.

     In our readings for this week, once again I was confronted with historical facts that led to a more engaging interpretation of a visual artifact.  In Helvetica and the New York City Subway System, Paul Shaw traces the history of Helvetica in the MTA signage, yet contends that there is a false narrative that has Helvetica always having been the typeface.  Shaw concludes, "But it is not true--or rather, it is only somewhat true.  Helvetica is the official typeface of the MTA today, but it was not the typeface specified by Unimark International when they created a new signage system at the end of the 1960s" (xi).  He then goes on to trace the journey, which is oddly political, of Helvetica to the standard of MTA.  As he tracks the shifts in the signs over the years, I was struck by how complex this history was.  I would never have considered so much would have gone into the design and choice of typeface--it made me stop and ponder what kind of histories might be associated with other common design elements we encounter everyday.

     History seems a lot more prominent in interpreting visual artifacts than I initially thought.  Without a proper understanding of history, it would seem rather easy to make faulty assumptions as to the nature and/or function of particular visuals.  The hows, whys, and ifs of a visual's usages, circulation, design, etc. have a pronounced effect in regards to understanding it  (we can even see this Helmers' article on fine art).  In all likelihood, it would appear as if a visual artifact is inseparable from its history when doing analysis.  The history is just as critical as any other element in relation to the artifact.