In recent years, in museums all over the world, historical art has increasingly been shown in combination with contemporary art. This is often dubbed ‘transhistorical’: showing connections between different points in time and provenance to discover parallels. Transhistorical goes through and across eras, as the prefix suggests it shows the relationships as if outside of ‘history’. However, an interhistorical approach—a term coined by cultural theorist Mieke Bal—points out that when making these relationships between different moments in the past and present, we are still embedded in the course of ‘history’.
The archive of the Oude Kerk explores these interhistorical relations in the church between various eras—from the fourteenth to the twenty-first century—which today have ended up in the same context, alongside one another. This interplay makes it possible to connect periods naturally, and to reflect on the differences and similarities. The use and the function of Oude Kerk evolved throughout these different periods based on diverse cultural and societal needs. Over time, new functions emerged, and others vanished. This may have changed its use, but because of the cultural historical value of Oude Kerk, it did not change the significance of the church. If you were to take a soil sample of the church, all the layers of time and meaning would be visible. Time does not erase them; it juxtaposes them. Posing questions about this in our present-day society generates a meaningful conversation between present and past. The interhistorical method of reflection can ensure that the historical meaning represents a current value for the world of today and tomorrow. By bringing together contemporary outlooks and heritage, new pages are being added to (art) history in Oude Kerk.