Jacknis Reading Response

As I'm reading the beginning of the article by Ira Jacknis entitled "Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali," I am reminded of the trance-like chanting performed by the aboriginal Australian women, as we saw in the film we watched during class. Jacknis mentions that with the Bali culture, "they seemed to have culturally institutionalized dissociative and trance-like behavior, which in our culture is regarded as schizophrenic." (Jacknis 161) Mead and Bateson, as a married couple and an anthropological team worked together using new methods of research and technologies to capture the culture of the Bali people, with a focus on child development.
Meade used her personal method of "running field notes" to study the Bali culture, that went along with the photographic recordings and films, and a daily diary. Meade's early methods of anthropological studies of a culture clearly influenced the future of cultural anthropology and changed the ways in which people studied other cultures, using new technologies to gather their data. I think it is important to note Meade's gathering of native visual documents, such as paintings and carvings, which in a way defined the culture itself. The new technologies used by Mead included a hand-powered projector, which allowed the Balinese to watch the people of their society and comment on authenticity of a trance, among other things. The fact that they were able to watch what the anthropologists had documented was a major breakthrough in the ethnographic studies of other cultures because they were able to gain perspective, and give feedback to the anthropologists themselves. This technique was called "film elicitation" (Jacknis 165).
Another way in which they allowed the Balinese to give an accurate portrait of themselves was their candid use of photographing the people of Bali, in a natural setting as to give a realistic portrayal of their culture. It's interesting that Meade tried to eliminate any kind of "observer bias..." using " long, middle-distance shots, presented with minimal editing" (Jacknis 172) from her observations and recordings, in order to gather the most natural data and information of the Bianese culture. To me, this is one of the most important things about ethnographic films, to eliminate any kind of bias or opinion towards the given culture to project onto the viewers, instead capturing the culture in what is considered to be their natural state, without posing them in situations or positions or editing the film in a manner that gives a certain forced perspective on the studied individual/culture.
The editing itself if very important in ethnographic films because every shot, in a sense, gives the viewer a specific perspective as presented by the filmmaker. As Sol Worth wrote regarding Mead and her work with visual anthropology, "Film is not a copy of the world out there but someone's statement about the world." (Jacknis 173) Overall, it is evident that Mead's work with ethnographic film was a breakthrough in the world of visual anthropology because it focused on the subjects, and not a certain perspective on the subject. It is important that she recorded a culture based on "ethnographic truth" and filmed and photographed her subjects in a natural state.

Errington

9/25/11
Errington
In her article “What’s become of primitive art by Shelly Errington focuses on what became of primitive art over time. She explains what “primitivism” is and the notion of “Authenticity” with regard to “primitive Art”. Primitive art according to Errington became recognized as “art’ in the early part of the 20th Century. In the 19th century in Europe Art that lacked naturalism were considered primitive. This included Italian artist or not academically trained artist. She spoke of the introduction of “l’art negre” which she calls “African Art but literally translates is Negro art that became the fascination or fad after the renaissance.
“Primitive” was Primitive art at least Authentic primitive art consist of crafts from thousands of years ago, that were not created originally as “Art”. Errington describes art as “Art by intention is framed, literally or figuratively” and has to be durable and portable. Before the 20th century the artifacts that are now considered art were praised but not considered “Art”, there was a shift and Art was becoming more of a source for knowledge and a feeling of transcendence.
Errington also discusses “Naturalistic Prejudice – the Idea that art is made meaningful by resembling something in the world and that it strives to do so in a way as optically realistic as possible, even if it does not always achieve it” There was a craving to connect with naturalistic world could be cause of the mass productions and a longing to connect to hand made objects. The way non-European objects became to be thought of as art had little to do with each piece but with the type of artifact or image. In other words, it had much more to do with where the piece was coming from then the actual piece itself.
Art differ from place to place and the fascination with world art Primitive or not has influenced modern art.

Griffith

Marie Valbrune
Week #2
Wonderous Difference Chapter 1 and 2
September 11, 2011

The first reading talks about the concept of a Museum as it was earlier on and what it strived to be. The American Museum of natural History in New York like most museums was a place for the high class and enlightens individuals. There was a debate on should the access of museums be extended to the masses. The museum groups were looking for ways to make a trip to the museum more attractive to all socioeconomic backgrounds. It seems that the focus shifted slightly to focus on entertainment and filling the museums and the educational aspect had become secondary.
The Ultimate goal was to create an environment that would visually be capable of educating and at the same time be captivating enough to fill the museums and create spectators. As the world changed and the way we see things changed the museum groups too had to find a way to give the museum goer an exciting way to see exhibits. There needed to be a way to show an exhibit without having the person taking the picture or setting the scene to be part of the exhibit or for the visual affects to seem to unnatural.

Errington fahyr 9.27

Shelly Errington interestingly distinguishes between "art by intention" and "art by appropriation". It's understand that the definition of "art" is wide, varied and mostly subjective. Yet in our current societies there are clearly museums, galleries, auction houses that label art with certain classifications and value. When we consider primitive societies, free from Western influences, what context would they have had to create objects for art by intention. Having not considered all the filters that Errington poses, I know feel somewhat duped.

Considering how some basic logistical issues, such as portability and durability, contributed to the selection of artifacts to be highlighted as "art" makes total practical sense. Yet, I now consider the objects contrived or censored in some way -- I am now doubtful about their originality. The idea that dealers felt it within their purview to strip or omit components of an artifact for ease or durability makes you wonder what other choices were made in manipulating objects. Is the manipulation only at the level of the objects or does that extend to the context? Errington questions the terms being used in artifact descriptions to provide a back story. She suggests that words such as "ceremonial" "sacrificial" an "ritual" were applied to artifact labels to add a transcendental element, so as not to confuse the "art" with more of a "craft". I interpret her to suggest this language was used by docents, collectors and others as more of a strategy than authentic verification. Yet another example of manipulation, this time in the words or terms relevant to primitive art.

I'm left feeling like the Primitive Art collections on display are more fabricated than I had ever previously considered. The lure of providing objects as a commodity seems to have played a heavy hand in what we know today as Primitive Art.

Errington - Meg

In Errington's article she discusses the increasing popularity of primitive art and raises the question on what makes art "art". Errington makes a distinction between art by appropriation versus art by intention. She explains that art by appropriation are diverse objects that became "art" when arts museums were opened in the late 18th century. Art by intention are pieces made to be art. But in order to make this distinction, does not one must understand the society where the art originated? Many avant-garde artists but inspired by primitive art but they were interested in it because it was both scary and attractive at the same time. Most likely, they were not interested in its purpose and whether it created as art or made to suit another purpose.
But does art by appropriation lead to art by intention? I drew a parallel between Errington's argument and the movie In and out of Africa. In reality the men are making pieces of art when they carve their wooden pieces, but they are selling them as authentic art. They paint them to make them look older then they are and make up stories as to their history.
One other point that Errington makes is how art by intention is framed either in an actual frame, on a pedestal or on a stage. She explains that whatever is in the frame is not real life but a representation of reality. This made me think about the set up of museums in Griffith's articles. The museums were set up in window "frames" which displayed the ethnographic reconstructions. Each display may not have been intended to be art, but they were representations of reality.
Whether art by appropriation or art by intent, there is still the art of the sale. In her article, Errington mentions her visit to the Rockefeller wing of the Met and the docent who explains the "butterfly mask" and its meaning and intent. To Errington, the docent's explanation reminds her of a joke since she is not sure the mask looks like a butterfly or it is even a mask. The docent's objective is to sell "culture" through art by appropriation. The West African man seems to exaggerate the meaning and history of the authentic art pieces to prospective customers. His objective is to sell "art". In both cases, the stories told by both the docent and the man are necessary in order to meet each of their objectives.

Errington

Errington’s article is very interesting because it really points out and categorizes what to me is perceived about “art.” This is difficult to see because I am from a Western culture where these criteria is understood and then learned. After reading this, it makes me realize our preconceived notions about what art “is” and “isn’t” are built subconsciously within us to some extent. This is true even of the public, for when you enter a museum containing “art,” everything in this space is framed and displayed, adding to the preciousness of it. These things often do fall into the “five fine arts” categories: painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and dance—the first two being the most popular and “precious” forms of high art, if such a thing exists.

What saddens me, no matter how idealistic or romantic, is that pieces from other cultures have to fit a certain criteria for it to be collected and displayed. Primitive art needs to fit into our western notion of what art is in order for it be considered art. Masks were accepted and collected because they were 3D objects that could be displayed, like that of European sculpture.

The requirement for it is to be portable and durable, and therefore consumable as a commodity by collectors and museums is also slightly disturbing. These objects were considered to be primitive art as long as they were authentic, i.e. used in a ritual or in a ceremony, built by hand, and used in everyday life. It had to qualify as art by appropriation, which are pieces that are deemed as “art” by museums, not as art by intention, which are pieces that are made to be framed, displayed, and collected. After being deemed authentic, the pieces need to be portable in order for it to be sold, collected, and displayed.

These pieces, after meeting these two requirements, have to then be made of durable materials. If they are made of all soft materials, which in turn deteriorate and do not last over time, do become considered art at all and are not really even considered. Those made of both soft and hard materials are considered art after the soft materials have been removed. This process sometimes makes the pieces lose their meaning, especially those used in ritual, and become something else entirely to us. They are therefore not really representing this culture accurately to outside audiences, like the western museum-goers.

What really is disturbing me most though is that behind all this, and more broadly Western culture, especially the United States, is the need for it to be consumable and for it to have value. This need for it to be authentically used in that culture not for art’s sake is preposterous in some sense. The criteria that have been created makes sense in a consumer-driven society, like many in Western culture, but yet completely nonsensical. For us to only be able to deem these pieces, essentially “low art” in western views, art worthy of being displayed in Western museums, high art, is back-handed racism. This art is in authentic when consumed in this manner, it is not to appreciate the other culture and often its meaning is compromised when “becoming art.” That’s why the business of making art by intention to pass off as art by appropriation in Africa like that of what we saw in the film we watched last class has evolved. They have played by our rules in a sense to make money. Now the question is who really has the power in controlling and deeming what is art? The collectors and museum curators or those from primitive culture?

Errington

Primitive art was something that started at the beginning of the 20^th Century as a Western construct, but after some time a focus on what was authentic developed. At first, authenticity was dependent on if the culture was untouched by Western ideas and cultures. Art can be categorized into art by appropriation and art by intention. The former refers to different objects made into art during the times of the museums, while art by intention is art was meant to be purely aesthetic. Art has always been associated with collection, permanence, mobility, and durability. In the 18^th Century during the time of Kant, art was framed off from reality to show it was a representation of real life. Modern artists looked to primitive art for inspiration. Primitive art could be classified as symbolic or decorative, but it was always prized if it was associated with an unfamiliar ritual in Western terms. Everyday functional items were not considered primitive art because rarity was what was prized about the art form. After a while, primitive art’s authenticity relied on how much it looked like modern art, or it’s ‘formal qualities.’ Authentic primitive art now relies on a certain look, and if it would be something modern artists would look to. Now, ethnic (meaning non-Western) arts are popular. As modern art’s look changes, will primitive art change as fast as the look? Do museums determine what is authentic or do buyers of the art?

Errington, 9/25

In her essay, What Became Authentic Primitive Art, Errington claims that authenticity itself is a social construct, a product of Western ideology and epistemology. The legitimacy of art, both primitive and civilized, is something institutionalized; its monetary and cultural value is established and defined by collectors and curators. Art and the act of collecting are inseparable, and what links art by intention and art by appropriation is the metamorphosis that occurs from the objects creation to its final display.

In an act of backlash against a fleeting and ephemeral reality, man attempts to create a long-standing and tangible structure as a representation of his evolved consciousness. Permanence and civilization are subconsciously linked, the necessary illusion of existing indefinitely within a physical environment at a particular moment in history. Because of the conflict that categorizes the human condition -- our mind's ability to perceive infinity in both time and space, while our body is only capable of occupying a single moment in one particular space -- we seek the sacred. The primitive culture does so through ritual: communal gatherings which include the consumption of drugs or drink to dissolve the ego and comprehend  the spiritual. The modern artist does so through creativity: deemed to be imbued with shamanic qualities, capable of transcending the present and accessing the sacred, using his creativity to generate a physical manifestation of this voyage, creates a work of high art which functions as an object that is contextually utilitarian in its ability to incite contemplation if it is displayed.

Primitive art, art by appropriation, is stripped of its cultural context and functionary value, in order to employ a different meaning from its creator's intention, and incite a novel way of interpreting - a new way of seeing, for the modern, refined curator, collector, and museum frequenter. This act of stripping something of its value, and creating it as iconic, representational, rather than functional, is a product of Western ideology, capitalism, and imperialism. Our modern institutions can be seen in the same light: family, property, the state, religion are all more representational than meaningful. They all create an illusion, rather than a form of enduring meaning. Primitive art becomes high art only when the object being displayed was once associated with a ritual performed by the savage culture of its origin, rituals which attempt to dissolve the individual ego and reach the sacred. When it is framed for a gallery and marked as an object of monetary value, however, it loses its religious function, and is fully stripped of its meaning.

This obsession with the sacred, and the modern world's disenchantment and separation from "higher states" reflects our species need for transcendence, the instinctual act of creating order through symbols in a chaotic world, and the role of art in accessing that realm and representing that order. Perhaps this leaves us hopeful for the function of contemporary art in the 21st century. More and more, art is becoming something that is both functional and representational, part of its natural and social environment in the sense that objects (often times those deemed useless -- for the most part, garbage) can be stripped of their original function in order to come to represent something bigger and more valuable both monetarily and culturally, without having to be taken and used by a completely different society. Instead, these objects can be appropriated and used by the same society which turns it into a work of art, a symbol of the achievements of the human species. Is it possible for something to have aesthetic value and be utilitarian in its social context, while also being capable of inciting contemplation and transcending the present in order to access higher states, or that ideal too lofty for our species?

Errington

The concept of what is authentic primitive art is discussed in the Errington article. In this piece, Errington analyzes how the view of primitive art has significantly changed since the turn of the 20^th century. She distinguishes between the words 'primitive,' 'authentic,' and 'art.' While many pieces can be both authentic and primitive, they can in fact have little to no value as art. She then goes on to examine what is art and how we can qualify an object made for function as a piece of high art. Most primitive pieces that are considered art are art by appropriation, not made for display but to be used. Further along, Errington makes the point that art and collecting go hand and hand, and collectors look for pieces that are portable and durable. Because much primitive art is made of 'soft' materials or are quite large, their value as a commodity goes down. Also, the inferiority of primitive art and primitive cultures is implied because the Western world covets durable, long standing works of art. They are a sign of permanence, of a place in history. Therefore one qualification of authentic primitive art is that which can be transported and stored easily which severely limits the objects included in this category. Another thing that Errington noted was that much of primitive art is of a religious or ceremonial nature. She also discusses the use, or lack of use, of iconicity in primitive art.

The article concludes with Errington's summarization of high authentic primitive art. These are usually ritual objects, made of wood and ideally collected at the turn of the century. Interestingly this category includes works of art that look as if it could have influenced western artists like Picasso. I find this interesting because we are qualifying primitive art based on how it possibly impacted Western art. Errington thoroughly examined how primitive art is categorized, but I would have liked her to expand on the primitive art that could have influenced Western artists. Why is it that primitive art is only considered art because it looks similar to a Western artist's work? Again this brings up the notion that Western cultures are superior, that our art pieces must validate a primitive object in order for it to fall into the category of art.

Clifford

Clifford traces the history of “culture” and analyzes how different people become fixated on collections. The idea of culture changes constantly, and has different meanings throughout history. People collect various items and assign them different meanings and hierarchies as they go along. While structured collecting is usually seen in a good light, collections without rhyme or reason are seen as fetishes. These collections start at a young age, and often are linked to identity. There are many ways collections can be interpreted, and different objects can be classified as scientific or aesthetic. Four of the main zones that collectables can identify with are authentic masterpieces, authentic artifacts, inauthentic masterpieces, and inauthentic artifacts. There is a fine line between scientific artifacts and fine art, but artifacts can move through the zones because the art culture circuit is constantly changing. Assigning culture to a group of people is a means to understanding other ways of life, which becomes difficult when the cultures of the world intertwine. Boas was the first anthropologist to introduce the idea of cultural relativism, which introduced the idea that cultures are all equal, and not something just the West has.

This article was thought provoking while trying to grasp the made up notion of culture. I found the discussion about Levi-Strauss’s thoughts on New York City very interesting. The city was described as having many different cultures with holes to slip from one into the other. The fragmentation is a juxtaposition of the past and the present. Clifford also talks about how culture is a nationalistic idea and is heavily systematic. How is the idea of culture changing now that mass society is able to go global when it comes to technology and the internet?

Griffith

Alison Griffith explores the life groups of museums in the 19^th Century as compared to ethnographic films today in the first two chapters of her book, Wondrous Difference. Griffith discussed that the American Museum of Natural History had to find a balance between being scientifically accurate and aesthetically pleasing to spectators. Life groups supported the emerging field of anthropology, but still needed to cater to popular amusement. Life groups were great for catching the eye of museumgoers, but anthropological details were not included in the fantastic displays. The displays needed context, which required spectators to read background about the people and objects displayed. Since most people did not read the context, the life groups were not anthropologically effective. Boas did not find the groups effective because of the distraction from anthropological facts.

The life groups in the American Museum of Natural History made gave those who looked at it a Western superiority. People who went to the museum seemed civilized while the people who were displayed were portrayed as savages. Each life group could be altered to change the way spectators saw other cultures, even when it came to the museum’s designers. Anthropology was especially compromised at World Fairs, where education, popular culture, and commerce had to balance in order to be a part of the fair.

I believe a strength of the reading was the in depth analysis of how anthropology was compromised in museums and world fairs. Anthropology was a new study that needed to be spread to the average person, but pop culture had to be incorporated in order for that to happen. A weakness I believe the reading had was it is a little outdated. It is from 2002, and technologically the world has changed in the past nine years. Griffith talks about anthropology being compromised for the public’s approval relating to ethnographic films, which doesn’t seem true. In today’s times, film doesn’t need to be made for popular culture to be well known because of all the different mediums available, such as youtube. Is the position and way of seeing as skewed for ethnographies of an anthropologist’s own cultural group, now that “the other” is not the only type of anthropological research happening?

response to Errington

Shelly Errington's "What Became Authentic Primitive Art?" discusses the growing popularity of what is considered 'primitive art' in history, as well as what, for better or worse, is to be considered 'authentic.' Due to the fact that people in the West are fascinated with this so-called 'primitivism,' the trend and importance of gathering and collecting primitive forms of art grew significantly. With this trend came the controversy over what makes the art authentic or not. In relation to the film we watched in class, "In and Out of Africa" (Barbash and Taylor, 1993), the people who sold these works of art to the West realized the importance of the market and began to create a sort of 'new/old' art form, selling it as 'authentic,' and old. They even went as far as to weather down the primitive sculptures that they had just created from wood using mud, and root to give it an aged appearance, and making multiple copies of these art forms as a means of mass consumption for the white Westerners who then sold them in high-end galleries. It's interesting to me that the same African masks which Picasso painted, as seen in his painting, "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon," which was highly controversial, became an increasingly popular form of art, through what was considered to be cultural objects that had a certain significant purpose or use through the specific culture.


Errington discusses the two categories "art by appropriation...and art by intention." (203) The way in which people decided which objects belonged in a museum, and the idea that any form of primitive object could be displayed in a museum, and therefore, is authentic, primitive art, is very interesting. The idea of art by appropriation basically means that any work of art that is framed and hung in a gallery "becomes "art" by being framed." (207) As I mentioned before, as the Africans created the weathered appearance of new wooden sculptures to sell to the Westerners, is similar to the way in which, in the 1920s, art dealers practiced a similar approach of altering objects to create a specific authentic appearance, as they used to "strip African artifacts of their soft and fibrous parts, rendering them starkly "modern" looking and preserving or creating a particular aesthetic." (204) African objects, which at one point, had a purpose or significance in the given culture and environment, once exhibited in a museum becomes meaningless and merely decorative. The objects which were favored to be exhibited were mainly described as "ceremonial" (212), which downplays as well as completely ignores the true significance of the objects, which are misunderstood and underrated by the Westerners. People in the West were mystified by the objects of primitivism, therefore concluded and assumed that all of the art displayed carried some sort of spiritual or magical power, as well as superstitions. To me, Errington's article discusses how the West took African and Oceania objects, put them on display, categorized them and placed them in specific genres of "ethnic" art, and continued to fascinate and mystify people on a culture they knew nothing of, other than what they were being told to think was "primitive art," otherwise known as Non-Western artifacts labeled and misconstrued by the White, eager to collect and create new meanings for a new kind of art.

Clifford

I found Clifford’s essay very interesting, as it can be related to each reader’s life, and thus interpreted differently thousands of times. American culture is undoubtedly very possession-oriented. We measure people often in terms of value/wealth, by the size of their house, the car they choose to/can afford to drive… but I find Clifford’s essay interesting because it cuts down to the pathos: why do we find a need to collect these objects? And especially from nature. Clifford mentions the child and family keeping relics from family vacations. The fact that they were removed from nature sparks a significant debate over the true need to collect such an object; to admire it in its natural state and the remove it from that natural state. The similar happened all the time, not more than 100 years ago, when wealthy millionaires would travel the world, gathering, collecting and buying up whatever “proof” they could obtain from the lands they travelled to. It gave them credibility, and most importantly, validation.

As I mentioned before how we can all relate it to our lives, it left me thinking, How many artifacts have I collected selfishly? ...just to look at once or twice a year, and throw back in my drawer. Did I collect something just to show to or prove to a friend? Would I feel better today if I had left this artifact in its natural state, and instead, had taken a picture of it, or had drawn it, or simply felt content with the positive image it left in my memory? This way others could have enjoyed it after me… to experience its/their culture or natural state. And where did this need to collect come from?

Clifford response

Clifford's "On Collecting Art and Culture" discusses the motifs of authenticity of artifacts and how the collections give a person an identity, despite that the reproduction of the object loses its original authenticity as it is taken out of its original environment, which gives it a different meaning, and/or loses its meaning completely. What is considered to be taboo is fascinating as we "do not encounter these objects except as curiosities to giggle at, art to be admired, or evidence to be understood scientifically." (217) Griffith brings up the idea of creating an identity through the collecting of art, and how that created identity itself, is a "kind of wealth" (218). The collections have a hierarchical nature because in a sense, a person with more other-worldly objects and art is considered to be of a higher social rank due to their ability to own such exoticized art. As I mentioned before, this reading reminded me that when objects are taken out of context, they lose their original meaning as well as their authenticity. Griffith discusses this further that "collections-most notably museums-create the illusion of adequate representation of a world by first cutting objects out of specific contexts...and making them "stand for" abstract wholes." (220) The objects which are exhibited and collected lose their original meaning when they are presented as merely non-Western objects, and in a setting that presents them out of context. When non-Western art and artifacts are exhibited and/or collected, their presentation out of context loses all sense of time and place, as well as the "concrete social labor of its making." (220)

It is interesting that non-Western artifacts have been called "objects sauvages," "sources of fascination with the power to disconcert." For someone to be considered wealthy and powerful, they discover, collect, and exhibit their artifact as a sort of exotic prize for all to gawk at and acknowledge that they have acquired a taste for exoticism, as a sort of cultural fetish that is appropriate to collect. Objects which served a purpose, which had a deeper meaning in its original context, like many artifacts and works of art, once brought over and adapted to the Western world, lose their authenticity and instead become an object of fetishism, an artifact that is merely objectified and its creation is not at all questioned, instead it is simplified to a collectible that the bourgeois are entitled to own and exhibit at their own expense. This is evident throughout history, and I think even today, with the people who are wealthy enough to 'collect' art are causing original works to become less authentic in a Western environment, and even the way that it is exhibited at all causes objects to lose their original meaning.

Girffith

One point discussed in Life Groups & the Modern Museum Spectator is how the museum experience was to attract and educate immigrants and the working class. The museum developed a culture of its own since certain social behaviors, dress and attitudes were expected. The belief was that middle class spectators would promote this behavior and the immigrants and working class would observe and emulate. But in a sense the acceptable behaviors must have been very intimidating to those who were unfamiliar with them. In order to fit into the museum culture one had to observe not only the exhibits but other spectators. Yet, would not the immigrants and working class who were unfamiliar with the museum rules and protocols become spectacles, rather than spectators, themselves?
The role of action and space are discussed in the museum exhibit and film. The museum exhibit's glass partition separates the spectacle from the spectator and also film creates a space when the spectator watches a film of the spectacle. Both provide a distance between the spectacle and the spectator. It also discusses the differences of action. In a museum the spectator is moving and the spectacle remains immobile and in film the spectator is immobile and the spectacle provides the action. Time is also briefly discussed. Many of the museum exhibits included panoramas, waxworks and taxidermy which froze people and action. This type of frozen exhibition is deceiving since culture is fluid and always changing. Even with film ethnographies, time is frozen. However, since the film shows movement and action it gives the appearance that time is not frozen.
It is ironic that while other people and their cultures are presented so as to almost preserve them in museum exhibits and world fairs there is also a desire to force the same people to forget their culture and practices to make them "civilized". We see this in the treatment of Native American Indians who were forced to move from their land to reservations but at the same time perform at world fairs. The same is true even for the immigrants and working class who visited museums who were expected to adopt middle class behaviors.
One thought was that it seems that spectacle was needed to attract spectators with the intent to educate western spectators on other people and cultures, it seems that the spectacle was more of an amusement rather than an education particularly when live persons were involved. One thing not discussed at all is how the people who were used to make plaster molds or as spectacles in World Fairs and live exhibits felt. What were their reactions and feelings? Did they consider themselves to be the spectator observing westerns as the spectacle?

9/20 Reading Response
I saw several connections between Clifford's writing and the article about African Art in NYC. In Clifford's "On Ethnographic Surrealism", he discusses how in 1931, the French undertook an expedition to Africa to "enrich the nation's collections". Yet, they did not make an attempt to interpret daily life or provide a full understanding of the reality. Rather, it provided a romantic fantasy. This is very similar to the Stoller's article in which he discusses the West African street vendors at The Warehouse. In 2001, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrook and the American Ambassador to Nigeria visited The Warehouse. They walked around and talked to some of vendors but did not buy anything; vendors were honored by their visit. It appears that neither was familiar with the custom that even if you do not want to buy any of the art, out of respect for the traders you usually buy something. The dignities failed to understand the long standing tradition of professional trading and Islam and what it means to the West African vendors. It is easy to promote a romantic fantasy that the West African vendors sell African art because it has its origins in their past but in reality it has a deeper meaning. African art is the medium that satisfies the current market condition. For the West Africans is more than just the trading art. It is about reinforcing and maintaining familial and kinship ties and the cooperation among the vendors. It is surprising that the American Ambassadors were not provided with this piece of important information. The vendors were not surprised when the Ambassadors left without buying anything. Are there not staff members who research customs and traditions before meeting to avoid any such mishaps? Imagine the surprise and goodwill that could have been generated if the Ambassadors did buy something?
In Clifford's "On Collecting Art and Culture, he writes about the unexpected juxtapositions and incongruent in New York of 1941. This can also be said of today's African art trade in NYC. African art is sold in traditional art galleries, auction houses and at The Warehouse by West African vendors. Each offers a different experience. The art galleries are similar to a museum - high ceiling, dim lighting, minimal presentation and a quiet subdued atmosphere. The Warehouse, on the other hand, resembles a storage facility. The art is not displayed in any particular order, traders sit around talking and eating and stopping only during Muslim prayer time. Many consider The Warehouse an interesting place to visit but not a place to buy African Art. So when the U.S. Ambassador to the UN goes to The Warehouse and does not buy anything does this not reinforce, to a certain extent, it is not a reputable place to buy art?

Clifford

The chapter from James Clifford’s The Predicament of Culture that stuck out to me most was that on ethnographic surrealism and its concentration on its growth in Paris from the 1920s and 1930s. The notion most emphasized is that surrealism is used to create interesting and unexpected juxtapositions. Surrealist ethnographers saw culture as a contested reality—something I still believe to be true to this day—that needed to be analyzed and rearranged.

Clifford includes an excerpt from Griaule where he states that “ethnography…is interested in the beautiful and the ugly[1].” This article today I think holds true in art and my approach to photography. I guess I am a surrealist at heart, but I essentially try to take what seems common and make it peculiar and the bizarre banal. William Makepeace Thackeray once said, “the two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar, familiar things new.” This is true of any work that one is doing, especially anthropology. Geertz states that we should study common sense because it is “natural” to the person in that culture, but never the thing analyzed. This is making the familiar new. When we study other cultures in anthropology we are looking to understand it and therefore make the new thing familiar to us. Clifford essentially does this when telling us about Western culture and how we learn as children to collect things and put them on display, like a “treasured bowl filled with the bright shavings of a crayon[2].” I would have never noticed this because it is part of the “familiar” of our Western culture.

Clifford’s chapter on collecting art and culture made me wonder how one decides what is scientific, cultural artifacts, what is an aesthetic work of art, and what is seen as a collectible. Are they all valued equally? If not, why is the one valued more? We kind of consume these three different types like a commodity, part of a museum attraction or exhibit in a gallery. It wasn’t seen as “beautiful” in the European sense of the word until recently, which then pushes to the forefront why we were interested in these nonwestern works. Even those that were considered “art” where in some ways consumed because of its exotic characteristics and therefore appeal in Western culture. It wasn’t primarily for its appreciation of art for art’s sake. The art world is really about it’s mass appeal and value and these were valued because it was seen as curious, exotic, and bizarre. The value, not the monetary kind, behind the art to the culture it came from, in this case the West Africans, gets ignored and lost. The meaning is insignificant to the West and their art is seen as another good that we can consume.

---

[1] James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ehtonography, Literature, and Art, p 131

[2] James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ehtonography, Literature, and Art, p 96

Griffith

These two chapters generally are working hand in hand with one another in terms of acquainting the reader with the history and a somewhat anthropological study on how visual anthropology itself came about, which I found somewhat ironic. Chapter one used the example of life groups in museums of natural history to show us the impact and importance it had in the success of the museums. Chapter two spoke of how world fairs

Chapter one introduced us to the advantages and the disadvantages in using visual media to display a both engaging and interesting piece in it self and also one that is engaging and educational to the masses. The museum’s goal was to draw in a mass audience, including the working-class, and this was possible by using life groups. Cinema and mass entertainment became popular in the early twentieth century in New York City, especially with immigrants. Life groups, specifically in the American Museum of Natural History, “supported and challenged the emerging discipline of anthropology and how that discipline responded to conflicting needs of scientific rigor and popular amusement[1].” In short, it aimed to show anthropology’s growing role at the turn of the century through life groups and then explained the different approaches and strategies the museums used to make the experience most effective, and therefore appealing.

Chapter two also aimed to show the critical controversies around native villages being displayed at world’s fairs. The problem with this was that these native villages displays were not there to be appreciated and educational. They were seen as commodities, like the other things at the fair. Unlike the museums were anthropologists worked together with artists to create the life groups accurately, anthropologists had little control over the native villages in the fairs. The disadvantages and advantages are also addressed in the section because they promoted museums, but also was also damaging in how the fairgoers would receive them in such a public and somewhat unstructured setting. This one in particular addresses the somewhat difficult code of conduct in what is acceptable in anthropology, how it’s conducted, it’s accuracy, if it is a real study, if it is a mere tool in popular culture, etc

What happens when these injustices are being done? Yes, our notion of anthropology has grown and changed from the time that these went on and these now seem politically incorrect, but it’s only now seen years later as it being true.

[1] Alison Griffith, Wondrous Difference, 22.

Clifford

Clifford’s writings offered me an opportunity to consider my own biases when viewing art, culture and collections. I appreciate his insight on Western behaviors we learn as children to preserve personal treasures so they can be placed on public display --- shelves to display model cars, stands for precious porcelain faced dolls. I didn’t realize the notion of the ideal self as an owner could be traced as far back as the 17^th century. More than 200 years later, there is still such relevance to a notion that the accumulation of possessions has equivalence to value and wealth.

In these readings I more fully appreciate the challenge presented to our cultural institutions we know today as museums, galleries and exhibits. As Clifford discusses objects, experiences and memories that are perhaps initially prized for rarity or uniqueness can move from curiosity to a valued source of information. How can these brick and mortar institutions continue to keep pace in a society that seems to have unprecedented access? How does this global access influence the value and authenticity we seek in viewing objects, experiences and cultures? Events over time also add an unexpected element….perhaps parts of the world that would never have been considered as “important enough” to collect artifacts or record history will be missing from our future exhibits. Will artifacts from the Wards of New Orleans, the villages of Haiti and Indonesia find their way into our “art-culture” systems? As Clifford illustrates in his diagrams when considering art and culture labels can and will shift and change as today fades to history.

Griffiths

The anthropologists and early curators of the AMNH and other museums were right to debate the various modes to present their scientific information. It’s fascinating to find out that tension between educational content delivery and consumerism has been going on for more than 100 years. I’m at conference for Innovation at the Mayo Clinic and it is apparent how whole fields of study have evolved around many of the topics discussed in Griffiths chapters. The discussion of architectural design elements, the use of dioramas, wax figures or taxidermy for exhibits is still relevant today. The effectiveness in presenting facts or communicating information pulls from many disciplines --- not just anthropology. Interaction designers use engineering principles, design research, visual arts and more. Boas and his peers could only anticipate the transformation the motion picture industry would bring to their fields of study.

Griffith

Although it’s admittedly not the most central idea in his essay, I have never compared the entertainment aspect of museums to those of the freak shows, such as those found at Coney Island. I have always thought, ‘this is in a museum; it must be purely educational.’ But when viewed through a different lens, the dinosaur at the Museum of Natural History becomes “Come see the largest/biggest/strangest _____ on Earth.” Museums do compete as a form of entertainment, and I somehow never connected these lines. As I’m interested in architecture, I think it would be an interesting social experiment to switch the facades of the American Museum of Natural History and one of the great “freak halls” of Coney Island, a phenomenon loosely explained by Robert Venturi. As one building creates undertones of civil equality and solid truths, the other conveys tones of a temporary, makeshift exhibit. It’s cheap construction hinting, “see it while you can!” I wonder if people would see the exhibits within differently, as they make assumptions and cast doubts before even stepping into the buildings.

Griffith

The notion that the natural history museum was born out of the necessity to further anthropology as a discipline in academia is something I find fascinating. Throughout Griffith's article, we see how museums and department stores questioned what is constituted as public space, while also reconciling the two separate realms of art and science. Thew new spectator, the middle-class museum goer, established new ways of seeing. The natural history museum served the purpose of refinement, and sought to teach the citizenry social etiquette and behaviors that were considered acceptable by the bourgeoisie. In reality, however, the lower and working classes could never really afford the time to pensively wander the halls of museums.  And even if they could, that "refinement" could be taught through museum displays is a naive and ethnocentric statement. The museum itself exists as an ethnocentric and nationalistic institution, functioning to promote the ideologies of the nation in which it exists. The reflects upon anthropology as a discipline, and where its groundwork rests in 20th century America.

Clifford

In The Predicament of Culture, Clifford uses the word ethnography as a something completely different from the empirical research technique of a human science, and instead refers to a more general cultural predisposition - making the familiar strange, and the strange familiar. For Clifford, both surrealism and ethnography arose in the Paris of 1925 as a means of redefining the stable orders of collective meaning, which as we know are constructed, artificial, idealogical, and usually oppressive. Members of the surrealist movement and early students of anthropology looked to Africa and Oceania for new forms and new beliefs, attempting to replace every local custom with an exotic alternative. The issues of reality for the individual in the time between the two great wars - essentially nihilism and the belief that the self must find meaning wherever it may - applied to the predicament of culture, for issues of the individual become issues of culture.

The avant guard act of stripping objects of their function reflects the popularity of flea markets at this time, and the flaneur's way of experiencing not only the urban metropolis, but life as brief, fleeting moments of existence in general. Culture's lack of spacio-temporal boundaries mimics the urban dweller's lack of boundaries within his or her own existence. Clifford seeks to expand the use of both surrealism and ethnography as historical categories. The new use of each term is meant to provoke new retrospective unities, while expanding the boundaries between both art and science, both the rule and the transgression.

For Clifford, culture and identity happen between people - a form of negotiation that occurs through a complex process. By joining art and science, surrealism and ethnography, Clifford seeks to demonstrate the full human potential for cultural expression, while abandoning the distinction between both high and low culture. Perhaps this is the shift in from a "transitional mode of communication", based on an oral narrative and shared experience, to a cultural style, characterized by bursts of information -- the photograph, the news paperclip, and essentially the work of art, the only tangible, physical, and "real" representation of both the rule and the transgression existing as the collective meaning that is considered culture.

This is just a test.

John Marshall and Tim Asch.