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.