http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/huam-zoo-paris-exhibition

Paris show unveils life in human zoo      

Sense of shock as exhibition reveals how people were displayed in freak shows in the 19th and early 20th centuries.    Angelique Chrisafis in Paris    .  guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 13.22 EST  Article history

Models of heads of Botoduco men on display at the Quai Branly museum in Paris. Photograph: Remy de la Mauviniere/AP

Half-naked Africans made to gnaw bones and presented as "cannibals" as they shivered in a mock tribal village in northern France; Native American children displayed at fairgrounds; families from Asia and the South Pacific behind railings in European zoos and dancing Zulus on the London stage.
Paris's most talked-about exhibition of the winter opened on Tuesday with shock and soul-searching over the history of colonial subjects used in human zoos, circuses and stage shows, which flourished until as late as 1958.

Human Zoos: The Invention of the Savage, curated by former French international footballer turned anti-racism campaigner Lilian Thuram, traces the history of a practice which started when Christopher Columbus displayed six "Indians" at the Spanish royal court in 1492 and went on to become a mass entertainment phenomenon in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Millions of spectators turned out to see "savages" in zoos, circuses, mock villages and freak shows from London to St Louis, Barcelona to Tokyo. These "human specimens", and "living museums" served both colonialist propaganda and scientific theories of so-called racial hierarchies.

The exhibition at Paris's Quai Branly – Jacques Chirac's museum dedicated to once-colonised cultures – is the first to look at this international phenomenon as a whole. It brings together hundreds of bizarre and shocking artefacts, ranging from posters for "Male and Female Australian Cannibals" in London, which was the world capital of such stage shows, to documentation for mock villages of "Arabs" and "Sengalese", or juggling tribeswomen in France, which was renowned for its extensive human zoos. Thuram, who was born on the French Caribbean island Guadaloupe, said the exhibition explained the background of racist ideas and "fear of the 'other'" which persisted today.

"You have to have the courage to say that each of us has prejudices, and these prejudices have a history," Thuram explained. He said he was appalled that Hamburg zoo still had sculptures of Indians and Africans at its entrance, a sign that humans as well as animals were on display.

The exhibition reflects a trend in France to re-examine the exploitation of people for entertainment. The recent film Black Venus by acclaimed director Abdellatif Kechiche told the 19th-century story of Saartjie Baartman, a Khoikoi woman from South Africa, who was displayed in London and Paris as the "Hottentot Venus". Londoners derided her as "Fat Bum".

In 1906, Congolese pygmy Ota Benga was exhibited in a cage at the monkey house at New York's Bronx zoo, causing a controversy before he was put in an orphanage for "coloureds". He later shot himself. A hairy woman from Laos, known as "Krao", was exhibited at the end of the 19th century as "the missing link" between man and orangutan.

William Henry Johnson, an African American child with a small cranium, was bought from his parents aged four, exhibited in a hairy suit and made to grunt. The show was titled What Is It?

The exhibition traces the lives of up to 35,000 people put on show in mock tribal scenes and taken to villages or zoos. In 1931, the great-grandparents of Thuram's World Cup team-mate Christian Karembeu came to Paris from New Caledonia. They considered themselves ambassadors but were displayed in a cage at the Jardin d'Acclimation in Paris. They were later shown in Germany, along with about 100 other New Caledonian Kanaks and described as "cannibals".

The phenomenon began to decline in the 1930s with changing public interest and the advent of cinema. The last "living spectacles" were Congo villagers exhibited in Belgium in 1958.

Ginsburgh - Media Works

The Materiality of Cinema Theater in Northern Nigeria. by Brian Larkin. (Fay Ginsburgh – Medea works chapter 16)

Brian Larkin takes a look at the ways Cinema Theater affects the community and culture. He points out that although it does not offer a “material object” for the spectator to take home with them offers an emotional experience. He explains what Cinema theater can offer in terms of sociability, he mentioned that one gentleman did not really care or understand the movie he was going to see but mostly went to be see and to see his friends. Going to the Cinema became a social activity. Though Cinema Theaters are supposed to be a local public space it became representative of the colonizing country. Theaters were named after the Queen and architecturally represented Europe. The Cinema Theaters in Kano and colonized area also played a role of modernization and cultural assimilation. Larkin explained “the erection of theaters in colonial cities created new social spaces for intermixing” They created urban areas that became known as morally questionable areas. Along came alcohol, and dance parlors which does not represent the Hausa people. I found it interesting how Larkin first start analyzing meaning of films at the Cinema and how it creates Travel without movement and ultimately it’s the effect of the Cinema Theaters on the environment that he focuses on. How the positioning of Theater can change the environment of a community and ends being the basis of a political movement or a revolt against for the oppressed.

RICHARD R. WILK

RICHARD R. WILK: “Television and the Imaginary in Belize”

Richard R. Wilk in his article, ‘Television and the Imaginary in Belize’ speaks about the affects that TV has had on the Belizean people. Wilk argues that two changes have taken place. First the way in which people talk about the T.V debate has changed and also with access to direct satellite T.V the Belizean’s perception of time has changed.

I have spent time in Belize in 2003 and while I was there I saw only one or two TV’s those of which hardly worked. In the last few years however, technology has advanced and Belize now has full access to many TV programs that we have in the states. They are no longer behind us and are up to date on the news, worldly events and entertainment. Many of the television programs that run in Belize now are primarily fed legally and illegally from U.S satellites. The programs introduce the Belizeans to the concept of self-perception, “with an objectified ‘other,’ the problem of defining the self has a new dimension”. TV has introduced them to new concepts and ideas and people are not restricted to the Belizean ways or the Belizean traditions.

Wilk talks about a common language that has formed between the Belizean people as they discuss issues from news to entertainment. Before satellite TV, images and video of foreign cultures were received to the people indirectly, “with the colonial elite acting as selective agents, the gatekeepers to the outside world.” There is no longer that divide and everyone is able to access the same information. This also helps political opinions and those that are one-sided are seeing that they actually share many commonalities with those on the other side through the interactions they see on TV. “In Belize since the advent of television, people talk about ‘culture’ constantly, in ways that were not possible before.”

Another topic that was discussed in this article is the idea of time. “New notions of the relationship between distance and time have come into play.” The elite used to be the ones that traveled and waltzed around in their new clothing listening to the hippest music. “The local elite are no longer the only ones to emulate or envy, for they are no longer the source of new things”, all Belizeans have access to the up and coming styles of NYC. Time no longer separates Belize from other places in the world. With instant access to information Belize is only separated now by their culture and distance.

Pinney

In his introduction of "How the Other Half...", Pinney suggests tracing the history of photography as more than something that plays a role of cultural significance to the west. Rather, he emphasizes that photography reached various cultures at the same time, playing out its societal impact in different ways. Each culture appropriated the use of photography in a manner specific to its own uses, and to merely trace the development of photography as something relevant to Western society is doing an injustice to its history. He calls for an extension of the history of photography "laterally outward to domains outside the purview of conventional narratives"; essentially, the history of photographic use and development is equivalent in its importance to each place, yet its functions vary drastically and the way that photography functioned needs to investigated and explored in order to provide for a complete history of photography.
Photos mean different things in different contexts. Photographic images are particular in the sense that they allow for a multitude of discourse. They also allow for the entrance of the random- in this way they are reflective of modern life more so than any other form of visual documentation. Pinney explores this briefly, stating that "the photograph ceases to be a univocal, flat, and uncontestable indexical trace of what was, and becomes instead a complexly textured artifact". A photograph transforms into something three-dimensional, with a quality of infinity in its ability to transcend all space and time in gathering meaning. Its interpretation is contingent upon its context; rather than being a glimpse of what was, it is all together in one, whats has been, what is, and what will be. The subversive code present in every photographic image makes it open and available to other readings and uses, this subversive code being randomness.
The random, the absurd, the unintentional, all become the subject matter of a photo because of the way it functions. In trying to catch one thing, photos inevitably contain all that is exposed to the lens. This lack of control in photography makes the random, valuable. This randomness alters the image in its entirety, if not a the present moment, then definitely in the future. Looking past can be equated with looking into what's next. The photograph allows us to retrace its own visual history, exposing the fact that colonialism was not merely an American/European practice, but rather something performed by many other nations and cultural traditions. Foucault and Said's anaylses oversate the power and agency of the oppressor, the powerful, the picture taker, while not considering the agency that rests within the subject.
Pinney points the characteristic change in photography to be the fact that it is operative in a field of dialogue and refusal - this is where the randomness comes into play. The subjects are now taking the technology which once oppressed them and using it to create their own visual realities.  Heidegger's claim that the modern world as a picture, controlled by human subjects, allowed photo to function the way it did in the West, also provides us with insight to how it now functions in terms of indigenous people exposed to media such as film and photo. By creating their own realities through image, there is no telling in how they will reorganize their cultural structures.

Visual Anthropology Final Paper

ASSIGNMENT: Write a 6-8pp paper with an original thesis that addresses key debates in ethnographic and/or indigenous film and video. 

Papers should be double-spaced, 1” margins, Times New Roman. Use in-text citations e.g. (Rau 2007:196) and a bibliography (MLA, APA, Chicago Manual, etc.).

DUE: Tuesday 12/6  -  Thesis, title, and bibliography

DUE: Tuesday 12/20  -  Final paper (Final exam day)

Develop your thesis/argument with reference to the readings and at least 4 of the films and filmmakers discussed in parts II and III of the course (Mead & Bateson, Marshall, Rouch, Asch & Chagnon, Kildea & Leach, the MacDougalls, Apak Angilirq, and/or Masayesva (Flaherty is ok too)).

Your bibliography must contain at least 7 references. You are encouraged to find relevant sources in addition to the course readings (See the syllabus for sources). You must cite at least one reading from Loizos and Ruby.

There are many acceptable ways to organize this essay (e.g. I expect your theses/central arguments to focus on anything from technological to feminist concerns); but, consider the following:

·        What are some of the key debates in documentary film and ethnographic representation?

·        How did the filmmakers address ethical debates surrounding the representation of cultural Others?

·        To what extent do the films succeed in goals such as: eliminating bias (and what kinds of bias), being inter-subjective, being objective, representing the “truth,” being non-exploitative, having equal power relations, representing ethnographic subjects as “co-eval,” and/or resisting the tendency to “essentialize” or “exoticize” their subjects?

·        How did the historical context and other discourses (intellectual, artistic, popular culture, political, scientific, etc.) affect the production and interpretation of these films?

·        How did the availability of technology and technological innovation impact representational practices and their circulation?

Ethnographic film venues

When this class is over, you will probably experience ethnograhic film withdrawl. Here are some venues that often show alternative and documentary films, some of which could be considered “ethnographic.”  You can also find them on Netflix or Amazon Instant Video.  Did I forget any? Feel free to add some.

http://www.filmforum.org/

http://www.quadcinema.com/

http://www.ifccenter.com/

http://www.cinemavillage.com/chc/cv/

http://www.filmlinc.com/films/all-series

http://angelikafilmcenter.com/

http://www.villageeastcinema.com/

http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Market/NewYork/NewYork_frameset.htm

http://anthologyfilmarchives.org/film_screenings/calendar#day-21

http://www.nmai.si.edu/subpage.cfm?subpage=events#/?i=1

http://www.spaincultureny.com/story.php?id=1082

ginsburgh

In chapters 5-8 of Media Worlds, we read how television, as a form of social media, in several countries is discussed and the role it plays in forming different identities. Depending on the country, television helps shape gender and religion identity as depicted in Egyptian melodramas, national Hindu identity as depicted in a serial broadcast of an Hindi epic; Thai television at a national level that relied on local participation that poses Thai people versus "the other" (mainly foreign others) and satellite television in Belize that created a "modern" identity since it has eliminated time and distance to other societies due to real time broadcasting. For most Americans, we take television for granted and do not necessarily create our identities based on television shows. This book was published in 2002 and since then many other forms of social media (e.g. internet, Facebook, Twitter) have replaced television.
In one of the chapters, Epic Contests Television and Religious Identity in India, Purnima Mankekar writes about the broadcasting, on state-controlled television, of a serial based on a important Hindu epic in 1987. Many of the Hindus who watched the serial commented that it was similar to a religious ritual. The serial taught Hindus to be proud of their heritage rather than ashamed and how to incorporate Hindiusm into everyday life. Yet many non-Hindus found the serial entertaining and some expressed hostility and would not even watch it. One young Muslim widow individualized the serial (similar to the woman in the Egyptian melodrama) since she was betrayed by her husband and bitter that her in-laws did not help her while constantly reprimanding her for her lack of modesty. The serial portrayed Hindu as a cornerstone of Indian culture and to equate Hindi culture with Indian culture. Over the last several decades, there has been an increase in Hindi nationalism and the serial shared some of the same features. Both Hindi nationalism and the serial demonized "the other".
When I was reading the chapter about the Hindu serial it reminded me of the American mini-series, Roots. Roots was televised on ABC in 1977 and was an historical story about slavery. Similar to the Hindi serial, it was watched by millions. Roots allowed African Americans to be proud of their heritage and expanded America's knowledge of history. While the show was well viewed, I am sure that some watched it for entertainment and others would not watch it at all.
As noted by Television, Time and the National Imaginary in Belize by Richard R. Wilk, he writes that watching television is a social activity and that the information viewed is mediated through a social process of debate, discussion and public discourse. He writes that television discourse and debate has changed the existing social divisions and alignment of fraction and that television allows for new interpretations of the past. Both the Hindu serial and Roots created a new interpretation of the past so the Hindus and African Americans feel pride in their heritage. At the same time, the Hindu serial has also changed the existing social division and alignment of fraction and it could be said the change has not always been for the better. Mankekar questions whether the serial and Hindi pride helped create the widespread violence in 1992 where Hindu nationalist stormed the mosque.

Ginsburgh- Media Worlds

The National Picture: Thai Identity- Annette Hamilton

Hamilton considered Thai people’s sense of identity at a national and local level through mass media in the 1980’s. Hamilton considered her work to me media anthropology because she took media into consideration instead of just focusing on villages or ethnic minorities. Mass media blurred the lines of community and instead produced “imagined communities” because of the controlled international, national, and local broadcast material shown.

The article discusses how Thailand’s people interpret national and local identities by examining how the nation is presented to the people. National broadcasting neglects local content and social criticism of the country or the Royal family. The sense of national identity springs from the relationship to others (mainly Westerners), which leads to the suppression of local practices in national media. Thai people are required to identify with the new social movement towards modernity and Western practices (such as Christmas). Thai identity is produced through public political and religious rituals, mass media, and educational and bureaucratic practices. Diverse Thai culture is accepted in careful boundaries for tourism.

Television and videos became a social community builder for tourists and locals alike. People would get together in their communities to watch videos, which built a sense of neighborhood that was also established through traditional events. As cable emerged, people began to request videos of family and private events such as weddings and funerals. This reminds me of our society’s fascination with reality television today. Spiritual events would also be shown, but they would be edited and have voice-overs that would definitely change the viewing experience. Television neglected social and political events arising in the country, but instead political statements would be made through melodramas, which the people had to interpret the hidden meanings. The people were yearning for democracy and a civil society, but this was not being shown on TV, which led to public protests. This reminds me of the social media revolution in Libya earlier this year. Thai television had a disconnect between reality and mass media representation, which changed their sense of identity locally and nationally.

Photography

In the article by David Macdougal"Photo Whallahs" An Encounter with Photography, the author sets out to explain his film about the ways in which photography is incorporated in culture and facilitates meanings, indexed within the culture itself.  To facilitate this idea he and Judith Macdougal went to India where the scenery is vivid and visually rich for photograhing to to take place.  India is also a country where individuals have only just begun using personal cameras, so what they document or create and how is of importance to anthropology. 

In an interview, the philosophy behind the film and methods are seen  as well as the culture which was studied.  In Mussoorie the filmmakers noticed that people flock to cameras happily. I find it interesting that they are interested and open to being photographed, because of the intensity at which we shun photos in the U.S.  This self conscietiousness may be due to the high standards of beauty and the difficulty of this attainment.  We also index photography in a way that is scientific (documenting) or as art both of which include a quest for a transformative property of a person or a scene.  How we act according to social abstractions, and dispositions placed on us by the institutions we are in and the vast number of abstractions and stratagems that we employ or follow and at which mold our identity in elusive ways exacerbate the the problem of finding self-hood in a modern society.  A lens placed on us might shine light on how we act which we are afraid is acting too much or not accordingly to what is socially permitted. 

The photo which is a second layer of information, is seen to heighten the essence of people or a scene, in Mussoorie.  It adds in some ways to the meaning in a truthful way or it uncovers some truth of a situation.  As the article states: "It presents, not represents."   Maybe this is what U.S. americans fear, that the level at which photography is used, is an analysis and a representaion of objective reality.  If a photo taken is a transformation and catches a glimplse of what we do not want others to see.  In an unmediated inversion the photo can be seen as a mirror to reality itself.

Photo Wallahs

In Photo hierarchicus: Signs and mirrors in Indian photography by David MacDougall, he writes about the idea of "stealing our souls" and photography. This idea may seem odd to most westerners but it is not to odd to all. If you do not understand how the photography process works, it seems like magic. Someone stands behind a box, takes a picture, processes it and then handles you a paper with your image.
MacDougall writes about class and photography studio hierarchy in India. It is interesting that no matter your social status, there is still a desire to have your photography taken. My family photo albums have a few really old photographs that have a studio name and address either stamped on the back or a corner. I wonder if the same class and photography studio hierarchy existed in the U.S.? Was there the same desire to have your photograph taken regardless of your status?
At one point MacDougall writes about the photographs that documented court life. He writes that the photographs show some people in fancy dress costumes for parties or dressed in traditional regalia and compares this to the tourists who dress up for costume photographers. But is these the same thing? The court life pictures present people in their reality; they are not pretending to be something they are not and they are not in disguise. When the tourists dress up in costumes, it is not their reality but only a fantasy. As MacDougall notes, there is a close correlation between the photographs and cinema and pretending temporarily to be someone you are not.
There is a contradiction in that the idea of the new middle class traveling for leisure is a modern idea while at the same time they dress up in costumes that reinforce gender roles. Two of the three categories reinforce gender stereotypes. For example, women dress up in traditional costumes with props such as a water jug or flowers. Men dress up as powerful exotic figures.
Switching topics, in Christopher Pinney's Introduction to "How The Other Half…", he writes that in the cases of Jo-Anne Driessens and Michael Aird, the recoding of images came out of their discovery and recognition of images of family members stored in an archive and were formerly anonymous. I cannot help but wonder what this must have felt like. It must have been amazing to connect to your past via a photograph. He is right when he calls it a homecoming.

Ruby

It's interesting how improvement in technology and a gradual change of common practice can impact the subject of ethnographic film. Ruby mentions the "tradition of the victim," and what sync-sound has done to change the traditional views of the subject. When looking back to Nanook, a film that entirely spoke for the subject, more and more ethnographic studies are now focusing on speaking with or alongside the subject to achieve more "accurate" and "professional" findings.

I am most interested in this small, narrow window of time between the advent of sync-cound (when subjects can speak in real-time, for themselves) and when the practice of using "talking heads" was almost standardized. Ruby talks of "expert witnesses" and "voice of God narration" in filming documentaries today (54). This practice is almost mainstream, from ethnographic film, to scientific studies, and the news. The news especially comes to mind, as most stories toggle between, say, the calm-and-collected fire chief explaining what is happening to a burnt-down apartment building, and the frazzled neighbor making little sense/ trying to take advantage of such an event for what they see as their 15 minutes of fame. This phenomenon occurs today, as it did decades ago. For this reason, people love the professionals when they talk. They make sense, appear calm and professional, and can largely go unchallenged. But allowing an "expert" to narrate can be very dangerous, as Ruby explains. Dialogue ends. The subject can feel more like an object than a human. This new practice suddenly becomes identical to the booming, unidentified narrator of Nanook.

I'd like to see Eyes on the Prize one day for the reasons Ruby notes. A successful documentary in which only participants are interviewed, without any "expert opinion" is worth seeing. I can't remember any documentaries like this, really (which kind of proves my point?) People love the intimacy of other people telling their stories first hand, but also seem to require a third-party "expert" for validation. Striking a balance is very tricky.

Pinney, MacDougall

Photography is a multi-dimensional art. What I mean by this is that photography can mean different things to different people. To some, it does not even qualify as art. To others, it is a means of documenting and recording events. In the film Photo Wallas, by David and Judith MacDougall, the meaning and types of photography in India are explored. According to David MacDougall in the article Photo Wallas: An Encounter with Photography, this film is an attempt to learn “how photography differs from other kinds of visual representation, and how different people interpret that difference” (28). Within the confines of Indian culture, the MacDougalls drew the conclusion that photography is used as a medium of both imagination and evidence. This conclusion is supported in the Pinney article “To Know a Man From His Face:” Photo Wallas and the Use of Visual Anthropology. Pinney reviews the film, focuses on specific points that back up the MacDougalls conclusion. He agrees that fantasy and performance is a large part of photography in India, which is a method to reveal a person's 'personality.' The outer appearance is stressed more than what is inside, which is not seen as much in western style of photography. Our culture, I believe, has a desire to find extraordinary things within the ordinary and many photographers focus on taking pictures of everyday life and events. In a still photo it is possible to reveal something that would otherwise go unnoticed. What is usually observed as a mundane action or person can be turned into a stimulating subject. Pinney and MacDougall both recognize that India creates the interest in a person through props and settings – like the photographers who reside on Gun Hill – stressing the fantasy and preparation of the photograph. However, not all Indian photographers act in this manner and neither do all Western photographers. There are overlaps between the two places which again emphasizes the point that photography holds a variety of meanings for different cultures.

Pinney/MacDougall Response

Pinney's article, "To Know a Man From His Face" discusses the art of portraiture in photographs, focusing on the work of H.S. Chadha, who "sees photography as a psychological and scientific method to awaken desires" (Pinney 120). The article is a discussion of the film, "Photo Wallahs" which shows the culture of photography in Mussoorie, India. The idea of creating an identity can be seen through photographs, both literally and metaphorically. The example of tourists dressing up as different personalities of people shows the entertainment value of losing oneself and one's real identity in a photograph. H.S. Chadha often photographs tourists, who pose in costumes and "assume the character of that costume" (120). Pinney seems to repeatedly discuss the uses of disguise and costume to conceal one's interior identity, as seen in the film, "Photo Wallahs." The reality and truth of a person is hidden by costumes, props, and even modern technology. Representations of the "truth" of India, and of the natives can be seen in images that relate more to "Peter H. Emerson's heroicization of 1800s East Anglian agriculturalists than the 1940s colonial vision of an authentic village India"(121). Photography in India can be seen as a representation of hierarchies, such as class and society through the modernization of technology.

In the article, "Photo Hierarchicus:Signs and Mirrors in Indian Photography," MacDougall discusses the themes of identity and representation, as well as the way in which visual anthropology serves to present the "least mediated forms of representation" through photography. In terms of the image that represents one's identity and story through photography, MacDougall asks which identity is expressed, internal, eternal, or transient. He revisits the tourism photography of India, which represents one with a completely new identity, as they are photographed in costume. This process of creating a new identity, according to H.S.Chadha, "produces an emotional transformation, one which we might compare to a religious experience "(MacDougall 104).

In terms of representations of social hierarchy, early photographs of the different social classes of India were different depending on whether or not the people were of high or low class. Often photographed with their possessions, the higher class of people have better communications with the photographer in terms of how they wish to appear. However, the lower class of people were photographed in a form similar to scientific specimens, with no possessions and "pictured uncomfortably in the trappings of the bourgeoisie" (MacDougall 105). The objectification of the lower class can be seen in "The People of India" which was published between the years of 1851 and 1875 (105). Overall, the focus on tourists in India willingly dressing up in costume (one of three categories of personalities) can be seen as the wish to be represented, however this says something about capturing the 'truth' and 'reality' of life when one is disguising their true self.

Lutz and Collins 11.8.11

The week I read the Lutz and Collins article I was also investigated a workplace complaint regarding professional conduct. I had read the interviews of 4 young women regarding the "inappropriate" behavior of a male co-worker towards them and a common theme was the "look" he gave them. The article also reflected on types of looks or gazes. The article enumerates 7 types of gazes based on their context. Although not a photograph, the women in my workplace scenario were echoing the same discomfort in being the object of a co-workers gaze. Feminist theory was applied in the article and I heard it my current example. Power is attributed to the spectator or observer over the person or thing observed. The observing is the active and characterized as more masculine, than the passivity associated with being observed.

I wondered how the action of photographic gazing passed between an attraction to beauty, a documentary purpose and surveillance, as the authors gave these intention as an example. How does the action of the looking translate when it's thru a camera lens? Is the impact different than face to face? I wondered in the films that we've screened did any of the observed feel invaded, violated, uncomfortable, purely due to the gazing that occurs in field work or filming. There is no question for me both after reading the article and my experience at work that the "gaze" is much more powerful than imagined. Westerner or non-Westerner seems to be transcended when it comes to agreeing that a look is more than a look.

Ruby

In “Speaking for, Speaking About, Speaking with or Speaking Alongside” Jay Ruby explores the concerns about ethnographic/documentaries and whose voice should be heard. He speaks about the motivation of documentary films, cites Dziga Vertov, who says that the most necessary voices are that of the filmmaker and the subject being filmed.
Ethnographic films were considered true representations of another culture. Ruby speaks about the idea that misconception that being a moral person as a filmmaker was sufficient for telling a truthful story about another group. Objectivity plays a large part in what filmmakers produces.
Cultural interest and personal experience shape the interpretation of visual images, the author of the image has one set of views that he hopes to convey. His vision is shaped by his experiences, culture, social views, gender, and race; this too can also be said about the subject of the documentary.
Ruby talks about Cooperative films where the filmmaker works with the subject to create a more truthful representation of the Other.
The roles of filmmaker historically have been played by straight, white, male, middle class westerners with very little in common with their film subjects. Ruby talks about cooperative films and also giving The Other role of filmmaker. Allowing minorities the capability of self-representation is great but at the same time in order for these same films to be a success they often have to follow the straight, white, male middle class script.
The power to represent yourself and group does that make a documentary more truthful or does it bring forth a whole other perspective?

The optimistic gardener

Fire hazard

Margaret Mead Festival: Small Kingdon of Lo

I saw the Small Kingdom of Lo and a short film entitled Maroloja that preceeding the deatured screning. The Kingdom of Lo is in the Mustang region of Nepal surrounded by the Himalayan mountains and in particular focused on the village of Tsarang.

The cinematography of the Nepalese landscape was an amazing backdrop to the 3 main protagonsists in the story -- a nun, an older man and a young man. The Q&A with the filmmaker at the end of the screening gave an even better opportunity to relate to the film and add context. The film presented traditional, antiquated ways of living in the remote village with other influences of modern day world that reach the village by helicopter or occasional trading. The theme of the story highlights that although absolutely a remote village -- difficult to find paid work, limited electricity, limited telephone and no road to connect them to Kathmandu or over the mountain range - each character articulates a desire to always return "home" to their village. Each character identifies why they value traveling outside of the village, but only to enhance how that would help them when they return to Tsarang and their family.

There was also a representative from the Rubin Museum who was a subject matter expert on this area of Nepal. After fielding a question from the audience, he admitted that his museum is interested in the "portable art" that could be loaned so that a New York exhibit could be hosted. He described his effort to work the "King of Lo" to catolgue all the wonderful art he has seen and hopes that what is portable could travel for a featured exhibit.

Tomaselli

With regards to the Article: The Ju/’hoansi and cultural tourism, Tomaselli Discusses how in the early history of contact between San and White settlers they encountered tried to conserve the Other in museums, films and photos. He discusses “The Bushmen as stark hunters and gathers who were unaware of money” they could kill animals but couldn’t raise them. Had vast land to farm but had no experience or knowledge of farming. Westerners have a way of making small any group that is different from them if the central focus is not capitalism than this group is not developed or are primitive or naïve. He points out that the Bushmen were a happy race, free from strains and stresses of civilization. Crime was unknown; they would avoid trouble and were honest. [Davis 1954:57].
Westerners to describe others as Wild and tame, Tomaselli discusses Perrott’s thoughts on how tourism and Anthropology tends to destroy the Others way of life and explains how we can co-exist through a paradox for example the Kayopo use video cameras to document and reinvent themselves and their culture to those in the West. Are there ways for one to keep their cultural identity and still be productive world beings?
Westerners tend to embellish on the ‘Other’ by representing them as primitive, poor or unenlightened. The Other are faced with the difficult task of allowing themselves to be exploited by westerners or using the westerners to their benefit. In the case of the Ju/’hoansi and there line between tourist, filmmaker and anthropologist become blurred and to them they are the people with the money that provides work as N!ai explained in the movie. Their economy is now dependent on the Filmmakers, the Tourist and the Anthropologist.

Ruby

Since Ruby's article was written in the early 1990s, many things have changed during the last twenty years in terms of images. Today, you do not need to a professional filmmaker or photographer to produce a film or an image. The current use of Iphones and cell phones has allowed anyone to take a picture or video and instantaneously post it on the internet so it has world wide access. The line between filmer and those being filmed has narrowed since in many cases it is one and the same. We saw this in the images posted worldwide during the Arab Spring.
Ruby writes about an all Native American crew trained by Canadians who produced You Are On Indian Land and the discussion on whether it was made by white men even if it was made in consultation with Indians and only a documentary by us about them. Yet, at time goes on and more and more Native Americans make their own films will the white man's influence wear away so they fully control the image?
This also makes you think about the success of the Kayapo of the Amazon Rain forest in Brazil and the Walpiri of Central Australia. Ruby writes that after being trained in video production in 1985 by Brazilian researched, the Kayapo used video production to document traditional culture and to document transactions to be used in future litigation. The question is whether their success is somehow related to the fact that Sting has taken up the cause of the Rain forest? Ruby comments that Sting's latest MTV video includes Kayapo footage. Does having a celebrity give more credibility to the Kayapo video?
Ruby discusses TV which has definitely changed since he wrote his article. He writes that gay men and lesbians do not exist since they are not depicted on TV. Today, there are many shows both on network TV and cable that include gay storylines. Shows such as Six Feet Under, Modern Family, Glee are a few that come to mind. Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell both have popular talk shows. It writes there has been some progress on news announcers. Yes there are more African Americans, Asian Americans women and Hispanics but everyone has become homogenized and everyone looks and sounds the same. There is no such thing as a regional accent.

Jay Ruby: Speaking for, about, with, or alongside

Jay Ruby's article provides insight into the transformations within ethnographic and documentary film, which he lumps together into one category.  Historically, documentary films have sought to represent a perspective of reality from the oppressed voice, the one that often lacks authority and is incapable of producing its own cultural identity through image.  The unfortunate circumstances of the victim (either filmed as individual or group) are transformed into a visual narrative, one which provides a source of entertainment (it is, in fact, a film) and is condoned by society. The basis that through the film's creation, more people will know about a particular social issue, and thus the condition of the oppressed group/individual will improve. This is pretty much the justification for most documentaries.

In his article., Ruby comments that in the case of a group of harvest workers, whose lives were documented for several years, their condition improved little due to the publicity they received from the films. In fact, the only people who profited were the ones who made the film. The money spent on production and filming did nothing to assist the harvest workers in their plight. Although it has often been perceived that documentaries are catalysts for social and political change, one wonders how this can be the case in terms of real monetary return to those filmed. The money required for production does nothing more than fuel the careers of film makers, who have essentially cut and pasted together a narrative of struggle about distant people facing the wrath of not only mother nature but the terrible effects of human nature. The film's impact is usually short lived: Western viewers feel good about themselves for a little while, appreciative of their own good fortune. They may even consider themselves more socially and politically aware after watching the film, but does this magically create an abundance of crops for harvest workers? Does it regulate food prices, build schools for their children, provide them with a means to sustenance? Empathy feels empty in this case.

Along with the death of objectivity and post modern thought, the issue of how to represent the social world as an object has become pretty much impossible for filmmakers. Society was once seen as an objective reality capable of being captured. This reality could be best described through a subject, speaking about her/his reality; or by filming a group partaking in a particular social event that relayed some aspect of its cultural identity. The most authentic subject was always the disempowered, whose authenticity as a source of cultural truth was verified by the filmmaker: the person with power in this case. Yet we've come to understand that by merely following a group or individual with a camera does not in fact allows us deep insight into their cultural or social reality. The powers of production do much to alter the voice of the subject. And even when we do give subjects the power to choose what images are shown, as Ruby points out, they really don't have the sophistication to judge their appearance based on how they are being represented and how audiences will perceive them.

We've also come to understand the negotiation that takes place in creating a cultural identity. If culture is a gamble with nature, it is the individual with agency who creates the storyline of this gamble, with agency varying from culture to culture. Marxism, feminism, the end of colonialism, along with indigenous movements and an entire list of other social movements culminating within the past half a century, have questioned the voice of the white male and his authority in assigning cultural identity. Philosophy has shown us the ideological nature of knowledge, while science (and its authority) has proved itself as yet another construct, capable of producing only hypotheses, yet no eternal truths. This turns filmmaking into a sort of free for all, where anything and everything goes. I agree with Ruby when I say that moral authorship still belongs to the filmmaker. Anyone can buy a camera, take pictures, and shoot a film. The responsibility of representation still essentially rests in the person using the camera and producing the picture. Despite any collaboration with the subject, the person with the camera is automatically in a position of authority (even if its extremely slight) for the simple fact that they own a camera. (Now if we had a person filming a person filming..... ) 

Perhaps this realization, that in trying to know everything we've discovered the greatest mystery of all: we know nothing! serves filmmakers well. For one thing, it has shifted the moral duty from claiming to be neutral and objective, to the obligation of revealing the ideology that exists within any production of images. So that filmmakers aren't demi gods showing us eternal truths. They are people with technology producing images through their particular lens. This moral shift also requires a new task from the filmmaker -- achieving a balance between allowing subjects to represent themselves, and deciding what outside voice of authority and analysis will work alongside the oppressed voice, if not by amplifying it, then by coinciding. (Key point- filmmakers are still always deciding) Issues of representation are the product of having to represent, and it is in their endeavors that filmmakers create their obstacles. Obviously there is no easy solution, and I think that's the entire point. I honestly believe the only "true" representation one is capable of producing is of themselves. Rather than trying to be truthful, I think the focus of documentary filming should be on reminding viewers of the only truth - it just is what it is, acknowledge it for that!

The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes

In their article, Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins explore the gaze and all its dimensions through the examination of National Geographic photographs. The photos found in National Geographic magazines serve as a testament to high culture in Western society. They are snapshots into the world in the way American readers want to see it; the pictures are exotic, yet readable, always remaining within the boundaries of comfort. The authors describe the Western gaze through the model of self and other, also alluding to the self and other that exists amongst the division in sex.

The article explains the difference between open and illicit viewing, and the taboos that exist on certain kinds of viewing. Photographs serve to reinforce this taboo, while also working within the "regime of visibility" to create clear visual examples of the self and the other, the male and the female, the deviant and the non deviant, the civilized and the savage. The photo made it possible for institutions to study and in turn control the body more closely; it became a means of surveillance for the international power relations.

Photographs are physical manifestations of reaffirmations of the self. While reading this, I drew a parallel (however stretched this may sound) between the identification that takes place within the West through photo, with the way Aboriginals visually traced their myths through art (although they themselves don't consider it art). There is something about the physical, visual, documentation of identity which serves as a reinforcer, evidence that can be shared and viewed by a multitude of members of any given group or society. However, more than just serving to pronounce a sense of identity, the West's photo unconsciously manipulates the gaze of the other, which is the subject pictured, whether as individual, group, or setting. The photo can be seen as an expression of self consciousness, allowing the Westerner to see him/herself reflected in the eyes of the Other in a comfortable, familiar, and pleasurable way. The need to do this is the direct result of fear an anxiety; it is what constitutes our emphasis on the gaze. In order to counteract the acknowledgement that the subject pictured is the Other, due to the oppressive forces of the West, there must also be the denial of their Otherness, and a sense of affinity is created through the viewer's gaze.

The photograph is confrontational, often times even intimidating; however it is also appealing, visually pleasing, a form of high art, a highway to exotic culture. It provides an image that can be alienating, while maintaining itself as a source of entertainment because of the distance between the subject and the viewer. There is simultaneous recognition and suppression of the Other which take place within the National Geographic photos. Interestingly enough, our class discussion on feminist politics had a very similar relationship to the issues of sexism and racism. Subjects of oppression become "irrelevant", because their presence is too confrontational, too uncomfortable, too fear-inducing. Only when we see the oppressed, the marginalized, the Other, in a light that is comfortable for our viewing pleasure, in the nude rather than naked, do we feel good about it. Only then can we find it entertaining and comforting, when it's comedy in the case of racism, or pornography in the case of sexism. Incapable of facing our own fears, we dance around them, laugh at them, take some high quality pictures, maybe even make a movie about them: it's all very entertaining indeed!

Jersey Shore response (extra credit)

In 2010, The New Yorker reviewed the MTV show, "The Jersey Shore," in what I think can be summed up in this quote: "Jersey Shore' makes us feel as though we were anthropologists secretly observing a new tribe through a break in the trees" (Franklin, 2010). The show, "The Jersey Shore," is very much like an ethnographic film study in this Visual Anthropology class. It is very similar to every other film we have watched so far in class, in a number of ways. The fact that it is a documentary-style television show to begin with, allows the viewer to feel as if we are watching the representation of a specific culture or tribe of people. These people are often known as "guidos." They spend their days, and nights, drinking mass quantities of alcohol, and getting into multiple physical fights with strangers, as well as each other. As viewers watch the show, we are witnessing so many rituals and patterns which are often displayed in a cyclical manner by the self-proclaimed "Guidos" on the Jersey Shore. As someone who is born and raised in New Jersey, I feel the right to comment on the fact that this specific group of people are mostly (if not all?) from New York, and not in fact, New Jersey natives. The behavioral patterns of the guidos is cyclical in the way that they preform the same actions every day, and on every episode. It begins with alcohol, usually a physical fight, one of the "natives" becomes more violent than the others (who are still violent, just less so than the Alpha Male/Female-which changes per episode), often throwing large pieces of furniture such as entire bed frames, bottles of alcohol, and other items.

The violent behavior of this group on Jersey Shore is recurrent; sometimes it is unclear how the violence is instigated, however the situation always escalates very quickly, and becomes more violent. The sexual behaviors of this group are often random, within their own group, as well as outside of their group. Often drama within the group erupts as a result of the sexual encounters, and this often leads to more alcohol, and more violence.

In terms of filmmaking and directing, the only commentary is from the subjects themselves through their 'testimonials' in which they speak directly to the camera to explain their actions and their perspective on the drama which has unfolded within the group. The filmmaking of Jersey Shore captures mainly moments of erupting drama, and violence, which presents the group as an uncontrollable, ill-mannered group of young adults. The fights within their group in the household is an interesting documentation of human chemistry and the way in which guidos communicate with other guidos, as well as defending themselves and their actions. Although each person in the household has a different name and different personality, their hairstyles, and clothing style is very similar, as well as their tendency to have a permanent fake tan on their skin.

Because the show focuses on a group of people of Italian heritage, this can be seen as a documentary on "Italian-Americans" but even so, it represents such a distorted image of the heritage group as a whole. If this show can be seen as an ethnographic film, it would need a little more (or less?) editing so that the visuals would more balanced. For example, different situations for the subjects to be in other than the house, or a bar. In a way, the "guidos" of Jersey Shore can be seen as the "Other." People who watch the show, regardless of whether or not they enjoy the show, are not able to connect to the subjects, instead feeling more superior and more intelligent as a result of watching the repeated behavioral patterns of the 8 housemates.

The show fails to do anything but visually display the stereotypes of guidos, reinforced by subjects who proudly identify with the title, despite their ignorance, and lack of real motivation to do anything except drink, and create violence and drama amongst each other. Which makes one wonder, how much did MTV have to edit out of their footage in order for the entire show to be made up of fight scenes and binge drinking? Visually exciting, educationally mind numbing. Jersey Shore presents a documentary presenting a group of people who are not representing anyone but themselves, as they have become their own characters, and not subjects, as their lives are filmed to produce hours of reckless drinking and patterns of doomed relationships.

response to Ness/Ruby

Sally Ann Ness discusses and analyzes the performance of the Trobriands in the film "Trobriand Cricket: An Ingenious Response to Colonialism." In her article, entitled "Understanding Cultural Performance," Ness analyzes the movements of the Trobrianders during the game of cricket which differentiates and separates their cultural style of playing from the British version of the game. This film is the opposite of a Margaret Meade film, because of the direct observation and concentration on visuals alone. Due to the lack of commentary, Ness discusses the fact that the focus is then placed on the patterns in body movements as performed by the Trobrianders. The film is unique in ethnographic work because of its lack of commentary, and the fact that "visually relevant information is presented almost entirely from the native informant's point of view" (137). The movement of the Trobrianders makes their version of cricket very unique and different from the British. Ness uses the LAM method (Laban Movement Analysis) to critique the performance of the Trobrianders. This system "focuses on the form, rhythm, organization, and sequencing of the performance of movement" (137). Ness analyzes the arrangement of the players in regard to spacial relationships on the field, as well as the continuous changes in patterns of positions, and the various shifts from playing to dancing. The author notes that the differentiating factor from the British is that the "Trobriand cricket styles reveal different models of organizing world full of people" (142).
Ness points out the focal point of the Trobriand dancing, which is known as "emphatic phrasing" which entails "a general type of movement patterning that occurs when a sequence of action is marked or accented at its end" (143). This specific type of movement is shown in the film to prepare the Trobrianders for their starting positions in the upcoming inning of the game, however Ness notes that "this phrasing serves no functional purpose" (144). Although Ness explains the fact that the film focuses on the visuals and body movements of the Trobrianders, I think she does a poor job at explaining purpose and meaning, or even representation or symbols behind the dancing, or emphatic phrasing, or any movements shown during the cricket game.

Jay Ruby's article, "Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside" discusses the various ways to represent the native in the documentary. Ruby compares the documentary methods of Vertov, in comparison to Flaherty. While Vertov strictly uses the vision of the filmmaker, as opposed to Flaherty, who made it a point to involve Nanook into his filming, as well as showing him footage and asking for commentary to make sure he was acheiving the goal of documenting with the subject's point of view. As Malinowski put it, the intention of the documentarians is "to grasp a native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of the world" (Malinowski 1922 (1961):25). Ruby confronts the problem of misrepresentation of a subject and their culture through filmmaking, often distorting the reality of the Other.

In reality, while the subject need their voices to be heard, if their voice is portrayed by filmmakers in a specific viewpoint, than it is not really the native that is being heard. The right of the subject in the documentary has been put into question, according to Ruby. Ruby also brings up the point that the documentary alone will not solve the social and political problems in a given society: "Socially concerned and politically committed documentarians erroneously assume that a compelling documentary automatically produces a desired political action" (Ruby 52).

It seems like the modern approach to documentaries and ethnographic film are to "give greater voice and authority to the subject" (Ruby 53). There needs to be a correct balance between filmmaker and subject as of power relations, and representations of reality, and truth in a given society.

Lutz and Collins

Lutz and Collins in the article, "The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes: The Example of National Geographic" write about the gaze that can be found in every photograph. There are two fundamental attributes that a photograph and a non-western person share, “they are objects at which we look at”. The goal of the gaze is described as “de-centering the viewing subject and subvert the attempt to find a coherent object at the end of the gaze”. The gaze that is present in so many photographs can be manipulated so the audience sees their reflection through the subject’s eyes in a way that is known and pleasurable.

National geographic describes the gaze in four separate parts; confronting the camera, looking at an object or person in the frame, looking off into the distance and lack of a gaze all together. When a person is looking at the camera it means that it is not candid and the subject knows he/she is being photographed. These types of photographs can be very beautiful however I find beauty in candid photos where the photographer is capturing an unscheduled moment in time. When a person is looking out into the distance it has the appearance of being, “dreamy, vacant, absent minded….forward looking, future oriented…” When there is no gaze present there is no longer a focus on the subject but the landscape becomes a crucial part of the frame.

The photos that appear in National geographic have always been magical and mysterious to me. I remember as a child flipping through the magazines that we had stacked up on the bookshelf in awe at the foreign and distant images. The photos gave me a desire to travel and a craving for the new and magical places that appeared in every picture. “We are captured by the temptation to view the photographs as more real than the world or at least as a comfortable substitute for it- to at some level imagine a world of basically happy, classless, even noble, others in conflict neither with themselves or with ‘us’. The photos give us an invitation to travel and an invitation to dream and get lost inside the colors, emotion and mystery.

Lutz and Collins and Mulvey

Lutz and Collins analyze photographs through thinking about different gazes, and they use National Geographic as an example of the various ways photographs can be seen. The magazine has many photos of other cultures, and the subjectivity of the view starts with the photographer and what he or she chooses to capture. From there, the images selected by editors and the captions written by writers further change the readers' views on the photo. By selecting, cropping, and giving a caption to photos, the magazine is shaping the opinions of readers on a subtle level. Lutz and Collins say that gazes include seven different types: the photographer, the magazine editor, the readers, the Westerner, the non-Westerner, the gaze, and the viewing anthropologist. Each one of these gazes is different, which provides the photo with contradictions and multiple meanings. A photograph can be seen as a cultural object of a larger social world, which is usually through the Westerner's eyes.

Mulvey also focused on the importance of the gaze within a larger social context. She analyzed the view of women in films of our Western patriarchal society. Mulvey discussed Freud's idea of scopophilia, and how audience members take pleasure in escaping from their daily lives to watch and identify with fictional characters. The article then discusses how women are seen by active male viewers, and the audience sees through the male's perspective. Men deal with the castrating threat of women through sadism and fetishism. While I believe Mulvey's opinions are slightly extreme, I do believe that women always feel that they are being looked at. Some women are obsessive about dressing right, having good hair, and being in shape, just so men are pleased with their physicality. On the other hand, I do believe that women judge men on their looks just as harshly as men view women.

Photo

Shantytown, squatter,

Revolution, Inspiring.

Mulvey

Mulvey’s thoughts on the “scopophilic instinct” are interesting to analyze, but really overanalyzed in my opinion. I agree, especially in Western culture, that women most often play the passive role of “object” and men most often play the active role as “gaze,” but I find this more an observation than dogmatic theory. When certain male stars go on stage or appear on screen, how many female fans swoon over them? In the 1999 film Titanic, Kate Winslet’s character could of course been seen as on object in this context, especially in 1912, but when the sexes are reversed, doesn’t Leonardo DiCaprio play the same role as object to women? When Justin Beiber gets on stage and millions of twelve year old girls scream their heads off, it’s not because he “cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification.”

I disagree with Mulvey when she says that men narrate the story, can only narrate the story, and women are the objects that tie the story together. Maybe this was true in 1975, but we’ve come a long way in 36 years, and wonder what Mulvey would amend or delete if her essay were to be rewritten today.

the cultural study of intersecting gazes

Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins in the article, "The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes: The Example of National Geographic" speak about photography as a crossroads of gazes and a scenario by which gazes manipulate and have power over other gazes. The view by National Geographic that allows for many cultural actions to take place as views are created about "the other".  On this topic of the photos of the magazine they state that it "threatens to break frame and reveal its social context. 

When westerner is in fact looking at the non westerner, cultural approaches are made.  A feminist and psychoanalytic critique is that the act of looking is an active/male/modern/scientific action while the one being looked at(the nonwesterner) is the subject/female/passive/emotive receiver.

The science or art or photography is a sacred cultural posistion for the westerner.  These are the disciplinary locations that give knowledge of how to analyze culture with a certain narrative key.  This makes the western looking a patriarchial view. 

For this reason, our sacred sets of knowledge are untouched and used as devices to analyze and peer into "the other" even if the subject is sacred or significant to their culture.  Our science of distinguishing the sacred from the profane of every culture is legitimized and takes precedence over how culture (its definitions, views, made legitimized, made illicit) is viewed by its people. 

This is not unlike the female (the other/feminine) who walks in nyc and is met by gazes behind her.  The female is made conscious of the other view (westerner's view/active.)

and 1.) is powerful because she can look back and disrupt their view (of scanning her) and their fun/authority

       2.) is powerless because to look back would break the dialogue formed by the men.  The self accourding to Foucault is cultural and mostly those who oversee power over ourselves are ourselves. The female not wanting any informal social sanction against her keeps walking. (She internalizes the active/male view which places restrictions on how she acts-She becomes self-conscientious.)

Lacan describes the gaze as a way to look at "the other" the other is also constitutive of a separate object (body of knowledge) that the gazer uses in approach when looking.  This is often altering because the person gazing is not met with his own expectations of what he thinks and wants to see from the gazes in the picture.
National Geographic is said to break fram and reveal social context.  The powerful viewer who has an academic background and a history of a liscense to look shifts in his or her seat.  The new distinctions that can be made are powerful for the "masculine/western" viwer for the picture becomes more of an academic object to be examined or arise inteterest. 

However, in this entire context, is the need for the westerner/exerter/academic viewer to see and locate the "viewed" as not entirely an object for understanding but a subject and a subject of structural forces that we all endure.  In the photos, the westerner searches for facial expressions like his own so that he can feel like the exhibited reactions from stressors, feelings, interpretations all arise in the sameway elsewhere.  Westerners and non-westerners alike are subject to the same driving forces of reality and are workable objects within reality so we can understand reality, so that we can obey its rules, so that it can inhibit us. Or this is what the westerner wants to believe. 

It is either an action by National Geographic or the Western lens or anthropology to understand cultures as the same and as different.

Same picture - 2 views

Focus on....family in a home, setting. yellow walls, candle, pictures, clothing, style, manicure, jewelry, socio economics?Emphasis on physical attributes of foto?

Same picture - 2 views

Focus on.....Family, peaceful, soft, portait, unity, the people in the picture, facial expressions. What are they feeling, thinking, facial expressions?

lutz response

In the article The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes: The Example of National Geographic, Lutz and Collins write there are seven kinds of gazes including the photographer's gaze, the institutional, magazine gaze and the reader's gaze. They also write that image producers at National Geographic are mostly white and male and the reader's come from a wide range of social positions within American society. The magazine's gaze drills down to include (1) the editor's decision to commission arils on certain locations or issues, selecting a limited number of photographs from a large group and the layout decisions (cropping, arrangement with other photos, size and altering). If the image producers were non-white or/and female, would this change how the photographer's gaze is chosen?
In both the Lutz and Collins article and in Notes on the Gaze by Daniel Chanlder, it has been mentioned that someone who is culturally defined as weak (women, children, poor, tribal vs modern, people of color) are more likely to face the camera. The more powerful are more likely to be looking somewhere else. Mostly likely those culturally defined as weak do not think of themselves as weak. Could it be that the more powerful are embarrassed by their power and cannot look the camera in the eye since the camera serves as a mirror?
Lutz and Collins write that users recognized that the camera was a form of power. They write that pictures in National Geographic that put the camera in the hands of "the other" suggest little danger and many pictures show the native's use of the camera as amusing or quaint. Yet, do the unhappy and coerced Maca Indians from the Colonia Juan Belaieff Island in the Paraguay River near Asuncion who charge to take photographs with tourists feel empowered by the camera? Or has the camera allowed them to become another commodity?
In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema by Laura Mulvey, she writes that "socially established interpretations of sexual differences control images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle". In a patriarchal society, the active male gaze is on the passive image of a woman. In terms of the male gaze, I could not help but think that if women filmed The Ax Fight instead of men, would there have been so many shots of bare breasted women? Would a woman filmmaker filmed in a different way to get the point across? For example, near the end of the film when the woman is cursing and yelling at other side, would a woman filmmaker used a close up shot?

Mulvey, Lutz, Collins

This week's articles address the subject of the gaze and how it affects people's perceptions of what they are viewing. In Mulvey's chapter Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, she focuses on the area of film and the ways in which it is viewed. She also looks at how women are portrayed in films which refer directly to how men perceive women. According to Mulvey there are two ways to derive pleasure from films. The first is scopophilia, meaning the pleasure that is taken from viewing people as objects and subjecting them to a controlled and curious gaze (Mulvey 835). The second way allows the viewer to identify with what they are seeing, to in some way relate to the character on screen (Mulvey 836). Mulvey then goes on to discuss how women are portrayed in cinema. She notes that primarily men are active viewers, the ones doing the looking and women are passive, the ones being looked at (Mulvey 837). On a psychoanalytical basis, taken from Freud, women are shown in films in a certain way due to 'castration complex' (Mulvey 840). Because women are sexually different, it causes men to become anxious. In film this is addressed in two different ways; either by investigating and demystifying the woman, followed by the punishment, devaluation or saving of her or turning the woman into an object, a fetish (Mulvey 840). Mulvey brings to light the inherent sexuality and desire seen in films, one that is often directed at the male gaze. I find her work to be interesting and relevant to today's media, especially in advertising, which is often created specifically for the male gaze and constantly objectifies women.

In the Lutz and Collin's article, photographs and the gaze afforded to them is addressed. This article explores “the significance of "gaze" for intercultural relations in the photograph” (Collins Lutz 134) as well as the seven kinds of gaze – photographer's, magazine's, reader's, non-Western subject's, explicit looking done by Westerner's framed in photo, gaze in mirror's or camera's shown in photo and finally the academic gaze (134). All of these gazes have different perspectives towards a photograph and shape how it is perceived. Like Mulvey, Lutz and Collins also address the male gaze. Since they are speaking about photos in a widely read magazine, National Geographic, they can rule out a separate category of male or female gaze since the audience is a large demographic containing both. While each author is addressing different media and slightly different subject matter, Mulvey, Lutz and Collins make the point that the gaze of the viewer and who that viewer is has an effect of how the film or photograph is perceived by that person.

Barthes 11.1.11

How does meaning get into the image? Isn't it true that one image can have many meanings? Roland Barthes categorizes the different types of messages at play within the scope of an advertising image. She identifies 3 messages: linguistic, coded iconic and a non coded iconic. When you deconstruct one advertising image, it's crazy how much messaging is going on for the viewer on different levels. The field of market research has only continued to intensify in the recent decades as the competition for consumerism has really become global with a level of accessability never dreamed possible before the internet exploded. Still photos, like the ones we see in print ads, allow the view to keep a constant image in its gaze. Unlike the moving pictures of watching a short or feature length film, a still photo might only have an engaged viewer for 15 - 30 seconds. What messages need to be present to lengthen the time a viewer is willing to consider or take note of an image. What makes us pause and focus on what message is coming from certain images and completely ignore other images?

In reading Barthes I recgonize there a system at play in the total of the image. There is the system of the person or group who have created the image or symbol and then there is my system of how I receive the image. My guess is sometime those messages align and sometimes they are completely opposite. There is complexity in the visual, textual, implicit and explcit messaging, that given consideration goes far beyond one dimension. Even frequency of viewing an image or symbol adds a layer to the interpretation. Why is it my first impression is often not the same as my 3rd or 30th look at an image? Am I different? Is the image different?

Jean Rouch 10.25.11

Being introduced to Jean Rouch and his work through the words of his students and admirers provide a rich background after watching Les Maitres Fous. Starting to film in the 1950s he was less concerned with rigid boundaries between the subject and the film maker. Faye Ginsburg credits him with developing a new type of ethonographic and documentary film style. His style attempted to integrate the routine and the unusual of a society and share that within the magic medium of film. She also credits him as leveraging his "informants" not just as translators, but as friends, cultural experts and colleagues. I can imagine how this type of respectful relationship with local residents was prosperous in a way that would be unique to any film maker or anthropologist. The discussion would be fruitful far beyond any "translator for hire" relationship, by the off camera storytelling, personal sharing and exchange of ideas.

Rouch did much of his own filming and was intentional in keeping a sort of unpolished look to his films. Jay Ruby comments that Rouch films are more implicit than explicit, he expects the audience to figure out for themselves what they are seeing on the screen. Like our class discussion evidenced this can leave a wide spectrum of understanding across viewers. As a viewer our individual experiences influence our reaction an interpretation of the images we have viewed. To name just a few of the converging elements......our own on societal, spiritual, educational, artistic exposure and experiences meld together to create our unique individual understanding to what our eyes are viewing.

Given that Rouch preferred to bring his camera right into the heart of the action, less concerned with tripods and "fly on the wall" filming, I think he would fully accept the spectrum of responses from various pools of viewers. His films are credited as having created this genre called "ethnofiction" to reflect his blending of the art and science in storytelling. He seems to have welcomed the influence and artistic inspiration that would come from fully collaborating with African friends and colleagues in the making of his films. I imagine that his openness and creativity as an ethnographer would allow him to be equally as intrigued in the variation of audience interpretation than concerned with giving them fixed answers or study guides.

Tim Asch

In the article Out of Sync: The Cinema of Tim Asch, Jay Ruby explores Asch's method of filmmaking, as well as the relationship between Asch and Chagnon, which has given us some of the greatest and most studied works of ethnographic film. Although Asch was not a film student, his success is defined by his ability to separate from the norm, especially his lack of "synchronicity with the received wisdom of the film world and anthropology". Essentially, Asch was not interested in competing with avantgarde artists or conducting his own fieldwork. Instead, he was most concerned with new methods of teaching anthropology within the confines of a classroom, and especially involved in the MACOS project. He realized if he could film in such a way, assisted by an anthropologist who understood the culture and language of a people, students would be able to understand different cultures in relation to their own, rather than seeing them as extremely distant, unevolved people.
What I found most interesting about both The Feast and The Axe fight, which are discussed most extensively within the article, is that each film deals with complex social dynamics as well as characteristics of human nature that are inherent in each and every culture. The Axe Fight explores "alliance theory and notions of fission and fusion", providing a visual way of understanding the lineage that comprises the Yanomami. The Feast focuses on the notion of reciprocity, and the act of sharing/gifting, in creating ties of kinship. This adds an essential dynamic to the film: rather than simply a chonological account of people engaged in an aggressive confrontation, or the sharing of a meal, Asch's films allow us to understand the sophisticated social life within these cultures. In understanding these concepts, students can better relate the cultures of these seemingly savage people to modern social life.
The films of Tim Asche stand apart from most other films, both ethnographic and ordinary, because of his ability to screen them to the his students, receive feedback, and edit/add accordingly. Not many filmmakers are allowed this opportunity; in fact, screenings are usually out of most people's budgets. Therefore, the final structure of the film comes out of teaching. In the article, Asch admits that he changed The Axe Fight twenty five times during one semester. His manipulation of film to create an effective model for teaching university students is extremely successful, for various reasons. It exposes the flaws of anthropology, as well as the multitude of issues that come with attempting to create any representation of reality. The issues of representation, which are inherent within the field of anthropology, are a major aspect of his films, making them self reflexive for Western viewers.