Ginsburg Media worlds

In Media Worlds, chapter 5-8, Lughod discusses the role melodrama has in constituting a part of modernity.  He describes how in Egypt  television shows include melodrama which is  intended to foster individualization for civilians thus connecting individual and social development.  I understand how through reflection and emotion we can better create ourselves as subjects in relation to society but I don't know if this rationalization goes so far.  Focus on the individual self can lead to neglect of social surroundings and the needs of the greater society.

I question whether studying internal thoughts can play itself out in the context of larger social roles but this is not important here as the article focuses on the type of individuation that might be happening.  All characters in these serials tend to be more emotional (though more so women than men).  The serials place emphais on the characters faces to "invoke interior worlds" Perhaps this regulates the culture values in the audience more than if individual ideas were expressed verbally by characters. 

The author suggests that melodrama played a part in individuals constructions of subjectivity.  Melodrama causes individiduals to see themselves centered within their life.  The elements of individuals' discussions and stories crystallize in the same fashion the the narratives on t.v. develop. 

The development of a rich interior or pysche for Egyptians is one that is politically charged.  For this reason it is important to remeber that the rich interior lives displayed in other countries such as the U.S. do not have  social/political/religious aspects.

The top photo has been photo-shopped, the second is the original in 2008 prior to his election into office, this was a hoax created to illustrate that Obama still smoked and is headed to the White House(health concern). The last photo was found on a Website with this title: "Obama And His Warmonger
Cabinet The Changing
Face Of WWIII"

Ruby

Ruby’s article “Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside- An Anthropological and Documentary Dilemma” addressed key issues within the realm of ethnographic film, but also with today’s media industries. The article outlines what our class has been discussing the entire semester- how can you fairly and objectively represent a culture? Ruby seems to think that it is not completely possible to represent a cultural identity without influence, even if the filmmaker is part of that community. Ruby discusses that documentaries used to be something that were taken as a fact, even though filmmakers have control of what to film, what to edit, what angle to shoot from, and who to portray. Every film has a statement whether it is intentional or not. Criticism soon made it clear that ethnographic films are not reality but are making a statement about something or someone. Morality in filmmaking turned from objectivity to openly making others aware of their point of view. The argument I found interesting was about television today. Television shapes culture, but television is dominated by upper class white men. While there is a small effort to make controlled diversity in the media, television forces other races to fit into a mold that the largest audience will accept. While TV is culturally shaping, it is also an industry focused on making money and therefore being least objectionable to those watching.

I Hate Reality TV with a Passion

The show Jersey Shore is a moneymaking powerhouse by embezzling our nation's time and interest. This is a reality TV show that most people in the Western world are aware of. But what is it? I'll spare myself and the reader from suffering to define it as anything more than insipid. One could label any number of merits upon the show. I condemn it. It is a show where self-obsessed people can watch and get romantic notions of affinity with the show's 'role models.' Other people who think they are better than these self-obsessed people watch in so that afterwards, they can look on with shaking heads and smug intellects. The show's audience lacks diversity, only self-congratulations to some, and the prescripts for a meretricious, alcoholic lifestyle to others. I find myself unable to do either, so don’t watch. I don’t even like that I am writing about it, because I am contributing to this continued dialogue. I don’t want to be confronted with the Jersey Shore anymore. MIT may be conducting studies on its importance as an occurrence in American popular media, but no matter how much I read about Jersey shore, I still find myself bored to death. It is a formulaic show that MTV, Discovery, and Bravo have been making for years and will keep making for years. Which means that I will keep getting confronted with the endless conversation on reality TV for probably my whole life. What did I do to deserve this? Writers will be talking about how this show has ruined Jersey for years to come and I will be laughing because I know what jersey was like before this show. (That last sentence was a joke that I hope people from the garden state will laugh along with me to.)

The stereotypes that are propagated in Jersey shore will certainly harm some people, but then again maybe a kid will see this show, start taking steroids, and get more action/ happiness than he ever dreamed of before he saw Jersey Shore. Who knows, but if you want to study how Italian Americans are affected by stereotypes, there are years and years of history you could draw upon. Yes, Jersey Shore has many aspects that lend itself to the label of ethnographic, but any academic would laugh in the face of MTV producing something of an academic merit. Anthropology is a discipline with guidelines that may be challenged, but which are very well established. The code of ethics is something that is all too often forgotten.

I have been on an MTV reality show called Silent Library. It was completely staged, and I received direction like I was a paid actor- because essentially I was, but the presentation of the show was a complete lie or abstraction from reality. It was fun and paid to fix my car, but I hope nobody starts analyzing the show for truths about me. I just hope people stop caring about reality TV soon.

Turner and Kayapo

It states that there are problems with Indigenous television channels because it relies heavily on the government because their channels are subsidized by the government, the satellites they have to use are owned by Western companies. This makes you wonder whether or not these people who are producing now have control over what they are actually creating. In the past the role of the anthropologist was to go to places where he had the power and authority, monetary and also publishing-wise. The anthropologist was the one giving them money which these people could use, but also he was the one who edited the film or the book and chose to include and exclude what he wanted, so these people he was studying never played a role or had a say in how they were being portrayed, with a few minor exceptions like Nanook of the North where he and Flaherty worked together to create the movie). One of the great things about them having their own camera, therefore, was to be able to finally be able to show their story from their perspective. However, if they have to depend on the government for money and then they have the their channels on Western broadcasting networks, there has to be some kind of censorship or regulation. They can't just show whatever they want to show, so in the end the question is are they still able to show exactly what they want to show and how they want to show it.

They point out that often indigenous cultures look to use visual media "for self-determniation and resistance" which I think is very true for the most part. We see this with the movie Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance because the Mohawks who live in Canada looked to put this film out to make other people aware of what was going, the messed up things that happened to them each time the govermnent tried to some of their land from them, and then finally their resistance and protest that occurred when they government tried to take it all away to build a golf course. They see it as their most powerful weapon. Indigenous cultures therefore have not really turned to it for recreational or artistic purposes.

This article was really interesting because it pointed out the effects the camera might have on a culture. It could affect the social dynamic because then one has to decide who is going to be the caretaker of the camera. The person who has this camera is therefore very important because they are the only one in that community who has one and holds it. This creates a new power dynamic. Similar social effects occur with the introduction of paper money. In Nai!, she gets into a fight with other people in the community because she makes her own money and is a star of the money. These fights/conflict and tension in the community occur because of this new sense of power. It could effect hierarchical structures as well. He points out that a lot of people agree that it is is important that these Indigenous groups do receive cameras so they can document their own cultures and themselves, but that "few discuss who ends up owning or controlling access to the films or videos at the community level." For the Kayapo, becoming the cameraperson or video editor is both a "prestigious role within the community" and also a culturally and politically important form of mediation of relations with Western society. In this respect and new hierarchy is created on a new basis separate from the dynamic they have within their culture. Ultimately, he states that giving a camera to these people seem like a good idea on the surface, but we often don't think of the implications of this action and how it can greatly effect that community (sometimes negatively).

The issue of whether an anthropologist's ethnography about another culture or one done by someone within that community or by that community about that community (Indigenous films about their indigenous culture) is better was also brought up. The anthropologist's ethnography can lead to "inaccurate" portrayals (voice- over narrations, text, or editing) of that culture, however, it is done from an outsider's perspective and often an outsider is best at noticing things that seem normal within that culture and something that someone within that culture might overlook. On the other hand, someone who is a part of that culture might be able to portray a more "accurate" portrayal of that culture because he understands and it and knows about it more than an outsider can because they experience the everyday life that the anthropologist is trying to show. However, he shows that the introduction of this new technology can have different consequences that can change their culture, like social aspects of every day life. When trying to see which one is better or more accurate, one cannot really compare the two in my opinion. They both offer something and show the culture from two different perspectives and the best would be for them to both be viewed as well as with supplementary texts. For Turner however, I think that he would ultimately say that the introduction of the camera to Indigenous cultures is because it gives them away to communicate within their own society and to record their present and their history and to communicate with other cultures to get their opinions and view across from their own perspective, but there are implications from that, but can be really bad if not done or introduced in the right way.

The issue of accuracy also makes me wonder if we can even decide or judge whether something is more accurate than the other. We would naturally say that the man from within the Indigenous culture's film is more accurate than that of the anthropologist's, however, it can be just as biased. Also, who says that once the camera is introduced they will make films that show us different aspects of their culture? They may just make films that are merely recreational, just as members of Western society do. There isn't a rule stating that they have to make educational films about themselves once they receive it, therefore, the role of an ethnographic film maker is just as important post-introduction as it is pre-introduciton of the camera. They are just different roles that they each play and important in their own respects.

Sally Ann Ness Trobiand Cricket

This article first begins by stating that it is important to view an ethnographic film along with supplementary materials. It states that it is the key to understanding them because repeated viewings will not give you a better understanding; only supplementary text will give you insight into what the film leaves out. I agree with this completely when looking at these films in class each week. I would have had a totally different reading of these people (they're crazy really or strange...especially if just going in blind and viewing Les Maitres Fous without knowing something) and the film. It helped to understand what was going on and the context in which it was going on in. Viewing these films without supplementary materials really gives the viewer a one-sided and often only side or insight into that culture they are viewing (which sometimes can be a bad thing). He points out that the two most important things when viewing ethnographic films and to do it properly is to have information" about the historical and contemporary background" of what is in the film and also information "that explains or clarifies action presented in the film footage."

For me, if I had watched these films, I would just watch them and leave baffled or intrigued, but would not really look into why it is that way or more about the culture, so for the general audience, this is the only exposure they get when viewing an ethnographic film, usually the only exposure as well. This is something I have become wary of when examining these films and the subfield of Visual Anthropology because I struggled with whether the films are better to support a more public and accessible anthropology, if literature is better because it is written even if it is not accessible to all, or if they can co-exist. Idealistically, I would like the two to co-exist and work with one another, but as a viewer most won't look at secondary sources/supplementary materials, especially literature, to get to know more about a culture.

He states that this film, Trobiand Cricket: An Ingenious Response to Colonialism, is not only a film that documents the "Trobriandization" of cricket specifically, but also about the "inventiveness of human adaptation, about the capacity of human groups to distinguish themselves from others." This really stuck out to me because its something that I had never really thought about and it really amazes me. We are forever changing no matter what culture you are a part of and this is one of the many examples that shows how we take one thing and we make it our own. In the film, instead of it being a certain number of set players, after the ball is hit, everyone runs into the circle and they dance and they hold their arms out like airplanes (evidence of colonialism). Dancing for them is particularly important and also the inclusion of everyone in the community in their culture so that is why they changed it.

It later talks about the dances that appear during the cricket game of the Trobriand and its resemblance to other ones they normally do. The naming of the dances can be misleading because it points out the movements done during other dances and only appear to look like a plane also appear in other dances and its significance is overlooked. Emphatic phrasing here is somewhat conveyed inaccurately in the film because it is not explained properly. When we see entrance dances in the film, its emphatic phrasing has not "functional purpose and is not imitative" and therefore shows us that its a really important part of the Trobriand culture, however, this is something not pointed out and instead the minor things in Trobriand culture are emphasized in the film. The descriptive commentary is misleading and because is focuses on the imitative aspects of the dancing, it "detracts somewhat from the film's overall instructiveness." We know this because of supplementary text and study of the Trobriand, however, the viewer would not know this and therefore get an inaccurate portrayal of this culture and its practices. Commentary or voice-over narration, which is often times written from the perspective of the anthropologist, is something we also have to be wary of when looking at an ethnographic film because it will persuade us and give up one perspective, so supplementary text really is important because then we can see what aspects were correct and what was more subjective or interpretive in the film we are viewing.

Sally Ann Ness; Movement Analysis

Analyzing culture can be a daunting task. Thankfully there is an entire field devoted to this task. The field of anthropology is often understood as having 4 branches, but these branches do not come close to all the areas of expertice present in the sea of anthropologists. There are those who study language, space, ritual, familial structure, history, and in the case of Sally Ann Ness, Movement.

She uses an analysis of Trobriand Cricket to show how film that is presented with little narrative can open up the content of the film, Trobriand culture, to be analyzed by anthropologists from different schools of thought and specialty. Her main point is that the film serves well as a teaching tool. You can show the film, discuss it as a film, discuss it as a window into Trobriand culture, show supplementary materials, discuss different schools of thought, etc.

This kind of film is what she calls “illustrative.” It is a fabrication of cultural performance. She takes this fabrication and analyzes the movements of the characters deeply.

Pinney

In Pinney's Introduction "How the Other Half..." points out the study of the medium that has been put out is in recounted, but only incorporating the Western (European and later American) history within the medium. This was really interesting to me because, as a photographer myself who has studied the history of the medium, I had never thought of it that way and it is true. I had only learned about the great European photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, and Robert Frank and then the great American photographers like Garry Winogrand, Walker Evans, and Robert Adams. He points out that photography should not and in fact is not something that is only practiced in the West and of cultural importance/significance. He states that Indian photographers began to pop up shortly after its invention (around the same time that European and American photographers began to pop up as well), so this breaks down this preconceived notion or assumption that because they weren't part of the West, they didn't have access to the technology that countries in the West had and that they were a people not as advanced ("civilized") as the West. I know that before I was an Anthropology major, I had this romanticized, and slightly backward view on indigenous cultures and I thought that they weren't as cultured as other cultures A.K.A. mine, something that was very ethnocentric of me to think. This just reinforces that this is wrong.

Because Pinney points this out, I realized that history that we learn in school is also a history that is very specific and stylized. The way it is written and taught is from a certain perspective and only includes a certain perspective. Here, with writing an other history of photography, we see that there isn't one way that we are to use photography or a correct way to take a picture. Each culture uses it in different ways, produces different pictures, has different styles, and also different notions of photography, the photograph, and its capabilities and incapabilities. This is evident when looking at the practice of photography and the views on it in India and comparing it to those of the West. They are different, but both are valid and to only include the Western notion or to judge photography in India using Western notions is ethnocentric.

He writes that "photography was seen to surpass and eradicate the subjectivity and unreliability of earlier technologies of representation [so] indexicality was thus mobilized as a guarantee of fixity." He is stating that when it was first created, photography was not seen as an art form or used to express creativity and instead used more scientifically to record things. This meant that it could replace painting and drawings subjectivity with objectivity. However, he points out that when looking at the colonial archive, he sees that photography actually is quite subjective. He sees an "inevitable randomness within the image" of a photography and instead sees that a painting or a drawing is "capable of excluding randomness because they only reflect the imagination and skill of their creators, and when those qualities are present in excess they are capable of driving out the incidental." Here he is stating that a painting or drawing because it is created and selected by the creator that leaves out the random, "like a filter capable of complete exclusion." Conversely, "something extraneous will always enter" into the camera. The photographer and be very cautious and stringent on what is and is not in front of the camera when setting up, however, "the inability of the lens to discriminate will ensure a substrate or margin of excess," where things will randomly find themselves in the frame. This randomness allows the photograph to be more open for interpretation.

I am not quite convinced with this argument however, because I think that a photograph, like a painting or drawing, is just as selective and filtered and this "randomness" can occur in all three. The photographer does have control on what comes out. The way that the person aims the camera is equivalent to where a painter decides to paint and the way the painter decides to place his brush on the canvas is equivalent to how the photographer decided to print the photograph (cropping, photoshopping etc). They are both selective and sometimes when you are painting, just like in photography, surprises or things that were unexpected happen. You often intend to make a painting one way and it comes out totally different, just like I initially took a picture of a cat on the street and then when printing or reviewing the film, I see a man in the background wearing a "I love cats" T-shirt. It's an interesting thought that he proposes, but I think a little off. But then again, I have studied with Western notions and may be predisposed to this notion of photography???

Jay Ruby on Rouch

Ruby discusses the myriad ways in which Rouch changed visual anthropology. However, his influence was drastic on film in general. He put synch sound in the hands of such able-bodied filmmakers as Godard. He created cinema verite, which is the combination of sharing the filming process with others while constructing filmic truth. This led to discourse on the influence of film on people. Does film alter the way people act, creating ethno-people?

Rouch was not interested in making pretty pictures. He only cared about the content of the films and the method of their creation. This may have been good for Rouch but I, see obvious merit in making the powerfully stimulating information present in Rouch’s films into pretty pictures. It makes the information accessible to a wider audience, if only because people wont turn it off or fall asleep by the films end. Like the Natural History museum’s desire to make exhibits that will draw crowds, Ethnographic film could influence a much wider audience than it is today. It has the potential to make a lot more money than it is today.

Faye Ginsburg on Rouch

Faye Ginsbergs piece on Jean Rouch highlights his final visit to NYU in 2000. She speaks of her own experience with Rouch and his films. He was a serious source of inspiration for her. She speaks of the reactions of young audiences with this infectious character who seemed just as inspired as she was. Although I have become more fascinated with Rouch’s method more than his films, I have found myself telling friends about him, and especially with respect to one quote that Ginsberg presents in this piece. “Films should beget more films.” In one project that I am working on, we are wrestling with whether we want to use a previously recorded song, which was the inspiration for much of the film or to create an original soundtrack inspired by the tune. The previously recorded song fits beautifully with the visuals and cues, but I think we have pretty much decided to use an original soundtrack. Our reasons for this stem from Rouch’s idea. Perhaps it is for our own egos, but we want to create something new and distinctly us (films created completely within our art collective), while not fearing being too much like what we are influenced by.

James Clifford

I would be lying if I said I completely understood James Clifford. His Writing style is like that of my favorite author Borges (who he references). It is a patchwork of citation, history, and literary devices. His use of poetry in the opening lines is very tastefully done. The poem shows the fetish-izing of culture, which he shows museums as guilty of doing.

His analysis is framed by discourse on Property. He critiques European museums with the main point being that they negate history all too often. This stagnates societies in a time where there can be no growth. It makes nuanced cultural and scientific subjects into static objects for the fetishes of the viewers. There is one quote that I found particularly helpful from the opening pages, “The collection and preservation of an authentic domain of identity cannot be natural or innocent. It is tied up with nationalist politics, with restrictive law, and with contested encodings of past and future” (96).

As a collector of culture there are many things you must consider. First, The distinction between history and ethnography must be established. Levels of experience separate these two practices. When contemplating the role of an anthropologist in an institution sponsored film project, his/her role may conflate the role of historian and Anthropologist. This is a necessary conflation, I think. The distinction is important but then so is its conflation for efficiency’s sake. James addresses this issue in later chapters.

At the end of “Collecting primitive culture” He attributes the idea of putting objects with their lived culture to Franz Boas. But he says that Boas’ reasons for doing this were explicitly to place people at varying levels of the evolutionary chain. For me, putting objects in their lived context is not so much for a scientific merit but for its artistic possibilities. In a filmic setting, Anthropologists are often called on to do research for character development. Recently I was employed to do just this for a zombie film. The task was to research samurai’s from a historical perspective, but also for possible enduring cultural ripples that have been established because of the veneration and nostalgia for these heroic nationally devout warriors. Unfortunately I have never been to Japan so my endeavor was more explicitly a historical one, but the ethnography is a place that history and lived experience often become conflated in ways which are helpful for movie makers, historians, and anthropologists.

Bravo's Real Housewives

The television network, Bravo, is the home to America's favorite reality shows. One of Bravo's hit reality shows is called The Real Housewives. In fact, it has seven different varieties of the show which take place in seven different places in America--New York City, New Jersey, Orange County, Beverly Hills, Miami, DC, and Atlanta. The cast members on the show range from four to seven women depending on the show and season of that show. As the title suggests, the camera follows these upper-class housewives who are all mothers and lead a lifestyle that most people dream of leading. They have Birkins, cat fights, Jimmy Choos, botox, big breasts, and husband problems.

What you find on each show is that these women are very caddy, dramatic, and two-faced. It really is a "study" that looks at how wealthy women live in different places in America. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills is Bravo's latest series and its second season is currently on air. This season's biggest fight has happened between Camille and Taylor. At a tea party, Camille called her out and said that she needs to look at herself because her husband broke her jaw and beats her on camera when they had all agreed to not say it on camera. This initial fight becomes even bigger as more episodes air because the women never really talk one on one with each other in private. A common phrase that the women are heard saying on multiple series of the Real Housewives is "this is neither the time nor the place" in reference to bringing up the past/drama, so they normally try to ignore it when at an event. However by the end of the evening, they begin to bring up what had previously happened or rehash old issues.

This happened on the episode that just aired. It was the first time Camille and Taylor has seen each other since the tea party at a party that another housewife and cast mate, Brandi, put on in Malibu. The women had a wine tasting and then has belly dancing lessons. Towards the end, a fight broke out where Camille and Taylor confronted each other, however, all the other women began to join in with the fight and it was blown way out of proportion. The women that jumped in then began to pick sides and help the two women fight their battle.

What I've found is that a group divided makes the situation worse whenever a fight occurs and also because the two people involved are talking to each other, but not communicating; hearing, but not listening. They are almost fighting to fight. The problem with this also is that these women only really see each other at different events--parties, charity events, luncheons, and dinners. They are often drinking at these events and this can also force them to say things to each other that they later don't mean because their emotions are heightened and they are in a different state of mind.

Each series is filmed in the same way where the camera chronicles their lives each day. They are also shown in interview, confessional shots where they comment on what happened in the episode. This is similar to Jersey Shore and other reality TV series. This style allows for continuity between all seven different varieties of this series. They often make little jokes or slightly insult the other cast mate in these shots based on what was happening in that episode. This makes them seem slightly real, but also entertaining. Because America is watching this episode for the drama and comments they make about one another. That is also why Bravo has come out with several different versions--because the viewer who watches one will be be the viewer who watches all.

These women that appear on the show also are similar to each other when comparing multiple seasons because they all become celebrities. They are reported on in gossip magazines like OK!, People, and Life & Style. They become their own franchise. Many of them have written their own books (Teresa Giudice of NJ, Kyle Richards of Beverly Hills, and Sonja Morgan of NYC), have some type of clothing or accessory line (Kelly Killoren Bensimon of NYC-handbags, and Adrienne Maloof of Bevery Hills-shoes, Gretchen Rossi-handbags), or have their own line of alcohol (Bethenny Frankel of NYC's Skinny Margarita). This makes the viewer who is "studying" this wonder whether or not how accurate this show is to represent this subculture.These women on this reality series are very self aware and know who their audience is in America so they show themselves in the way that they want to represent themselves. It isn't necessarily who they really are.

The issue of authenticity also is in question because they are receiving something in return for them to be filmed. They may not need to do this for the money, however, these people may want the fame that comes with this show. Therefore, they may be willing to play a part that the producers of the show would like them to do. The drama that occurs and the rate at which it occurs is not a normal amount that would happen in a human beings life. We see a similar dilemma in Jean Marshalls' film Nai! because as viewers, we see in the film that she is self aware that she is the star of the film when she indirectly expresses it, but also when other people in the village get jealous of her. She is receiving money for her role in the film and the people in the village suggest through their actions that it has slightly changed her, just as their fame might change how these women act on the show.

The issue of editing is just as important to think about when viewing these shows as watching an ethnographic film. The producers all edit them in a certain way to get their point across. In this case, it is to heighten the drama that occurs in the lives of these women and to build up the suspense. The viewer becomes caught up with these women's lives. It is also something that most people will never get to experience in their lives themselves so they live vicariously through them.

Because it is very mainstream and watched by all, entertainment value is the reality series number one priority, so I am skeptical as to believe that what we are shown is what actually happens in their lives and who they really are. It isn't shot with its educational value in mind. They want a viewer who is interested in juicy gossip and over the top drama. The setting or women in the show don't matter really. That is why all seven seasons are equally successful--because they all have the same winning formula.

white cross on black background.

the first image has been manipulated by rotation, lens filter, and the presence of a frame.

the second image has a slight darkening at the base but is otherwise as plain as i could make it. However, the colors could be read in a multitude of ways.

Griffiths

Alison Griffith’s book Wonderous Difference explores the world of early museums to discuss the roots of America’s visual culture. She is interested in forms of educational visual media that predates flaherty’s Nanook of the North. Her research focus is on The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). What she brings to light is the way in which this institution and others like it, dealt with issues of representation. She highlights the need for these institutions to make educational materials that would draw crowds. AMNH was competing with New York’s other major attractions.

Today’s museums are filled with fast food, gift shops, and I-max theatres. Griffith quotes several museum representatives speacking about the difficulties that came with competing with places like coney island, places of lesser social merit. The mission of the museum is to better the people, but Griffith gives good examples on how this ideal goal was often more informed by a need to draw crowds then to show scientific merit. Popular culture and popular entertainment were the main sources for exhibit material. This entertainment was presented in a uniquely scientific lens, playing a balancing act between entertaining and educational.

I Loved Griffith’s introductory chapter. I hope to make a movie someday that highlights the similarities between secular institutions such as the met and AMNH and religious institutions like St. Patrick’ Cathedral. This book may serve as a useful model when that day comes. Her Chapter is a beautiful mix of Theory and History.

Jersey Shore

There's no doubt MTV/Viacom's Jersey Shore has reshaped modern, mainstream visual anthropology. It's a feat, but not really something to be proud of... What [perhaps] began as an ethnographic documentary into the lives of [certain types of] Italian-Americans vacationing [really?] in a quaint [not anymore] Jersey Shore summer town, is now a work of fiction. Although still shot in a manner that hints at a "let's peer into the lives of an American subculture"-type documentary, over the course of the show's 4 seasons [really, a fifth season is planned too?] the show has become more entertainment than the poor excuse for a documentary, as the show's style was presented in the first season. Just as Survivor changed the fate of reality TV forever, so has Jersey Shore for this reality/ ethnographic hybrid, a genre more showing up more often in our mainstream prime time lineup.

I'm trying really hard not to venture into the realm of moral dilemmas, but with this show it's hard not to. Instead, I'll focus on how the show has affected viewers, as other ethnographic films have. First off -- and this is an easy one -- the stereotype of Italian-Americans has changed not only in America, but worldwide. Young people are seeing this and, in time, don't stand a chance but to succumb to the brainwashing, ultimately thinking that at least some of these horrible stereotypes are true.

Unlike some other ethnographic films where anthropologists will view a 30-90 minute video, and discuss their interpretations, Jersey Shore offers a false glimpse into the lives of these literally fake people. What's worse, their target audience is roughly 16-24 year-olds. Further, it's not some bad movie you watch once or twice. There are currently 47 episodes over the course of the past three years. And more are coming. And according to Wikipedia, there are more than nine different spin-offs currently on air around the world, each focusing on a certain race, and each trying their hardest to cash in on this booming entertainment niche.

This really is the power of ethnographic film. But is it an ethnographic film? Parts of Flaherty's Nanook were staged. So was Rouch's Jaguar to a high degree. Does that take away from the merit of the work? I would argue that Jersey Shore is more slander than educational/accurate anthropologically, but does that nix it from the category of "ethnographic film?" Could the scene of Nanook chewing on the record count as "slander toward Inuits?" One could argue that it doesn't count as long as Nanook was in on it, as he was. But then again, so are the Jersey Shore cast. Where are these lines drawn, and how do we avoid moral dilemmas and circular dialogue?

the philosophy of photography

How is photography examined cross-culturally?
How can we understand the link between the photographer, the photo, reality and the receivers?
What properties do cultures use to index and conceptualize the meanings from photos?
What does a photo allow us to view and what meanings do we discover or bring to the photo?

Christopher Pinney's article details some of the ways photography is believed to engage with culture.  It views the cultural practices used and the ability for photography to represent reality or cause a reflection of identity and the cultural subjective itself.

In the West, photography acts as a mirror for us to dwell on self consciousness.  In central India, photography is a medium that includes painting and chromolithography and the photo is used in the same ways that ancient representation is.  Thus, Pinney believes it is not "modern."

Foucault says that photography maintains to function as a reflection of the culture and politics at the time.  While Foucault is on the right track,  Ginzburg offers the idea that the sign and its referent are believed to be fixed but isn't.  He notes that epistemes change and the information a viewer brings to a photo in one era is drastically different for a viewer in another era.  Therefore there is no formal link between qualities and effect.  The study of what causes transformative meaning in a photo should be looked at through "sophisticated analysis"

Because of the fixity of a photographgh it is easy to assume that there are strict connections between a signs an their referents, however, Photography is a rich form of art with many perspectives to discover.  The photographer's motivations and ideologies plus the lens inability to deiscriminate offersa rich landcape and multiple codes of information.  This allows presumably for the viewer to "look past" to find another inherent and sometimes subversive meaning about the politics of the time of the photo.   Looking past is the transformative or transedental quality of the photo (for the West.) 

Griffith

Alison Griffith's two chapters from Wondrous Differencestake a detailed look at how two different venues display and promote ethnographic exhibits. The first chapter addresses museums, specifically focusing on the American Museum of Natural History. Griffith writes about early anthropological exhibitions and the various ways in which ethnographic findings were presented. The museum itself wished to promote exhibits that would inform as well as entertain; however, as Griffith describes, there seemed to be a struggle in finding that balance. Some curators and anthropologists believed that the displays, whether they be tableaux-vivants, taxidermied animals or a diorama, should be completely realistic, creating a perfect illusion. Others argue that simply because of the setting – the museum – the exhibits cannot be made too real. The surroundings of the museum spoil the intended effect of transporting viewers into another life. Another concern of this latter group is that by vivifying a culture, the scientific value of the exhibit is lost. The attempt to find the middle ground between entertainment and education of an exhibition is addressed further in the second chapter which focuses on world fairs. At the world fairs, the displays and performances of the so called native people also tread a fine line between informative and carnivalesque. Oftentimes the anthropologists who arrange the displays discovered the unusual and bizarre aspects of a culture's life created the biggest draw. These types of displays were engaging but also lacked a realistic depiction of everyday life of that society. Finding an equilibrium that would attract a crowd and was accurate was the main issue of these two chapters. As a reader, I wonder how modern day museums solve this problem or if they even encounter anything of this nature today. Griffith also writes about early anthropological films that were mostly spectacle and inaccurate, leading me to question whether the films of present day have improved in this way at all. Are they still merely spectacle, meant to solely entertain, or can we really walk away with a greater knowledge than we started?

Turner and Ginsburg

The Ginsburg article addresses the debate concerning the impact of media created by indigenous peoples and the affect the exposure to Western technology may have. According to Ginsburg, having the ability to film and record daily occurrences among an indigenous group results in a kind of Faustian dilemma. For something to be considered faustian it usually implies some moral integrity has been compromised in order to achieve a higher level of success or recognition. To call this particular situation faustian is apt: on the one hand media allows indigenous people to translate their own identity as well as create films that serve their own purposes while on the other hand the spread of technology can be seen as an assault to indigenous culture, language, imagery, relationship between generations and respect for traditional knowledge (96). It's a similar debate that occurs when Westerners make ethnographic studies of other cultures. Are they merely spreading knowledge and creating an awareness of another society that lives in this world? Or is it an affront to the group's way of life, to be exposed like an object to strangers?

Turner, in his article "Defiant Images: The Kayapo Appropriation of Video," in addition to looking at how indigenous people, a group called the Kayapo living in Brazil, dealt with media technology, also wrote about the notion of the representation. He cites another another anthropologist, James Faris, who holds the view that Western produced projects destroy the subjectivity of those being filmed, the 'others,' and reducing them to objects of the Western 'gaze' (14). I don't agree with Faris and neither, it appears, did Turner but the simple act of turning a camera, wielded by a Western camera person, on a non-Westerner subject, does not always produce objectivity. Filmmakers who interact with their subjects - Jean Rouch - avoid this problem of 'gaze' by giving them power over what they are being portrayed as. In essence this is what indigenous media is all about. The ability of a group of people to represent themselves to others in the way they wish to be represented. Of course there are problems and issues but there is no perfect way to depict a culture that is going to be accurate every time, no matter if Western or indigenous.

Response to Ginsburg and Turner

Ginsburg's "Indigenous Media" discusses the positive and negative aspects of ethnographic film, in terms of letting the Indigenous people film themselves and represent their own culture through visual anthropology, without misrepresentation.However, the negative aspects of Indigenous Media include the adverse effects which television and new media has on the cultures, causing them to be lead astray from the true values of their original culture. The modernization of technology, and the introduction of new media to Indigenous people has created opportunities for new representations, however this can be seen in both a negative and positive light. Can ethnographic films about a certain culture filmed by the same culture give more of a sense of "truth" through visual anthropology, as opposed to an outsider filming their people?

The West views the modernization of technology as an advantage, but as Ginsburg discusses, there are some aboriginal groups that do not believe this is the case. Recently, there have been developments of media gruops in aboriginal communities in which they take advantage of the modern technology. Although many groups have adapted to the new technology for positive use, many still consider media such as television to have "distructive effects" (94). The positive uses for video recordings in aboriginal groups are helpful to "construct identities that link past and present in ways appropatie to contemporary conditions" (94). On one hand, the new uses of modern technology improve the lives of Aboriginal communities by giving them new ways to communicate with each other. On the other hand, new media can be seen as a "final assault on culture, language, imagery, relationship between generations, and respect for traditional knowledge" (96). Because much of ancient traditions is based on storytelling, and cultural practices and history are passed down from generation to generation, some see the new media as interrupting the traditional form of communicating knowledge of the culture.

Due to the fact that "knowing, seeing, hearing, speaking, and performing certain kinds of information are highly regulated; violation of norms can meet with severe sanctions," there is an extreme offense to the adaptation to modern technologies such as television to some aboriginal communities. While the new forms of technology may differ greatly from the customs of storytelling and face-to-face communication, the video recordings used by Aboriginals can represent a permanent history that is useful in broadcasting to a broader audience the history of their people. For Ginsburg, the Aboriginal Media is a positive step forward in the future of communication for the cultural groups in Austrailia. Because they are filmed by people of their own culture, the media recorded is not to represent the "Other," but to represent and communicate within their own community using "native social organization, narrative conventions, and communicative strategies" (99).

Turner's "Defiant images" comments on Ginsburg's article and continues to discuss the benefits of aboriginal groups adapting to use new technologies as a way to represent their cultural identies. Although there are problems that occur with the technologies (regarding money, the government, etc), both authors agree that the use of modern technology by aboriginal cultures helps to provide them with new means of communication within their own society, and between generations to record and represent their history.

Television and Moral Discourse

In his article about television and discourse, Richard Wilk makes the claim that you cannot understand the effect television has on society without studying the accompanying discourse that comes with watching t.v. People talking about what they watch is just as important as the content they are actually watching, and he uses the arrival of television in Belize for his case study.
The video invasion, or television mania, began in 1981, when the public got a hold of t.v. broadcasting for the first time.The government attempted to control television broadcasting and its social impact, claiming that it was a deadly force for the youth and kept people from being educated. This attempt failed, and the second wave of frenzy began in the late 80s with a flood of media scholars visiting Belize to conduct research. Television theory continued to develop from this point on, and the fact that it developed within the global economy of meaning, television must be studied differently. Commodities and consumption need to be understood more than production of culture, especially in a connected, global society, where the meaning changes drastically depending on context.
Media scholars understand that messages conveyed through television are mediated in the social context of talk about the program. Therefore, the way people talk about a program creates its cultural meaning. I think this is interesting to consider with reality tv in the US, especially Jersey Shore. I feel like more than watching the show to engage in a deep analysis of it, people simply watch it because they find it amusing. And the way they talk about it prescribes meaning to the characters and episodes. Therefore these characters are not seen as idols or celebrities or icons, but rather as individuals who don't value their own image, and thus can be made fun of. In the article, Wilkin writes a viewer who is dominated places no distance between himself and the program, and thus is identifies with the characters and events of the show in a completely uncritical way. Reality tv, on the other hand, shows us characters dominated by constant survelliance and the drama that surrounds their lives, allowing us to view them from a detached critical perspective, and thus making a joke out of their lives.

Photo Project