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.

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???

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.

Barthes

Barthes article was very interesting because it forced me to think about advertising and the strategies that they use to reach their audience. The most surprising thing to me was when he pointed out the color scheme and the use of fresh flood in conjunction with the product, which is more packaged or processed than those to help sell the product. I would have never thought twice as to why they did this because it just made sense. However, now thinking about it, I realized this understanding an outside culture from within your own culture is in fact a cultural understanding that one has. As Barthes states, the linguistic and the connoted and denoted messages within all work with one another to give off this Italianicity that is understood to an outside culture based on stereotypes that we see.

When one thinks of Italian culture, one thinks of pasta and natural tomatoes to make the tomato sauce and how our definition of a supermarket in the United States is different from that in Italy. A Wawa convenient store is really equivalent to the size of a supermarket there, even in the large cities. Italians still go to various specialized stores to buy everything—the fruttivendolo to buy the fruits and vegetables, the macellaio to buy the meat, the panificio to get the bread. It isn’t a one stop shop for your convenience like in the U.S. or as Barthes describes as a mechanical society. We know this to be true as a stereotype of Italian culture and cooking habits. This reminds me of Geertz when he states that common sense should be studied because it essentially something that is understood and not really perceived to be cultural within that society. This understanding only proves that these advertisements are in fact cultural.

He also points out the use of an Italian sounding name for the product to outsiders to make it seem more authentic, marketable, and thus appealing to the audience. He argues that French would only understand that word “pates” which is in French but understand that name of the Pasta company “Panzani” to be an Italian sounding name. However, not being able to speak French and knowing what Italian names sound-like, I can still understand that the company itself is Italian and that this is probably sold in France. This only further emphasizes Barthes point that when we look at an advertisement of a photograph, one picks and chooses and still gets the message from it and even though I cannot read French and ignore “pates,” I still understand the pasta to be Italian.

The color palette also is used to prove its authenticity also by sticking to the colors of the Italian flag. The objects evoke a literal and metaphorical symbolic message, a two-for-one deal if you will, which is what advertisements love to do. This is the most shocking thing that I would have never noticed myself because the staging, light, objects themselves, and the text are all obvious things I would have looked at. I would have thought about color versus black and white, however, I would have never thought of the actual colors used and how they work off of one another and as a purposeful choice to show a symbolic meaning besides the literal and evident meaning. The lighting in this photograph is also very warm and yellow creating a feeling of nostalgia as well to a more quaint of more simple life that maybe the outside might see as something to be longed for.

The thing I did not agree with or maybe follow correctly was Barthes argument of the photographic medium and when he compared it to film. Photographs will never be able to objectively show something or make a copy of something. Yes, he acknowledges the ‘”tricks” as he calls them that can manipulate the photograph and its ability to copy what was in front of the camera as it was, however, a photograph even when not specifically using these “tricks” cannot and will not ever be able to make a copy of the thing in front of it. As John Szarkowski points out in The Photographer’s Eye, the photograph is different from the thing itself. The subject of the photograph and the actual thing in real life are not one in the same or even similar and the photograph is never able to represent it. Therefore, when he argues that unlike drawing which is selective and does not reproduce everything, a photograph is not able to intervene within the object even though it can pick the point of view and its angle. This argument to me is nonsensical and weak because these two things as well as other independent variables will always intervene and change how it appears. As I said before the two are not one in the same, but also because the lighting for example or the vantage point can make something look much larger or infinitesimal in comparison to other things in the frame. This is never possible. As drawings pick and choose, so does a photographer so this is not possible. In this case he says that it can change the connotation, but not the denotation. These two in my opinion are inseparable when looking at a photograph and shouldn’t be looked at separately because they work together. Therefore, I see his point to some extent but his argument is weak and I do not agree with it at all.

Tomaselli

Loizos’s points on ethnographic film and the ideaThe Tomaselli article is the one that stuck out to me the most. Because it points out the interesting juxtapositions found in anthropology. The second we go to study a culture for academic purposes, even worse for more commercial purposes like tourism, the culture is influenced and changed. If the Bushmen were put in park-lands, they would be required to wear loin-cloths that they normally did not wear. They also were a nomadic people and this would mean they would be confined to one area. They would have to adjust to this change, resulting in a change in who they are really.

The part of the article where they agreed to wear loin-cloths distributed by the film-makers was really jarring because these people acknowledged what these filmmakers were doing—portraying this culture inaccurately—but also acknowledged that they couldn’t do anything about it because they needed money and these loin-clothes symbolized future income for them because the public would want to buy them. So again they are sacrificing who they are or their integrity to make money.

We saw the same struggle with the film we saw on African Art. The Africans who were Muslims were the traders of the art—art which they saw as “pagan.” They would hide the art from their kids because it was seen as mysterious and bad, and yet one could say that their lives revolved around it each day to make money. This was all because they knew a profit would come out of it. They are sacrificing their beliefs, and in the San’s case their integrity, to conform to our currency.

We see the same thing with Body Shop’s recurring return to Kayapo to learn about their natural health products. Everytime they visit, their influence slowly grows. They saw our cameras and now use them to defend their culture and authenticity and yet somehow they are compromising a piece of their “authenticity” in the process.

This notion of objectively studying another culture can’t really exist because we will influence in one way or another and change them. We also saw this when Mead filmed the trance dance in Bali. They included women in the ritual, shortened it, and performed it in the day. These things done all for the purpose of academia had a consequence and influence on that culture. The women were then on included and played a more important role in that culture then so gender role slightly changed.

Jacknis

Jacknis is pointing out the dilemma of anthropology, which is objectivity. Mead and Bateson tried to avoid or solve this problem by using still and cine photography in Bali. They were very efficient in taking notes and recording. However, the reason why they headed to Bali was to study children and the “missing type” which Mead thought the Balinese exhibited. Yes, they wanted to try to document or record cultural themes or behaviors exhibited, but that was their main intent. Going in with this in mind, you will be biased in what you look at and record.

Bateson took the photos and Mead would be a director pointing out interesting behavior to be filmed. The article said that this was because it would have been things Bateson might have missed with his eye to the viewfinder. However, this reasoning proves that this was biased.

Firstly, the fact that Mead was pointing out things that he should make sure to record suggests that they did pick things that would fulfill their thoughts or hypotheses when they first started their research their. Secondly, the pictures being taken are biased because the person using the camera chooses where to aim it, how to aim, and when to click the shutter button. Different things are especially interesting to different people and the person will be drawn to these things and focus on them more than collecting a general overview of every aspect of culture. Thirdly, the use of the camera made the cameraman miss things because their eye is always in the viewfinder ready to get the next shot. So one can possibly argue that one who writes notes from observation can argue that they will have better judgment from this because they can observe to the best of their ability and then assess the situation fully. Lastly, the difficulty with visual anthropology in my opinion is that because it appeals to the most popular and useful senses, those viewing it can take it to be real. Photographs, still and cine, are figments of the real world. They are a representation and this representation sometimes, if not all times, cannot be accurate. Without providing supplemental text and background to the photograph, the viewer can make judgments and their own conclusions, which can be the wrong ones.

I agree with the first paragraph on page 173 in the fact that film is not a copy of something. The medium itself is subjective because we decide where we point the camera and it is a form of communicating our observations and ideas in the world. There is no pure ethnographic truth in my opinion in, no matter how you choose to document it—on paper or with a camera. It is almost like an oxymoron in a way because the people going to study have a specific purpose for and when they are there they influence that culture, too. as we saw with the recording of the trance dance, they had them do it during the day because it could not be filmed at night because they needed more light and it was only something around two or three hours long when in reality it took upwards of eight hours. They also asked women to participate for the film when they normally don’t. This would, therefore, have the viewer be mislead to a certain extent. This also changed the culture in that from then on women were always included.

The conclusion of this article argues that this, however, is not a bad thing. They were subjective and the finished product was definitely biases but it is a “disciplined subjectivity.” The use of visual anthropology is good because it is something that can be taken back for other experts and anthropologists to analyze. So the study does not only happen in fieldwork and is not a two-way interaction between the anthropologist and the culture being studied firsthand. There can be secondhand analyses. This can be a bad thing though because the medium itself is not a copy and is not as accurate sometimes in my opinion as something is firsthand. There are so many different factors that can change our view of something. For example, the angle at which something is taken can change the feeling a viewer gets from the picture. If something is taken from below looking up, the subject can be seen as superior or also in a very negative light because it can be unflattering, etc.

Because the general viewer tends to think that photographs and films represent the real world and that the subject in the photograph and the actual real person are one and the same. What often happened early on is that a whole culture would get sized up from a small collection of photographs, which can be kind of insulting. Photographs and films are almost too accessible now and this realness, as the trance dance film example in the article suggests, can be really dangerous when being used as an accurate document and can be confused as it being the real thing.

Errington

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

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

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

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

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

Clifford

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

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

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

---

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

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

Griffith

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

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

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

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

[1] Alison Griffith, Wondrous Difference, 22.