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.

Griffith-Exhibiting Others response (week 2)

Alison Griffith's "Wondrous Difference (Life Groups & the Modern Museum Spectator) discusses the reasoning behind exhibiting the "ethnographic Other" for the entertainment and education of the "paternalistic and cultural elites" at the museum of Natural History (Griffith 3). Throughout history, anthropologists have attempted to represent the Other cultures for the amusement of the Western world, which were often given a one-sided perspective on the lives of people much different than themselves. Due to the lack of modern technology and specific philosophy of time, the spectators were given a very skewed truth of the anthropology of Others (non-Westerners). The exhibition of the Non-Western world presents the information in an inappropriate way, not un-like the comical and exaggerated ways of the Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum. The Orientalism, which fascinated Westerners, was presented through the modernization of technology such as film, which gave museums the chance to "make science and natural history more accessible to the masses through visual spectacle" (Griffith 5). The museums enabled people to become a spectator who were able to gain access to new information, as well as the ability to feel as if they were "a member of a civilized race who was a privileged spectator, as opposed to the passive object of a scrutinizing gaze" (Griffith 12). Regarding the debates of the accuracy and presentation of the cultures in the museums, some defended "the groups exhibit's 'capacity to convey scientific accuracy while at the same time to be aesthetically pleasing" (Griffith 50).

The strengths of Griffith's "Life Groups & the Modern Museum Spectator" include the history of the museums and descriptions of how the new access to information affected the people of the 19th century. It was helpful in which Griffith discussed the debate of whether or not the museum's presentation of information was accurate in expression the truthful information of the Other, as opposed to increasing the sense of the "Other" minority to the Western world, and giving them too much of an empowered feeling. It seems that although the presentation of the exhibits were one-sided and not necessarily presenting the truth of Other cultures, the museums were more concerned with entertaining the public, as well as keeping Americans satisfied with their own personal identities in society (in comparison to Others). Griffith explains that the museum exhibits attempt to attract spectators using "an instrument of scientific edification: in order that a habitat or life group be instructive and impart even a limited number of scientific precepts, it had to be inviting to the museum visitor" (Griffith 30).

Were the museums too focused on giving people a Nationalist sense of pride when they presented the anthropology exhibits of the "Other" cultures? Were they designed to purposely belittle the cultures of others or can the lack of information/modern technology be to blame for lack of accurate representation?

Griffith

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

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

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

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.