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.

Jersey Shore response (extra credit)

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

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

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

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

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

response to Ness/Ruby

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

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

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

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

Barthes response

"Rhetoric of the Image" discusses the motif of the image, and the representations and symbols can be told through the image itself, and how the meaning gets into the image. With the example of the Panzani advertisement, there are somewhat hidden signs which give the viewer a sense of nostalgia or familiar feeling, which evokes the good memories connected to the market place, and eventually is connected to the sudden desire to purchase the pasta. The scene of the advertisement gives a sense of "euphoric value" (Barthes 270). Barthes discusses the signs in an image which can include linguistic messages, coded iconic messages, and non-coded iconic messages. Based on the signs which one can apparently receive and decode upon viewing the advertisement in the example, different cultures would view the meaning behind the photograph differently, and many, in fact would not be able to identify with the linguistic messages behind it. Barthes brings up the question "Does the image duplicate certain of the informations given in the text by a phenomenon of redundancy or does the text add a fresh information to the photo" (273)? In regards to the denoted image, it works in giving the viewer a sense of "being-there" creating a new space-time relationship, and how the "absence of a code clearly reinforces the myth of photogenic 'naturalness' " (278).

Loizos response (Chapter 3 45-64)

Jean Rouch's technique and style of film making is unique with what some consider to be 'avante-garde.' As seen in his films "Les Maitres Fous" and "Jaguar," his documentary style ethnographic films have an almost comedic, and loose approach to capturing his subjects. Loizos calls the style of Rouch's film making a "sophisticated and empathic kind" (Loizos 46). Rouche was one of the first to master the hand-held camera techniques, creating films which can be described as 'fluid' (46). The modernization of film technology during the 1970s allowed for Rouche's experimentation with capturing cultures, yet the result was beyond more than just fooling around with a modern camera; he changed the way the spectator viewed the subjects in an up-close and personal way, as they had never seen before. The movement of the camera allowed not only a more modern sense of capturing and watching films, but capturing the realism of the world through the eye of the camera. Even in this modern age I can see how Rouch's filmmaking techniques could have been seen as controversial, eye opening, and revolutionary for anthropologists as well as filmmakers. An example of his controversial work can be seen in "Les Maitres Fous," in which he documents the Hauka people of Ghana.
The film has a beginning, middle and end, similar to the life, death and afterlife sequences. In the beginning he shows the hard lives of the unhappy workers, with the "pressures of migrant life in Accra" and then goes into showing the same group in a trance, taken over the identities of the white colonialists. As they violently tear at a dog carcass and foam at the mouth, the most shocking detail of Rouch's film is the fact that he gives no explanation for the trancing, he provides no background information of the cultural, only explains which person is taking over the personality/character of a certain colonialist (i.e. the governer, etc). The film ends, shockingly, with the same people where were in a trance together, now smiling at Rouch and happily working together in a ditch. The sequencing of the film suggests that the trance was a sort of "indigenous auto-psychiatric cure for the intolerable pressures and oppressions" (Loizos 48). Loizos concludes with summarizing the work of Jean Rouch with the subjects of "collaboration with the subjects, bringing their voices into the films, allowing their dreams and fantasies to take shape, and adding a mode of documentary which was not documentation-realism" (64). Rouch has an unapologetic way of capturing a culture and focusing on the individuals themselves in a shocking, unforgiving way, without explaining motives or traditions, simply capturing the truth and realism of the subjects in a stark, often disturbing way.

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?

Loizos Chapter (23-44)

Loizos' "For the Record: Documentation filming from Innocent Realism to Self-consciousness" discusses the various point of views of the filmmaker/camera, focusing on John Marshall's subject and filmmaking beginning in the early 1950s of the "Bushmen," otherwise known as San of the Kalahari desert. He presents the lives of individuals and focuses on their growth and development within their culture and environment, with an intense authenticity. As we watched in class, "N!ai, the story of a !Kung Woman," it seemed that the people being filmed were not characters, but subjects, and they were having their stories told by themselves, as accurately as possible. The film portrayed the young girl as she grew into a woman in a realistic light, based on the fact that it was social commentary from her perspective, and it was informing the viewer of her personal struggles, and the struggles of her people over the years.

With the help of Timothy Asch, Marshall began to incorporate the technique of "sequence filming." Asch also began to use the newly developed film technique of continuous synchrous-sound. Asch came to work with Chagnon, who used a "demanding behaviour-science approach to anthropology" (Loizos 24) with his portrayal of the Yanomami.

Loizos also mentions the collaboration of Dunlop, Tucker and Tonkinson in which they filmed Aboriginal groups in Australia, using methods of re-enactment and reconstruction with their subjects, who aimed to show the filmmakers the way they used to live before their culture was taken over by the missionaries. It is interesting, because one might ask if it is still authentic because it is the original culture of the people themselves that they are reanacting, or if it is controversial because it is being repeated for the sake of ethnography.

As ethnographic film advanced over time, cultures became weary to allow their sacred rituals and practices to be recorded, as the case with Sandall in Australia, post-1960s when they had the chance to view themselves. With the modernization of ethnographic film techniques and sound technology, the Aboriginal cultures who were made the subjects of the films became involved in controversy regarding ethics, and the sacred nature of their rituals which were being recorded.

Dunlap, in collaboration with the anthropologist Godelier, filmed the Baruya people of Papua New Guinea in 1969, with their consent, which seems like an breakthrough in the ethics between the spectator and the subject.

Loizos also brings up the example of the project between Asch and Linda Connor, filming the subject Jero Tapakan. This project seems revolutionary for ethnographic film for the fact that Asch specifically "wanted there to be no chance of the films helping Westerners see themselves as superior to the people filmed, so any unusual behavior would have to be contextualised through commentary" (Loizos 39), and also wanting to include the inner throughts of the people, as to acheive truth and reality throughthe accuracy of his ethnographic film. The fact that he was interested in presenting Jero as a person, as an individual and was concerned with expressing the truth, emotions and authentic life of Jero seems groundbreaking. As opposed to being a nameless, faceless member of a culture, Jero became a person with a story to be told.

Oct 11-Loizos, Garland and Tomaselli Response

The Loizos reading, "Innovation in Ethnographic Film" he discusses the different ways in which one can create a sort of documentary/realism in portraying a specific culture. The idea of "cinematic truth" is brought up, as well as non-actors, in a way, acting in front of the camera. It is clear that there is a thin line between visually presenting a documentation of a given culture, and creating a work of fiction through film. As noted by Brian Winston, this occurs by "editing and selection. Both, wittingly and unwittingly, embody a viewpoint" (Loizos 6). Ethnographic films are distinguished from documentaries for criteria described by Jay Ruby, including "using an anthropological lexicon". The innovations of filmmaking techniques and technology allow for more ethical ethnographic films to be developed, and using realism.

Garland & Gordon's "Authentic (In) Authentic: Bushman Anthro-Tourism" regards margeting schemes to attract tourists to visit the area of Namibia. The tourism creates a loss of real culture as its reproduction results in the loss of authenticity. It is unfortunate that the tribe of people known as the 'bushmen' has been replicated in the form of logos and other uses for tourism and other companies. The business made out of exploitation of the so-called 'bushmen' is unethical and morally wrong, all for the name of creating money out of racism. It is noted in this reading that the Bushmen are considered to be the most famous example of the "Others," which of course means that their culture is made up of highly "marginalized and disempowered people" (Garland 270). This culture has also been objectified to the point where the people themselves have been tourist attractions, and the individuals have been made into characters in books, newspapers, postcards, and other media.

In the article, "Psychospiritual ecoscience: Ju/'hoansi & Cultural Tourism," Keyan Tomaselli discusses similar themes of tourism and preservation of a culture's authenticity as the Garland reading. As mentioned in the Garland reading in which tourists could not see the Bushmen wearing Pepsi shirts, instead insisted on presenting them wearing grass skirts to look more authentic, Tomaselli discusses the anthro tourism/ public's need to 'conserve' the culture of the Bushmen, despite the fact that their culture had modernized and was adapting to the new societies of the world. The manipulation and objectication/false realism of the Bushmen can be described as "commodification of the the "ethnographic" takes place within the context of the "mobilized gaze" that is part and pacel of the transnational media flows' (Friedberg 1995) (Tomaselli 189). In order for the tourists (as well as the Bushmen) to be properly manipulated, the Bushmen have to look as if they are poor. The look which labels them as the 'Other' will feed the appetite of the tourist, who come searching for what they think is the truth of this culture. The sense of what is authentic in regards to this culture from the viewpoing of the Westerners/tourists is strictly based on stereotypical mindsets set in racism. It is only successful tourism when the culture is manipulated into becoming the "Other" and being portrayed negatively, destroying the authenticity of the Bushmen.

Jacknis Reading Response

As I'm reading the beginning of the article by Ira Jacknis entitled "Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali," I am reminded of the trance-like chanting performed by the aboriginal Australian women, as we saw in the film we watched during class. Jacknis mentions that with the Bali culture, "they seemed to have culturally institutionalized dissociative and trance-like behavior, which in our culture is regarded as schizophrenic." (Jacknis 161) Mead and Bateson, as a married couple and an anthropological team worked together using new methods of research and technologies to capture the culture of the Bali people, with a focus on child development.
Meade used her personal method of "running field notes" to study the Bali culture, that went along with the photographic recordings and films, and a daily diary. Meade's early methods of anthropological studies of a culture clearly influenced the future of cultural anthropology and changed the ways in which people studied other cultures, using new technologies to gather their data. I think it is important to note Meade's gathering of native visual documents, such as paintings and carvings, which in a way defined the culture itself. The new technologies used by Mead included a hand-powered projector, which allowed the Balinese to watch the people of their society and comment on authenticity of a trance, among other things. The fact that they were able to watch what the anthropologists had documented was a major breakthrough in the ethnographic studies of other cultures because they were able to gain perspective, and give feedback to the anthropologists themselves. This technique was called "film elicitation" (Jacknis 165).
Another way in which they allowed the Balinese to give an accurate portrait of themselves was their candid use of photographing the people of Bali, in a natural setting as to give a realistic portrayal of their culture. It's interesting that Meade tried to eliminate any kind of "observer bias..." using " long, middle-distance shots, presented with minimal editing" (Jacknis 172) from her observations and recordings, in order to gather the most natural data and information of the Bianese culture. To me, this is one of the most important things about ethnographic films, to eliminate any kind of bias or opinion towards the given culture to project onto the viewers, instead capturing the culture in what is considered to be their natural state, without posing them in situations or positions or editing the film in a manner that gives a certain forced perspective on the studied individual/culture.
The editing itself if very important in ethnographic films because every shot, in a sense, gives the viewer a specific perspective as presented by the filmmaker. As Sol Worth wrote regarding Mead and her work with visual anthropology, "Film is not a copy of the world out there but someone's statement about the world." (Jacknis 173) Overall, it is evident that Mead's work with ethnographic film was a breakthrough in the world of visual anthropology because it focused on the subjects, and not a certain perspective on the subject. It is important that she recorded a culture based on "ethnographic truth" and filmed and photographed her subjects in a natural state.

response to Errington

Shelly Errington's "What Became Authentic Primitive Art?" discusses the growing popularity of what is considered 'primitive art' in history, as well as what, for better or worse, is to be considered 'authentic.' Due to the fact that people in the West are fascinated with this so-called 'primitivism,' the trend and importance of gathering and collecting primitive forms of art grew significantly. With this trend came the controversy over what makes the art authentic or not. In relation to the film we watched in class, "In and Out of Africa" (Barbash and Taylor, 1993), the people who sold these works of art to the West realized the importance of the market and began to create a sort of 'new/old' art form, selling it as 'authentic,' and old. They even went as far as to weather down the primitive sculptures that they had just created from wood using mud, and root to give it an aged appearance, and making multiple copies of these art forms as a means of mass consumption for the white Westerners who then sold them in high-end galleries. It's interesting to me that the same African masks which Picasso painted, as seen in his painting, "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon," which was highly controversial, became an increasingly popular form of art, through what was considered to be cultural objects that had a certain significant purpose or use through the specific culture.


Errington discusses the two categories "art by appropriation...and art by intention." (203) The way in which people decided which objects belonged in a museum, and the idea that any form of primitive object could be displayed in a museum, and therefore, is authentic, primitive art, is very interesting. The idea of art by appropriation basically means that any work of art that is framed and hung in a gallery "becomes "art" by being framed." (207) As I mentioned before, as the Africans created the weathered appearance of new wooden sculptures to sell to the Westerners, is similar to the way in which, in the 1920s, art dealers practiced a similar approach of altering objects to create a specific authentic appearance, as they used to "strip African artifacts of their soft and fibrous parts, rendering them starkly "modern" looking and preserving or creating a particular aesthetic." (204) African objects, which at one point, had a purpose or significance in the given culture and environment, once exhibited in a museum becomes meaningless and merely decorative. The objects which were favored to be exhibited were mainly described as "ceremonial" (212), which downplays as well as completely ignores the true significance of the objects, which are misunderstood and underrated by the Westerners. People in the West were mystified by the objects of primitivism, therefore concluded and assumed that all of the art displayed carried some sort of spiritual or magical power, as well as superstitions. To me, Errington's article discusses how the West took African and Oceania objects, put them on display, categorized them and placed them in specific genres of "ethnic" art, and continued to fascinate and mystify people on a culture they knew nothing of, other than what they were being told to think was "primitive art," otherwise known as Non-Western artifacts labeled and misconstrued by the White, eager to collect and create new meanings for a new kind of art.

Clifford response

Clifford's "On Collecting Art and Culture" discusses the motifs of authenticity of artifacts and how the collections give a person an identity, despite that the reproduction of the object loses its original authenticity as it is taken out of its original environment, which gives it a different meaning, and/or loses its meaning completely. What is considered to be taboo is fascinating as we "do not encounter these objects except as curiosities to giggle at, art to be admired, or evidence to be understood scientifically." (217) Griffith brings up the idea of creating an identity through the collecting of art, and how that created identity itself, is a "kind of wealth" (218). The collections have a hierarchical nature because in a sense, a person with more other-worldly objects and art is considered to be of a higher social rank due to their ability to own such exoticized art. As I mentioned before, this reading reminded me that when objects are taken out of context, they lose their original meaning as well as their authenticity. Griffith discusses this further that "collections-most notably museums-create the illusion of adequate representation of a world by first cutting objects out of specific contexts...and making them "stand for" abstract wholes." (220) The objects which are exhibited and collected lose their original meaning when they are presented as merely non-Western objects, and in a setting that presents them out of context. When non-Western art and artifacts are exhibited and/or collected, their presentation out of context loses all sense of time and place, as well as the "concrete social labor of its making." (220)

It is interesting that non-Western artifacts have been called "objects sauvages," "sources of fascination with the power to disconcert." For someone to be considered wealthy and powerful, they discover, collect, and exhibit their artifact as a sort of exotic prize for all to gawk at and acknowledge that they have acquired a taste for exoticism, as a sort of cultural fetish that is appropriate to collect. Objects which served a purpose, which had a deeper meaning in its original context, like many artifacts and works of art, once brought over and adapted to the Western world, lose their authenticity and instead become an object of fetishism, an artifact that is merely objectified and its creation is not at all questioned, instead it is simplified to a collectible that the bourgeois are entitled to own and exhibit at their own expense. This is evident throughout history, and I think even today, with the people who are wealthy enough to 'collect' art are causing original works to become less authentic in a Western environment, and even the way that it is exhibited at all causes objects to lose their original meaning.