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"

Ginsburgh - Media Works

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

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

Ruby

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

Tomaselli

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

Photo

Shantytown, squatter,

Revolution, Inspiring.

Jacknis/Ginsburg on Margaret Mead & Gregory Bateson

Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: Their Use of Photography and Film – By Ira Jacknis

Faye Ginsburg
“Now Watch this very carefully…”
The Ironies and afterlife of Margaret Mead’s visual Anthropology - By Fay Ginsburg

Both the Ira Jacknis and Faye Ginsburg articles focus on the Anthropology of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Ginsburg emphasizes how ethnographic films thanks in large part to Margaret Mead who was responsible for preserving indigenous cultural in a way that we all can experience. Mead understood that things were changing and that with the new age of film making the way Anthropologist documented and did research also needed to change. She saw film as a way to reach a larger audience and to expose more people to other cultures.

Jacknis focused more on the process that Mead and Bateson used to research and document there journey. From why Bali was chosen and how they received funding to how many hours of film was used. It was interesting how Mead and Bateson had different perspective on how to do field study. Bateson was “just enough observation to supply a basis for his logical and theoretical interest.”(Jacknis, 161) and Mead “had a passion for specific detail and intricate pattern.” Mead wanted to document every second spent in Bali. One statement that stayed with me is “Those who know what they are looking for usually find it” (p. 173) Did Mead know what she was looking for and at what point of her stay in Bali was it realized? I think that Mead was meticulous in documenting and knew that her notes, her film footage and photos would speak for themselves. However,how much does our perceptions and preconceptions factor in the finished product?

Clifford

James Clifford ON Collecting Art and Culture

In On Collecting art and culture, James Clifford discusses Art, what is considered art, art collection and the categories of art and how culture is affected. By citing the James Fenton’s poem ‘The Pitt Rivers museum’s he explores the historical aspect of art and museums. He describes ethnographic collections as intriguing and forbidden objects and museum viewers as being child-like with curiosity. I found it interesting how he broke down the poem to illustrate how westerns look at “exotic collections” like a “Journey into otherness leads to a forbidden area of the self.”(p. 95) As if to say whether westerners view primitive art or the “other” as something natural, pure and idealistic or merely as something that they can made better has more to say about the westerners than the “Other”.

He talks about Westerners as being obsessed with collecting things. Their possessions define them and are extensions of their self-worth whereas some cultures accumulate objects not for self but for the redistribution. Children in western society are taught early to collect things whether it is toys or certain experiences we are taught to hold on to things. We are also taught to place these Items on display like shot glasses from ever city you have traveled or snow globes all on display so you can have visual for anecdotes. It concludes that the obsession would extend out and touch other cultures. The affect it has however somewhat damages the other culture. Items from other cultures are taken out of context and labeled art whether it is a tribal mask or ceremonial relic it is considered art collectors. The Item then becomes a symbol of a culture even though it is a miniscule part of the culture and to me that reduces the culture, a culture that is much more than just a tribal mask, fertility doll or maracas.

I appreciate that this article touches on everything from the discrimination, moral, economic and political aspect of identifying what an artistic object is. Why some objects are considered works of arts while others have to meet a certain criteria to earn that tittle. Why does African art need to be an artifact or ceremonial object to be considered “Art” or “primitive art” why can’t it just be Art? I also appreciate his breakdown of the “The Art-Culture System” and how a piece or a collection can one day be considered a masterpiece and the next not so much. And at the same time how something not once considered art can move into being a piece of art.

Errington

9/25/11
Errington
In her article “What’s become of primitive art by Shelly Errington focuses on what became of primitive art over time. She explains what “primitivism” is and the notion of “Authenticity” with regard to “primitive Art”. Primitive art according to Errington became recognized as “art’ in the early part of the 20th Century. In the 19th century in Europe Art that lacked naturalism were considered primitive. This included Italian artist or not academically trained artist. She spoke of the introduction of “l’art negre” which she calls “African Art but literally translates is Negro art that became the fascination or fad after the renaissance.
“Primitive” was Primitive art at least Authentic primitive art consist of crafts from thousands of years ago, that were not created originally as “Art”. Errington describes art as “Art by intention is framed, literally or figuratively” and has to be durable and portable. Before the 20th century the artifacts that are now considered art were praised but not considered “Art”, there was a shift and Art was becoming more of a source for knowledge and a feeling of transcendence.
Errington also discusses “Naturalistic Prejudice – the Idea that art is made meaningful by resembling something in the world and that it strives to do so in a way as optically realistic as possible, even if it does not always achieve it” There was a craving to connect with naturalistic world could be cause of the mass productions and a longing to connect to hand made objects. The way non-European objects became to be thought of as art had little to do with each piece but with the type of artifact or image. In other words, it had much more to do with where the piece was coming from then the actual piece itself.
Art differ from place to place and the fascination with world art Primitive or not has influenced modern art.

Griffith

Marie Valbrune
Week #2
Wonderous Difference Chapter 1 and 2
September 11, 2011

The first reading talks about the concept of a Museum as it was earlier on and what it strived to be. The American Museum of natural History in New York like most museums was a place for the high class and enlightens individuals. There was a debate on should the access of museums be extended to the masses. The museum groups were looking for ways to make a trip to the museum more attractive to all socioeconomic backgrounds. It seems that the focus shifted slightly to focus on entertainment and filling the museums and the educational aspect had become secondary.
The Ultimate goal was to create an environment that would visually be capable of educating and at the same time be captivating enough to fill the museums and create spectators. As the world changed and the way we see things changed the museum groups too had to find a way to give the museum goer an exciting way to see exhibits. There needed to be a way to show an exhibit without having the person taking the picture or setting the scene to be part of the exhibit or for the visual affects to seem to unnatural.