ginsburgh

In chapters 5-8 of Media Worlds, we read how television, as a form of social media, in several countries is discussed and the role it plays in forming different identities. Depending on the country, television helps shape gender and religion identity as depicted in Egyptian melodramas, national Hindu identity as depicted in a serial broadcast of an Hindi epic; Thai television at a national level that relied on local participation that poses Thai people versus "the other" (mainly foreign others) and satellite television in Belize that created a "modern" identity since it has eliminated time and distance to other societies due to real time broadcasting. For most Americans, we take television for granted and do not necessarily create our identities based on television shows. This book was published in 2002 and since then many other forms of social media (e.g. internet, Facebook, Twitter) have replaced television.
In one of the chapters, Epic Contests Television and Religious Identity in India, Purnima Mankekar writes about the broadcasting, on state-controlled television, of a serial based on a important Hindu epic in 1987. Many of the Hindus who watched the serial commented that it was similar to a religious ritual. The serial taught Hindus to be proud of their heritage rather than ashamed and how to incorporate Hindiusm into everyday life. Yet many non-Hindus found the serial entertaining and some expressed hostility and would not even watch it. One young Muslim widow individualized the serial (similar to the woman in the Egyptian melodrama) since she was betrayed by her husband and bitter that her in-laws did not help her while constantly reprimanding her for her lack of modesty. The serial portrayed Hindu as a cornerstone of Indian culture and to equate Hindi culture with Indian culture. Over the last several decades, there has been an increase in Hindi nationalism and the serial shared some of the same features. Both Hindi nationalism and the serial demonized "the other".
When I was reading the chapter about the Hindu serial it reminded me of the American mini-series, Roots. Roots was televised on ABC in 1977 and was an historical story about slavery. Similar to the Hindi serial, it was watched by millions. Roots allowed African Americans to be proud of their heritage and expanded America's knowledge of history. While the show was well viewed, I am sure that some watched it for entertainment and others would not watch it at all.
As noted by Television, Time and the National Imaginary in Belize by Richard R. Wilk, he writes that watching television is a social activity and that the information viewed is mediated through a social process of debate, discussion and public discourse. He writes that television discourse and debate has changed the existing social divisions and alignment of fraction and that television allows for new interpretations of the past. Both the Hindu serial and Roots created a new interpretation of the past so the Hindus and African Americans feel pride in their heritage. At the same time, the Hindu serial has also changed the existing social division and alignment of fraction and it could be said the change has not always been for the better. Mankekar questions whether the serial and Hindi pride helped create the widespread violence in 1992 where Hindu nationalist stormed the mosque.

Photo Wallahs

In Photo hierarchicus: Signs and mirrors in Indian photography by David MacDougall, he writes about the idea of "stealing our souls" and photography. This idea may seem odd to most westerners but it is not to odd to all. If you do not understand how the photography process works, it seems like magic. Someone stands behind a box, takes a picture, processes it and then handles you a paper with your image.
MacDougall writes about class and photography studio hierarchy in India. It is interesting that no matter your social status, there is still a desire to have your photography taken. My family photo albums have a few really old photographs that have a studio name and address either stamped on the back or a corner. I wonder if the same class and photography studio hierarchy existed in the U.S.? Was there the same desire to have your photograph taken regardless of your status?
At one point MacDougall writes about the photographs that documented court life. He writes that the photographs show some people in fancy dress costumes for parties or dressed in traditional regalia and compares this to the tourists who dress up for costume photographers. But is these the same thing? The court life pictures present people in their reality; they are not pretending to be something they are not and they are not in disguise. When the tourists dress up in costumes, it is not their reality but only a fantasy. As MacDougall notes, there is a close correlation between the photographs and cinema and pretending temporarily to be someone you are not.
There is a contradiction in that the idea of the new middle class traveling for leisure is a modern idea while at the same time they dress up in costumes that reinforce gender roles. Two of the three categories reinforce gender stereotypes. For example, women dress up in traditional costumes with props such as a water jug or flowers. Men dress up as powerful exotic figures.
Switching topics, in Christopher Pinney's Introduction to "How The Other Half…", he writes that in the cases of Jo-Anne Driessens and Michael Aird, the recoding of images came out of their discovery and recognition of images of family members stored in an archive and were formerly anonymous. I cannot help but wonder what this must have felt like. It must have been amazing to connect to your past via a photograph. He is right when he calls it a homecoming.

Ruby

Since Ruby's article was written in the early 1990s, many things have changed during the last twenty years in terms of images. Today, you do not need to a professional filmmaker or photographer to produce a film or an image. The current use of Iphones and cell phones has allowed anyone to take a picture or video and instantaneously post it on the internet so it has world wide access. The line between filmer and those being filmed has narrowed since in many cases it is one and the same. We saw this in the images posted worldwide during the Arab Spring.
Ruby writes about an all Native American crew trained by Canadians who produced You Are On Indian Land and the discussion on whether it was made by white men even if it was made in consultation with Indians and only a documentary by us about them. Yet, at time goes on and more and more Native Americans make their own films will the white man's influence wear away so they fully control the image?
This also makes you think about the success of the Kayapo of the Amazon Rain forest in Brazil and the Walpiri of Central Australia. Ruby writes that after being trained in video production in 1985 by Brazilian researched, the Kayapo used video production to document traditional culture and to document transactions to be used in future litigation. The question is whether their success is somehow related to the fact that Sting has taken up the cause of the Rain forest? Ruby comments that Sting's latest MTV video includes Kayapo footage. Does having a celebrity give more credibility to the Kayapo video?
Ruby discusses TV which has definitely changed since he wrote his article. He writes that gay men and lesbians do not exist since they are not depicted on TV. Today, there are many shows both on network TV and cable that include gay storylines. Shows such as Six Feet Under, Modern Family, Glee are a few that come to mind. Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell both have popular talk shows. It writes there has been some progress on news announcers. Yes there are more African Americans, Asian Americans women and Hispanics but everyone has become homogenized and everyone looks and sounds the same. There is no such thing as a regional accent.

lutz response

In the article The Photograph as an Intersection of Gazes: The Example of National Geographic, Lutz and Collins write there are seven kinds of gazes including the photographer's gaze, the institutional, magazine gaze and the reader's gaze. They also write that image producers at National Geographic are mostly white and male and the reader's come from a wide range of social positions within American society. The magazine's gaze drills down to include (1) the editor's decision to commission arils on certain locations or issues, selecting a limited number of photographs from a large group and the layout decisions (cropping, arrangement with other photos, size and altering). If the image producers were non-white or/and female, would this change how the photographer's gaze is chosen?
In both the Lutz and Collins article and in Notes on the Gaze by Daniel Chanlder, it has been mentioned that someone who is culturally defined as weak (women, children, poor, tribal vs modern, people of color) are more likely to face the camera. The more powerful are more likely to be looking somewhere else. Mostly likely those culturally defined as weak do not think of themselves as weak. Could it be that the more powerful are embarrassed by their power and cannot look the camera in the eye since the camera serves as a mirror?
Lutz and Collins write that users recognized that the camera was a form of power. They write that pictures in National Geographic that put the camera in the hands of "the other" suggest little danger and many pictures show the native's use of the camera as amusing or quaint. Yet, do the unhappy and coerced Maca Indians from the Colonia Juan Belaieff Island in the Paraguay River near Asuncion who charge to take photographs with tourists feel empowered by the camera? Or has the camera allowed them to become another commodity?
In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema by Laura Mulvey, she writes that "socially established interpretations of sexual differences control images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle". In a patriarchal society, the active male gaze is on the passive image of a woman. In terms of the male gaze, I could not help but think that if women filmed The Ax Fight instead of men, would there have been so many shots of bare breasted women? Would a woman filmmaker filmed in a different way to get the point across? For example, near the end of the film when the woman is cursing and yelling at other side, would a woman filmmaker used a close up shot?

Barthes

In his article "Rhetoric of the Image" Roland Barthes uses a photograph for an advertisement for a food brand to illustrate the different messages an image contains. Just as a film is edited to project a certain message, a photograph is also posed to project a certain message. The photograph is only an image of the pasta, tomatoes, string bag, etc. and gives the presence of reality. The image is almost nostalgic in that it shows the benefits of shopping for items to prepare a home cooked meal rather than buying a frozen or pre-made meal. Even if the advertisement does not contain words, it still speaks to the viewer. Barthes writes that images without words were necessary in illiterate societies. In terms of advertising, even today, we recognize certain company logos without seeing words or the product (e.g. Nike's swoosh, Apple's apple and Starbucks' green woman logo).
There are similarities between the photograph and museum still life displays. Griffith notes that viewers realized the no matter how life like the museum still life display appeared they were only an illusion and not real when she writes about the museum displays that were popular at the turn of the 19th century. The viewer develops an imaginary relationship when viewing either the museum display or a photograph. For the museum displays it allowed the viewers to image they were standing in front of an actual scene from another culture. The photograph used in Barthes' article allows the viewer to be transported back to time when food shopping and home cooking was an everyday event.
Both the photographs and the museum displays are framed. The frame allows the viewer to focus only on what is shown - everything that is not relevant is not included. The frame allows for the viewer to study the photograph in great depth. This is no different than Tim Asch's method of breaking down frames of The Ax Fight to allow viewers to critically examine what they see.
Words, whether written or spoken, affect how we see the image. In The Ax Fight, we have a different reaction when we hear the cause is due to an incestuous relationship than we when hear it is about visiting guests demanding food without helping out. Everyone views a film, photograph or image differently. The Yanomami filmed by Ashe consider the films to be like home movies but to his students they reinforce the idea of "the other".

Rouch response

Jean Rouch was deeply interested in experimentation which is evident in his films. But experimentation involves a certain level of risk. As Faye Ginsburg points out Rouch was a risk taker who never played it safe. He filmed in Africa from the end of colonization through the "heady period of independence". Independence involves a huge amount of risk. The risk of independence was something that Rouch could empathize with since he was such a risk taker himself.
Rouch could also empathize with the idea of ritual and total absorption into the ritual. Jean-Paul Colleyn notes that once he began filming, his personality changed and he became lost in the ritual of filmmaking.
For the most part, when Africans are portrayed as "the other", it is usually in the context of rural societies and traditional cultures. Rouch was more interested in culture change and the modern Africa including migrant workers in cities and those marginalized by urban life. In a way he is taking the idea of "the other" a step further. For most westerners, being African is enough to be categorized as "the other" yet the migrant workers are considered "the other" within African urban society.
In many cases, films were shot in the morning, processed in the afternoon and screen in the evening. This did not leave a lot of time for editing. The lack editing emphasizes Rouch's idea about improvisation since he was more interested in the content.
Mishaps did not stop Rouch from filmmaking. When he lost his tripod is a river, he continued filming by holding the camera on his shoulder. This was part of his style of improvisation. This technique became normative in future filmmaking.
Even if Rouch's intent was to produce a dramatic documentary rather than a documentary to actually document history or culture, it seems some of his movies (e.g. Jaguar) may serve to do just that. As Rouch notes in Jean Rouch Talks About his Films to John Marshall and John W. Adams, after African independence many records, photos, etc were destroyed and lost forever.

Lazio - 10/18 response

Lozios talks about the difficulties in making documentaries which includes the camera's position and the point of view. The point of view being shown has a strong effect on the film. For example, when we view N!ai, the story of a !Kung Woman, in many shots, the camera is positioned to see the woman from the viewer's point of view. Even though we this point of view, like any point of view does not depict the whole story, it does create a an intimate relationship between the woman and the viewer. This makes her story more real and appealing.
Lozios includes the films of the Yanomami by Chagnon which he broke with tradition and filmed their practice of raiding. It allowed the viewer to feel that he/she was viewing the actual events as they unfolded which was thought provoking and emotionally compelling. This can be compared to today's reality TV. Reality TV allows the viewer to watch events as they unfold which are more emotionally compelling than thought provoking.
The curious case of censorship reminds me of the lawsuit around the documentary Crude: The Real Price of Oil. The film documents the legal battle between indigenous Ecuadorians and Chevron over oil pollution. A federal court ordered that the filmmaker, Joe Berlinger, release his raw footage to Chevron so they could stop the lawsuit. Berlinger argues that there is an expectation that the raw footage is not going to be released but edited to be honest and accurate. Will this court order change the way documentary filmmakers make films?

Tomaselli - Meg

In his article Psychospiritual ecoscience: The Ju/'hoansi and cultural tourism" by Keyan Tomaselli, he discusses that 1950s policy of South West African Administration dilemma of balancing preservation of the Bushman with the objective to "make them useful and contented people". It not this insulting to the Bushman because who is to say they were not useful and contented before?
Since animal preserves are so popular with tourists, the question is asked if people can be preserved in the same way. They would "pretend to be wild" to satisfy a tourist's romanticized belief of what constitutes "the other". This idea is not that different from the world fair and Wild West shows popular during the late 1890s and early 1900s.
Tomaselli makes that point that anthropology is one of the methods that have lead to destruction of societies. He writes that once societies become know they are doomed. He cites an example of the Kayapo of using video cameras to document their own authenticity which they use to appeal for international justice. Because the films are made and produced by indigenous peoples, do they hold more weight and thus are considered more legitimate than films made by outsiders? But if the film is edited to project a certain viewpoint, does it matter who makes it?
It is ironic that the Ju/'hoansi lump anthropologists, filmmakers and tourists into one group which is really their "other". They did not seem to care that each group has a different objective. The Ju/'hoansi are more attracted by money and goods so they continue to portray themselves as the poor Bushman. Yet they do not always feel comfortable with the way they are portrayed as commented by N!ai (e.g. drunkenness, decaying social relationships and accusations of prostitution). But the decaying society is a result of the idea of producing culture and society as a commodity. In a sense Tomaselli blames subjects themselves for the images that are projected to outsiders. But is this really a fair assessment? If it were no buyers (filmmakers and tourists), there would be no commodity to sell. On the other hand, maybe Tomaselli is right when he says the last laugh is on the observer and the subjects are really savvier than they are given credit for.

Jacknis - Meg

Jacknis writes about Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson and how they pioneered the way ethnographic research was documented and recorded. It turns out that some photographs were posed and some film was staged and edited. For example, their film of trance dances was staged during the day when in reality it was a night ritual. This is a dilemma similar to museum exhibits on how to attract viewers' attention and still maintain some cultural education. Another issue was that one of the rituals filmed was not an ancient ritual but one created during their fieldwork. Because the ritual filmed was not an ancient one does not make it any less real. This change in the ritual is like "culture" that is always changing due to outside influences.
Faye Ginsburg writes that in some instances ethnographical film has been used by indigenous activists for claims on their cultural continuity, land claims and cultural property rights. Yet if the film has been edited in a certain way, does it not to some extent create observer bias? How do you really know if it portrays the truth? Since movie film was limited and expensive, it was used for the most interesting moments. Does this also create a bias so as to not waste expensive film? Who decides what is interesting?
Ginsburg also mentions that Mead was a well known anthropologist but did not have the respect of her male contemporaries. Mead was interested in and studied areas that were about women and their daily lives (bathing babies, childbirth and families). Most likely the men did not consider these areas important and worthy of any attention and a result did not respect her work.

Errington - Meg

In Errington's article she discusses the increasing popularity of primitive art and raises the question on what makes art "art". Errington makes a distinction between art by appropriation versus art by intention. She explains that art by appropriation are diverse objects that became "art" when arts museums were opened in the late 18th century. Art by intention are pieces made to be art. But in order to make this distinction, does not one must understand the society where the art originated? Many avant-garde artists but inspired by primitive art but they were interested in it because it was both scary and attractive at the same time. Most likely, they were not interested in its purpose and whether it created as art or made to suit another purpose.
But does art by appropriation lead to art by intention? I drew a parallel between Errington's argument and the movie In and out of Africa. In reality the men are making pieces of art when they carve their wooden pieces, but they are selling them as authentic art. They paint them to make them look older then they are and make up stories as to their history.
One other point that Errington makes is how art by intention is framed either in an actual frame, on a pedestal or on a stage. She explains that whatever is in the frame is not real life but a representation of reality. This made me think about the set up of museums in Griffith's articles. The museums were set up in window "frames" which displayed the ethnographic reconstructions. Each display may not have been intended to be art, but they were representations of reality.
Whether art by appropriation or art by intent, there is still the art of the sale. In her article, Errington mentions her visit to the Rockefeller wing of the Met and the docent who explains the "butterfly mask" and its meaning and intent. To Errington, the docent's explanation reminds her of a joke since she is not sure the mask looks like a butterfly or it is even a mask. The docent's objective is to sell "culture" through art by appropriation. The West African man seems to exaggerate the meaning and history of the authentic art pieces to prospective customers. His objective is to sell "art". In both cases, the stories told by both the docent and the man are necessary in order to meet each of their objectives.

Girffith

One point discussed in Life Groups & the Modern Museum Spectator is how the museum experience was to attract and educate immigrants and the working class. The museum developed a culture of its own since certain social behaviors, dress and attitudes were expected. The belief was that middle class spectators would promote this behavior and the immigrants and working class would observe and emulate. But in a sense the acceptable behaviors must have been very intimidating to those who were unfamiliar with them. In order to fit into the museum culture one had to observe not only the exhibits but other spectators. Yet, would not the immigrants and working class who were unfamiliar with the museum rules and protocols become spectacles, rather than spectators, themselves?
The role of action and space are discussed in the museum exhibit and film. The museum exhibit's glass partition separates the spectacle from the spectator and also film creates a space when the spectator watches a film of the spectacle. Both provide a distance between the spectacle and the spectator. It also discusses the differences of action. In a museum the spectator is moving and the spectacle remains immobile and in film the spectator is immobile and the spectacle provides the action. Time is also briefly discussed. Many of the museum exhibits included panoramas, waxworks and taxidermy which froze people and action. This type of frozen exhibition is deceiving since culture is fluid and always changing. Even with film ethnographies, time is frozen. However, since the film shows movement and action it gives the appearance that time is not frozen.
It is ironic that while other people and their cultures are presented so as to almost preserve them in museum exhibits and world fairs there is also a desire to force the same people to forget their culture and practices to make them "civilized". We see this in the treatment of Native American Indians who were forced to move from their land to reservations but at the same time perform at world fairs. The same is true even for the immigrants and working class who visited museums who were expected to adopt middle class behaviors.
One thought was that it seems that spectacle was needed to attract spectators with the intent to educate western spectators on other people and cultures, it seems that the spectacle was more of an amusement rather than an education particularly when live persons were involved. One thing not discussed at all is how the people who were used to make plaster molds or as spectacles in World Fairs and live exhibits felt. What were their reactions and feelings? Did they consider themselves to be the spectator observing westerns as the spectacle?

9/20 Reading Response
I saw several connections between Clifford's writing and the article about African Art in NYC. In Clifford's "On Ethnographic Surrealism", he discusses how in 1931, the French undertook an expedition to Africa to "enrich the nation's collections". Yet, they did not make an attempt to interpret daily life or provide a full understanding of the reality. Rather, it provided a romantic fantasy. This is very similar to the Stoller's article in which he discusses the West African street vendors at The Warehouse. In 2001, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrook and the American Ambassador to Nigeria visited The Warehouse. They walked around and talked to some of vendors but did not buy anything; vendors were honored by their visit. It appears that neither was familiar with the custom that even if you do not want to buy any of the art, out of respect for the traders you usually buy something. The dignities failed to understand the long standing tradition of professional trading and Islam and what it means to the West African vendors. It is easy to promote a romantic fantasy that the West African vendors sell African art because it has its origins in their past but in reality it has a deeper meaning. African art is the medium that satisfies the current market condition. For the West Africans is more than just the trading art. It is about reinforcing and maintaining familial and kinship ties and the cooperation among the vendors. It is surprising that the American Ambassadors were not provided with this piece of important information. The vendors were not surprised when the Ambassadors left without buying anything. Are there not staff members who research customs and traditions before meeting to avoid any such mishaps? Imagine the surprise and goodwill that could have been generated if the Ambassadors did buy something?
In Clifford's "On Collecting Art and Culture, he writes about the unexpected juxtapositions and incongruent in New York of 1941. This can also be said of today's African art trade in NYC. African art is sold in traditional art galleries, auction houses and at The Warehouse by West African vendors. Each offers a different experience. The art galleries are similar to a museum - high ceiling, dim lighting, minimal presentation and a quiet subdued atmosphere. The Warehouse, on the other hand, resembles a storage facility. The art is not displayed in any particular order, traders sit around talking and eating and stopping only during Muslim prayer time. Many consider The Warehouse an interesting place to visit but not a place to buy African Art. So when the U.S. Ambassador to the UN goes to The Warehouse and does not buy anything does this not reinforce, to a certain extent, it is not a reputable place to buy art?