Margaret Mead Festival: Small Kingdon of Lo

I saw the Small Kingdom of Lo and a short film entitled Maroloja that preceeding the deatured screning. The Kingdom of Lo is in the Mustang region of Nepal surrounded by the Himalayan mountains and in particular focused on the village of Tsarang.

The cinematography of the Nepalese landscape was an amazing backdrop to the 3 main protagonsists in the story -- a nun, an older man and a young man. The Q&A with the filmmaker at the end of the screening gave an even better opportunity to relate to the film and add context. The film presented traditional, antiquated ways of living in the remote village with other influences of modern day world that reach the village by helicopter or occasional trading. The theme of the story highlights that although absolutely a remote village -- difficult to find paid work, limited electricity, limited telephone and no road to connect them to Kathmandu or over the mountain range - each character articulates a desire to always return "home" to their village. Each character identifies why they value traveling outside of the village, but only to enhance how that would help them when they return to Tsarang and their family.

There was also a representative from the Rubin Museum who was a subject matter expert on this area of Nepal. After fielding a question from the audience, he admitted that his museum is interested in the "portable art" that could be loaned so that a New York exhibit could be hosted. He described his effort to work the "King of Lo" to catolgue all the wonderful art he has seen and hopes that what is portable could travel for a featured exhibit.

Same picture - 2 views

Focus on....family in a home, setting. yellow walls, candle, pictures, clothing, style, manicure, jewelry, socio economics?Emphasis on physical attributes of foto?

Same picture - 2 views

Focus on.....Family, peaceful, soft, portait, unity, the people in the picture, facial expressions. What are they feeling, thinking, facial expressions?

Barthes 11.1.11

How does meaning get into the image? Isn't it true that one image can have many meanings? Roland Barthes categorizes the different types of messages at play within the scope of an advertising image. She identifies 3 messages: linguistic, coded iconic and a non coded iconic. When you deconstruct one advertising image, it's crazy how much messaging is going on for the viewer on different levels. The field of market research has only continued to intensify in the recent decades as the competition for consumerism has really become global with a level of accessability never dreamed possible before the internet exploded. Still photos, like the ones we see in print ads, allow the view to keep a constant image in its gaze. Unlike the moving pictures of watching a short or feature length film, a still photo might only have an engaged viewer for 15 - 30 seconds. What messages need to be present to lengthen the time a viewer is willing to consider or take note of an image. What makes us pause and focus on what message is coming from certain images and completely ignore other images?

In reading Barthes I recgonize there a system at play in the total of the image. There is the system of the person or group who have created the image or symbol and then there is my system of how I receive the image. My guess is sometime those messages align and sometimes they are completely opposite. There is complexity in the visual, textual, implicit and explcit messaging, that given consideration goes far beyond one dimension. Even frequency of viewing an image or symbol adds a layer to the interpretation. Why is it my first impression is often not the same as my 3rd or 30th look at an image? Am I different? Is the image different?

Jean Rouch 10.25.11

Being introduced to Jean Rouch and his work through the words of his students and admirers provide a rich background after watching Les Maitres Fous. Starting to film in the 1950s he was less concerned with rigid boundaries between the subject and the film maker. Faye Ginsburg credits him with developing a new type of ethonographic and documentary film style. His style attempted to integrate the routine and the unusual of a society and share that within the magic medium of film. She also credits him as leveraging his "informants" not just as translators, but as friends, cultural experts and colleagues. I can imagine how this type of respectful relationship with local residents was prosperous in a way that would be unique to any film maker or anthropologist. The discussion would be fruitful far beyond any "translator for hire" relationship, by the off camera storytelling, personal sharing and exchange of ideas.

Rouch did much of his own filming and was intentional in keeping a sort of unpolished look to his films. Jay Ruby comments that Rouch films are more implicit than explicit, he expects the audience to figure out for themselves what they are seeing on the screen. Like our class discussion evidenced this can leave a wide spectrum of understanding across viewers. As a viewer our individual experiences influence our reaction an interpretation of the images we have viewed. To name just a few of the converging elements......our own on societal, spiritual, educational, artistic exposure and experiences meld together to create our unique individual understanding to what our eyes are viewing.

Given that Rouch preferred to bring his camera right into the heart of the action, less concerned with tripods and "fly on the wall" filming, I think he would fully accept the spectrum of responses from various pools of viewers. His films are credited as having created this genre called "ethnofiction" to reflect his blending of the art and science in storytelling. He seems to have welcomed the influence and artistic inspiration that would come from fully collaborating with African friends and colleagues in the making of his films. I imagine that his openness and creativity as an ethnographer would allow him to be equally as intrigued in the variation of audience interpretation than concerned with giving them fixed answers or study guides.

Asch and Chagnon 10.18.11

How interesting to considering the impact of a collaboration between an established photographer with an Anthropology "minor" (Asch) and an establshed Anthropologist (Chagnon) with a "minor" in film. There seems to have been some real innovation in ethnographic film that came about as a result of their partnered work in documenting the Yanomani people. Their collaboration resulted in the documentation of a culture during a period other than 'at peace'. Until their work in the early 1970s anthropologists had mainly reported their field work when tribes were in a peaceful state. Their partnership seems to have added an entire other dimension of depth into the understanding of a people and their culture. Chagnon drew criticism for publishing these accouts of raiding, but I beleive it acknowledg0es that human behaviors/traditions do vary based upon the state of affairs in our tribe, colony or modern government. The new tools in filming equipment, synchronized sound and technique also added to the impact of the film on viewers. The ability to record social interactions at length with less interruption and the sense of immediacy in watching action unfold is significant for the audience. I imagine the combination of both of their professional backgrounds melded together provides quite an opportunity for the film and the associated study guides to offer an educational tool. The context of education seems to fit well with the development to the approach of sequence filming only to be enhanced with further supplements in a classroom or coursework setting.

Loizos 10.11.11

In this week's readings, I'm still ruminating on a point made in Chapter 2 of the Loizos book. In discussing the praise worthy work of Asch and Chagnon he mentions that Asch had developed his "own view" of the Yanomami culture. Over a series of films Asch and Chagnon had chronicled various view of Yanomami society. Initially the ethnographers had brought to the film the warlike behaviors demonstrated by the tribe, but over type they had actually also captured footage of the same man engaged in an aggressive attack on an enemy village was also filmed peacefully engaged at another time in bathing his child. Initially, I thought how important it was that the series of films is accessible so that the characters can be viewed as more than one dimensional in their daily or seasonal activities. An ethnographic film series can certainly add a level of depth about a culture, society and humans that would be difficult to appreciate in a one-time film release. However, Loizos points out that the Asch had developed a different point of view as he spent time studying the tribe. The readings have presented many questions surrounding authenticity, bias, editor's judgement, but I had not yet considered the very nature of how much time an ethnographer spends with their subject is yet another layer of complexity in interpretation. It stands to reason the more one enters into a relationship with a subject matter that understanding and opinions will change and evolve. So which interpretations are more accurate --- first impressions or understanding that can only be achieved through iterative relationships built over time?

Mead and Bateson 10.4.11

Mead and Bateson seem to have taken great effort and thoughtfullness as they embarked on their journeyto capture the ethnographies of the Balinese. They seem to have balanced each other in viewpoints and priorities on how to engage with the culture and people. They recognized the value in recording more than one village culture, and found collaborators who seem to be ideal for their efforts. The fact that these additions to their team were familiar with photography, film, the arts lended itself well to scale up the scope of their endeavor. Jacknis offering this info in her article made me pause to consider how much village life can be influenced by physical terrain and without that context what assumptions could be generalized to a nation. Village life in the plains, seaside or mountains certainly would have some influence in daily life, rituals and customs. Mead and Bateson were purposeful in extending their team, and I think this adds comparative value in the visual ethnographies presented.

Mead is quoted as having said "There is no such thing as an unbiased report upon any social situation...." yet she is committed to every effort to remove bias. As I have watched these films I have wondered about the bias the very presence of a camera injects in the recording. These anthropologists were very aware of the potential for that dynamic and I appreciated their intent provide interventions for that bias. The duo made efforts to minimize the effect of the camera. They claimed that due to the frequency/quantity of film shooting the subjects became desensitized over time, they never interrupted activity to ask permission for photos and they didn't recreate events to take pictures at a better time for lighting. They also began to document context as part of their field notes, so that there could be a record of scenario that created what we are viewing in a still photo or moving film. Yet, even with these efforts there was at least one example given of when Bateson made a "suggestion" that having more women in a ceremonial event would be more interesting to compare to the males dancing, the villagers did so and since then that dance has continued to include more women than it had historically. Would that change have occurred without Bateson's curiosity? Does the presence of an observer and their tools create adaptive behaviors that might not otherwise have taken place?

Errington fahyr 9.27

Shelly Errington interestingly distinguishes between "art by intention" and "art by appropriation". It's understand that the definition of "art" is wide, varied and mostly subjective. Yet in our current societies there are clearly museums, galleries, auction houses that label art with certain classifications and value. When we consider primitive societies, free from Western influences, what context would they have had to create objects for art by intention. Having not considered all the filters that Errington poses, I know feel somewhat duped.

Considering how some basic logistical issues, such as portability and durability, contributed to the selection of artifacts to be highlighted as "art" makes total practical sense. Yet, I now consider the objects contrived or censored in some way -- I am now doubtful about their originality. The idea that dealers felt it within their purview to strip or omit components of an artifact for ease or durability makes you wonder what other choices were made in manipulating objects. Is the manipulation only at the level of the objects or does that extend to the context? Errington questions the terms being used in artifact descriptions to provide a back story. She suggests that words such as "ceremonial" "sacrificial" an "ritual" were applied to artifact labels to add a transcendental element, so as not to confuse the "art" with more of a "craft". I interpret her to suggest this language was used by docents, collectors and others as more of a strategy than authentic verification. Yet another example of manipulation, this time in the words or terms relevant to primitive art.

I'm left feeling like the Primitive Art collections on display are more fabricated than I had ever previously considered. The lure of providing objects as a commodity seems to have played a heavy hand in what we know today as Primitive Art.

Clifford

Clifford’s writings offered me an opportunity to consider my own biases when viewing art, culture and collections. I appreciate his insight on Western behaviors we learn as children to preserve personal treasures so they can be placed on public display --- shelves to display model cars, stands for precious porcelain faced dolls. I didn’t realize the notion of the ideal self as an owner could be traced as far back as the 17^th century. More than 200 years later, there is still such relevance to a notion that the accumulation of possessions has equivalence to value and wealth.

In these readings I more fully appreciate the challenge presented to our cultural institutions we know today as museums, galleries and exhibits. As Clifford discusses objects, experiences and memories that are perhaps initially prized for rarity or uniqueness can move from curiosity to a valued source of information. How can these brick and mortar institutions continue to keep pace in a society that seems to have unprecedented access? How does this global access influence the value and authenticity we seek in viewing objects, experiences and cultures? Events over time also add an unexpected element….perhaps parts of the world that would never have been considered as “important enough” to collect artifacts or record history will be missing from our future exhibits. Will artifacts from the Wards of New Orleans, the villages of Haiti and Indonesia find their way into our “art-culture” systems? As Clifford illustrates in his diagrams when considering art and culture labels can and will shift and change as today fades to history.

Griffiths

The anthropologists and early curators of the AMNH and other museums were right to debate the various modes to present their scientific information. It’s fascinating to find out that tension between educational content delivery and consumerism has been going on for more than 100 years. I’m at conference for Innovation at the Mayo Clinic and it is apparent how whole fields of study have evolved around many of the topics discussed in Griffiths chapters. The discussion of architectural design elements, the use of dioramas, wax figures or taxidermy for exhibits is still relevant today. The effectiveness in presenting facts or communicating information pulls from many disciplines --- not just anthropology. Interaction designers use engineering principles, design research, visual arts and more. Boas and his peers could only anticipate the transformation the motion picture industry would bring to their fields of study.