Pinney

In Pinney's Introduction "How the Other Half..." points out the study of the medium that has been put out is in recounted, but only incorporating the Western (European and later American) history within the medium. This was really interesting to me because, as a photographer myself who has studied the history of the medium, I had never thought of it that way and it is true. I had only learned about the great European photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, and Robert Frank and then the great American photographers like Garry Winogrand, Walker Evans, and Robert Adams. He points out that photography should not and in fact is not something that is only practiced in the West and of cultural importance/significance. He states that Indian photographers began to pop up shortly after its invention (around the same time that European and American photographers began to pop up as well), so this breaks down this preconceived notion or assumption that because they weren't part of the West, they didn't have access to the technology that countries in the West had and that they were a people not as advanced ("civilized") as the West. I know that before I was an Anthropology major, I had this romanticized, and slightly backward view on indigenous cultures and I thought that they weren't as cultured as other cultures A.K.A. mine, something that was very ethnocentric of me to think. This just reinforces that this is wrong.

Because Pinney points this out, I realized that history that we learn in school is also a history that is very specific and stylized. The way it is written and taught is from a certain perspective and only includes a certain perspective. Here, with writing an other history of photography, we see that there isn't one way that we are to use photography or a correct way to take a picture. Each culture uses it in different ways, produces different pictures, has different styles, and also different notions of photography, the photograph, and its capabilities and incapabilities. This is evident when looking at the practice of photography and the views on it in India and comparing it to those of the West. They are different, but both are valid and to only include the Western notion or to judge photography in India using Western notions is ethnocentric.

He writes that "photography was seen to surpass and eradicate the subjectivity and unreliability of earlier technologies of representation [so] indexicality was thus mobilized as a guarantee of fixity." He is stating that when it was first created, photography was not seen as an art form or used to express creativity and instead used more scientifically to record things. This meant that it could replace painting and drawings subjectivity with objectivity. However, he points out that when looking at the colonial archive, he sees that photography actually is quite subjective. He sees an "inevitable randomness within the image" of a photography and instead sees that a painting or a drawing is "capable of excluding randomness because they only reflect the imagination and skill of their creators, and when those qualities are present in excess they are capable of driving out the incidental." Here he is stating that a painting or drawing because it is created and selected by the creator that leaves out the random, "like a filter capable of complete exclusion." Conversely, "something extraneous will always enter" into the camera. The photographer and be very cautious and stringent on what is and is not in front of the camera when setting up, however, "the inability of the lens to discriminate will ensure a substrate or margin of excess," where things will randomly find themselves in the frame. This randomness allows the photograph to be more open for interpretation.

I am not quite convinced with this argument however, because I think that a photograph, like a painting or drawing, is just as selective and filtered and this "randomness" can occur in all three. The photographer does have control on what comes out. The way that the person aims the camera is equivalent to where a painter decides to paint and the way the painter decides to place his brush on the canvas is equivalent to how the photographer decided to print the photograph (cropping, photoshopping etc). They are both selective and sometimes when you are painting, just like in photography, surprises or things that were unexpected happen. You often intend to make a painting one way and it comes out totally different, just like I initially took a picture of a cat on the street and then when printing or reviewing the film, I see a man in the background wearing a "I love cats" T-shirt. It's an interesting thought that he proposes, but I think a little off. But then again, I have studied with Western notions and may be predisposed to this notion of photography???

Jay Ruby on Rouch

Ruby discusses the myriad ways in which Rouch changed visual anthropology. However, his influence was drastic on film in general. He put synch sound in the hands of such able-bodied filmmakers as Godard. He created cinema verite, which is the combination of sharing the filming process with others while constructing filmic truth. This led to discourse on the influence of film on people. Does film alter the way people act, creating ethno-people?

Rouch was not interested in making pretty pictures. He only cared about the content of the films and the method of their creation. This may have been good for Rouch but I, see obvious merit in making the powerfully stimulating information present in Rouch’s films into pretty pictures. It makes the information accessible to a wider audience, if only because people wont turn it off or fall asleep by the films end. Like the Natural History museum’s desire to make exhibits that will draw crowds, Ethnographic film could influence a much wider audience than it is today. It has the potential to make a lot more money than it is today.

Faye Ginsburg on Rouch

Faye Ginsbergs piece on Jean Rouch highlights his final visit to NYU in 2000. She speaks of her own experience with Rouch and his films. He was a serious source of inspiration for her. She speaks of the reactions of young audiences with this infectious character who seemed just as inspired as she was. Although I have become more fascinated with Rouch’s method more than his films, I have found myself telling friends about him, and especially with respect to one quote that Ginsberg presents in this piece. “Films should beget more films.” In one project that I am working on, we are wrestling with whether we want to use a previously recorded song, which was the inspiration for much of the film or to create an original soundtrack inspired by the tune. The previously recorded song fits beautifully with the visuals and cues, but I think we have pretty much decided to use an original soundtrack. Our reasons for this stem from Rouch’s idea. Perhaps it is for our own egos, but we want to create something new and distinctly us (films created completely within our art collective), while not fearing being too much like what we are influenced by.

James Clifford

I would be lying if I said I completely understood James Clifford. His Writing style is like that of my favorite author Borges (who he references). It is a patchwork of citation, history, and literary devices. His use of poetry in the opening lines is very tastefully done. The poem shows the fetish-izing of culture, which he shows museums as guilty of doing.

His analysis is framed by discourse on Property. He critiques European museums with the main point being that they negate history all too often. This stagnates societies in a time where there can be no growth. It makes nuanced cultural and scientific subjects into static objects for the fetishes of the viewers. There is one quote that I found particularly helpful from the opening pages, “The collection and preservation of an authentic domain of identity cannot be natural or innocent. It is tied up with nationalist politics, with restrictive law, and with contested encodings of past and future” (96).

As a collector of culture there are many things you must consider. First, The distinction between history and ethnography must be established. Levels of experience separate these two practices. When contemplating the role of an anthropologist in an institution sponsored film project, his/her role may conflate the role of historian and Anthropologist. This is a necessary conflation, I think. The distinction is important but then so is its conflation for efficiency’s sake. James addresses this issue in later chapters.

At the end of “Collecting primitive culture” He attributes the idea of putting objects with their lived culture to Franz Boas. But he says that Boas’ reasons for doing this were explicitly to place people at varying levels of the evolutionary chain. For me, putting objects in their lived context is not so much for a scientific merit but for its artistic possibilities. In a filmic setting, Anthropologists are often called on to do research for character development. Recently I was employed to do just this for a zombie film. The task was to research samurai’s from a historical perspective, but also for possible enduring cultural ripples that have been established because of the veneration and nostalgia for these heroic nationally devout warriors. Unfortunately I have never been to Japan so my endeavor was more explicitly a historical one, but the ethnography is a place that history and lived experience often become conflated in ways which are helpful for movie makers, historians, and anthropologists.

Bravo's Real Housewives

The television network, Bravo, is the home to America's favorite reality shows. One of Bravo's hit reality shows is called The Real Housewives. In fact, it has seven different varieties of the show which take place in seven different places in America--New York City, New Jersey, Orange County, Beverly Hills, Miami, DC, and Atlanta. The cast members on the show range from four to seven women depending on the show and season of that show. As the title suggests, the camera follows these upper-class housewives who are all mothers and lead a lifestyle that most people dream of leading. They have Birkins, cat fights, Jimmy Choos, botox, big breasts, and husband problems.

What you find on each show is that these women are very caddy, dramatic, and two-faced. It really is a "study" that looks at how wealthy women live in different places in America. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills is Bravo's latest series and its second season is currently on air. This season's biggest fight has happened between Camille and Taylor. At a tea party, Camille called her out and said that she needs to look at herself because her husband broke her jaw and beats her on camera when they had all agreed to not say it on camera. This initial fight becomes even bigger as more episodes air because the women never really talk one on one with each other in private. A common phrase that the women are heard saying on multiple series of the Real Housewives is "this is neither the time nor the place" in reference to bringing up the past/drama, so they normally try to ignore it when at an event. However by the end of the evening, they begin to bring up what had previously happened or rehash old issues.

This happened on the episode that just aired. It was the first time Camille and Taylor has seen each other since the tea party at a party that another housewife and cast mate, Brandi, put on in Malibu. The women had a wine tasting and then has belly dancing lessons. Towards the end, a fight broke out where Camille and Taylor confronted each other, however, all the other women began to join in with the fight and it was blown way out of proportion. The women that jumped in then began to pick sides and help the two women fight their battle.

What I've found is that a group divided makes the situation worse whenever a fight occurs and also because the two people involved are talking to each other, but not communicating; hearing, but not listening. They are almost fighting to fight. The problem with this also is that these women only really see each other at different events--parties, charity events, luncheons, and dinners. They are often drinking at these events and this can also force them to say things to each other that they later don't mean because their emotions are heightened and they are in a different state of mind.

Each series is filmed in the same way where the camera chronicles their lives each day. They are also shown in interview, confessional shots where they comment on what happened in the episode. This is similar to Jersey Shore and other reality TV series. This style allows for continuity between all seven different varieties of this series. They often make little jokes or slightly insult the other cast mate in these shots based on what was happening in that episode. This makes them seem slightly real, but also entertaining. Because America is watching this episode for the drama and comments they make about one another. That is also why Bravo has come out with several different versions--because the viewer who watches one will be be the viewer who watches all.

These women that appear on the show also are similar to each other when comparing multiple seasons because they all become celebrities. They are reported on in gossip magazines like OK!, People, and Life & Style. They become their own franchise. Many of them have written their own books (Teresa Giudice of NJ, Kyle Richards of Beverly Hills, and Sonja Morgan of NYC), have some type of clothing or accessory line (Kelly Killoren Bensimon of NYC-handbags, and Adrienne Maloof of Bevery Hills-shoes, Gretchen Rossi-handbags), or have their own line of alcohol (Bethenny Frankel of NYC's Skinny Margarita). This makes the viewer who is "studying" this wonder whether or not how accurate this show is to represent this subculture.These women on this reality series are very self aware and know who their audience is in America so they show themselves in the way that they want to represent themselves. It isn't necessarily who they really are.

The issue of authenticity also is in question because they are receiving something in return for them to be filmed. They may not need to do this for the money, however, these people may want the fame that comes with this show. Therefore, they may be willing to play a part that the producers of the show would like them to do. The drama that occurs and the rate at which it occurs is not a normal amount that would happen in a human beings life. We see a similar dilemma in Jean Marshalls' film Nai! because as viewers, we see in the film that she is self aware that she is the star of the film when she indirectly expresses it, but also when other people in the village get jealous of her. She is receiving money for her role in the film and the people in the village suggest through their actions that it has slightly changed her, just as their fame might change how these women act on the show.

The issue of editing is just as important to think about when viewing these shows as watching an ethnographic film. The producers all edit them in a certain way to get their point across. In this case, it is to heighten the drama that occurs in the lives of these women and to build up the suspense. The viewer becomes caught up with these women's lives. It is also something that most people will never get to experience in their lives themselves so they live vicariously through them.

Because it is very mainstream and watched by all, entertainment value is the reality series number one priority, so I am skeptical as to believe that what we are shown is what actually happens in their lives and who they really are. It isn't shot with its educational value in mind. They want a viewer who is interested in juicy gossip and over the top drama. The setting or women in the show don't matter really. That is why all seven seasons are equally successful--because they all have the same winning formula.

white cross on black background.

the first image has been manipulated by rotation, lens filter, and the presence of a frame.

the second image has a slight darkening at the base but is otherwise as plain as i could make it. However, the colors could be read in a multitude of ways.

Griffiths

Alison Griffith’s book Wonderous Difference explores the world of early museums to discuss the roots of America’s visual culture. She is interested in forms of educational visual media that predates flaherty’s Nanook of the North. Her research focus is on The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). What she brings to light is the way in which this institution and others like it, dealt with issues of representation. She highlights the need for these institutions to make educational materials that would draw crowds. AMNH was competing with New York’s other major attractions.

Today’s museums are filled with fast food, gift shops, and I-max theatres. Griffith quotes several museum representatives speacking about the difficulties that came with competing with places like coney island, places of lesser social merit. The mission of the museum is to better the people, but Griffith gives good examples on how this ideal goal was often more informed by a need to draw crowds then to show scientific merit. Popular culture and popular entertainment were the main sources for exhibit material. This entertainment was presented in a uniquely scientific lens, playing a balancing act between entertaining and educational.

I Loved Griffith’s introductory chapter. I hope to make a movie someday that highlights the similarities between secular institutions such as the met and AMNH and religious institutions like St. Patrick’ Cathedral. This book may serve as a useful model when that day comes. Her Chapter is a beautiful mix of Theory and History.