mglixon-blog - Tumblr blog

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Robert Gardner

According to Ruby, filmmakers such as John Marshall and Robert Gardner utilize a sense of salvaging in their work. In Ruby’s words, “they all felt the urge to filmicly salvage some of the cultures that were presumed to be disappearing” (97).

Ruby sees the work of Gardner as “problematic” in several different ways (95). He notes that since Gardner’s work, Dead Birds, his films have “drifted away from the theoretical concerns of mainstream cultural anthropology” (96). Not only that, but these works are “colored by so many subtle fictional pretentions and artistic ornamentation” (99). This is evidence to the fact that Ruby notices that there is a difference between the intent of a film to be ethnographic and one that intends to be visually appealing.

“Gardner’s attempt at making the narrative structure seem natural is problematic” (100)

One of Ruby’s critiques is that Gardner’s films (such as that of Dead Birds) is presented within the confines of a storyline “contrived so that the principals just happen to be present at events the filmmaker wishes to use to reveal his point” (100). One of the major concerns that can be extrapolated from this is that the film becomes more about the intentions of the filmmaker, and less emphasis placed upon the individual under study.

“Dead Birds is constructed so as to create a seamless illusion that is narratively compelling” (100)

By attempting to make a chronologically structured product, Gardner obscures the reality of the culture understudy. Instead of allowing information to flow organically, information is packaged for the audience in a foreign culture’s constructions. In other words, the film maker is attempting to make another culture consumable for their own culture, and placing it within a structure that has no correlation with the culture in question. To add to this illusion, Ruby notes that during the course of studying and filming ritual warfare, Gardner felt that one battle scene was inadequate, and “constructed a “cine battle” containing all the elements he considered important” (101). By just looking at this statement, one might suggest that this film could be considered more about the view of the culture by the “man behind the camera” rather than about the culture itself. Not only that, but it begs the questions: what was considered unimportant?

Ultimately, Ruby suggests that it is not the narrative elements that cause him to be discontented with the work, but instead with “Gardner’s need to erase the author and make the narrative structure seamless” resulting in a lack of reflexivity (101). The audience, according to Ruby, makes the audience aware that “they are viewing a dramatically structured film designed to be a moral tale in the guise of an ethnographic film” (101).

This choice, Ruby suggests, places more importance on the culture of study, and more about the artistic and humanist beliefs of the director/filmographer. Ruby is right to be skeptical of this work as an ethnography, especially if Gardner is more concerned with notions of art. The fact that Gardner felt the need to conceal what he was visualizing for the film solidifies the fact that his work is not ethnographic because it strips agency away from the culture under study.

2 notes · View notes

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Critical Visions: Space, and “Searching for the Perpetual Unknown” Media Journal

Critical Visions

CVSN Vol. 1: Space

Searching for the Perpetual Unknown by Justin Warrick

In his article, “Searching for the Perpetual Unknown,” Justin Warrick addresses the limitations of an individual’s ability to “know” or perceive reality (Warrick 8). The article, along with the journal in its entirety demonstrates the capability of multimodal methodologies within the space of academia. Warrick’s article implements an interdisciplinary approach through the main body of his text by weaving together philosophy, cultural studies, and astrophysics to disrupt pedagogical and often formalized conventions of passing along information. Additionally, Warrick utilizes visual representations (with varied success) in order to suggest an alternative perspective on what it means to understand reality.

Textually, Warrick situates his argument on the concept that it is impossible to truly “know” or achieve a “complete and unfiltered view of existence” (8). Building upon the ideas of French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, Warrick suggests that while an “objective truth” exists in nature, perceiving it is “beyond [human] sensory limitations” (8). Just as humans can only see a certain section of the light spectrum or hear only at certain frequencies, we are molding our view of existence “into a contextualized form that is a compromise of the total nature of the universe in order to operate within our own functions.”

Warrick further suggests that humans weave together the scraps of sensory experience and catalogue it, resulting in “based on agreed upon divisions determined by members of society” (9). Anthropologically speaking, Warrick is suggesting that enculturation has the ability to shape a reality in and of itself. If left unchallenged, these societal understandings run the risk of overpowering other ways of knowing, such as that of emergent scientific knowledge. This is best demonstrated when Warrick discusses the concept of “touch” and tactile knowledge.

The body of the text was accompanied by graphs and images which were meant to accompany the abstract ‘intellectual hall of mirrors’ of writing about representing reality (MacDougall). While many of the pictures were extremely helpful in supplementing these ideas, there were other images which could have been further contextualized. One particular example was Warrick’s discussion concerning touch. He discusses the fact that touch is “one of the primary methods by which humans contextualize their existence” (9). However, from a scientific perspective, atoms never are in contact with one another and humans instead experience the interaction between different electrical fields. And yet within “social defined reality, somethingness is defined by touch” (9). Even though we may discover scientifically that we are not actually touching something, “it becomes irrelevant when phenomena on the human spectrum negate assumed scientific reality” (10).

The text points to figure 4.1, which I have replicated below:

Without any contextualization through text, it is hard to decide what it is the audience is supposed to be viewing. Is the orb the electrical field discussed by the author? Is it the circle? Perhaps the image does not represent either of these things, and ultimately the reader may be left to wonder why the image is in the article at all.

While I have given an example of how one of the images in Warrick’s work was perhaps unsuccessful, it is important to note that many of the other images did help create another form of evidence to his arguments. One such example is figure 1.2 which I have displayed below:

During this section of the article, Warrick discussed the fact that a majority of the universe is outside of human thought, or even “the ability to actually know anything” (8). The visualization (pictured above) successfully demonstrates that what is perceived (in the clear part of the image) does not give any indication of what is within the obscured or darkened area. In other words, our understandings of reality do not necessarily exemplify true, objective reality which continues to be hidden within the unknown. We can only guess at what remains with in the dark matter of the unknown.

While I have suggested that some of the images do not function as successful ways to illustrate every concept within the body of Warrick’s work, the implementation of these visual mediums serves a larger purpose. Warrick addresses the fact that graphs and diagrams attempting to organize information “becomes an abstract method of representation that speaks more to the compromise of human understanding than factual discernment” (11). Therefore, one could certainly argue that the images that he utilized were not intended to fill in the gaps between abstract thoughts, but to highlight the fact that the abstract concepts cannot be fully reduced into text and visual representation.

In conclusion, Warrick’s work demonstrates the potential of a multimodal deisgn within academic spheres. Warrick resists a nihilistic narrative of a reality impossible to truly perceive by noting that if humans are able to perceive their own structured reality, we might be able to” analyze and create with the willful acceptance of said reality or with the intent of disrupting the concept of knowing” (10). He ultimately argues that similarly to the way in which matter constantly shifts and changes, our ways of knowing must follow within “a state of perpetual unknowing and questioning” in order to allow for the input of new information.

1 note · View note

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Jean Rouch Media Journal

Over the past semester, I have been taking a Translation Studies class from the English department. We have covered theorists from Nicolas Perrot D’Ablancourt to Walter Benjamin, and have traversed the landscape of an impossible profession. The translator’s task (no pun intended) is fraught with the perils of cultural differences and communicability/accessibility; not to mention the moral obligation of the translator to ‘get it right’. It took a while for some of these ideas to sink in during that class. But slowly, I have begun to draw some similarities between Translation Studies and Visual Anthropology. Having these classes juxtaposed within my semester has eased my passage into the conception that visual media is a form of translation. It is the attempt of the media producer to translate their experiences with the subjects into a multimodal experience for others to consume. Thus, thoughts, experiences, and feelings must be translated into a medium to be experienced visually and aurally. Ultimately, I have come to realize that many of the pitfalls for the film-maker/ethnographer are the same as those shared by the translator.

The work of Jean Rouch (“The Camera and Man”) is about visual media, and in particular ethnographic film. Even so, it would be extremely easy to substitute many of his thoughts those theorists whose thoughts adorn the pages of my Translation Studies Reader (Lawrence Venuti). In another universe, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe would have been discussing the effects of cultural taste in the reception of a film rather than a literary translation. Nietzche could speak to the ways in which film could be adapted/adopted for political and social means, or in other words, as a form of conquest. I would love to explore how far this particular rabbit hole would lead, but suffice it to say that translation studies and visual anthropology intersect based on the fact that they are both completely reliant on the same questions:

“For whom, and why, have you made this [media]?” (Rouch 42).

In his work, “The Camera and Man,” Jean Rouch appears to be a proponent of the philosophy that in order to make progress, one must burn their discipline to the ground (or at least set some fires) in some fashion. In his own words, “if ethnographic film is attacked, it is because it is in good health” (37). Rouch makes compelling arguments in favor of participatory media and what he calls “shared anthropology” (43). Rouch establishes the idea of shared anthropology a few pages into the article when he states, “Personally, unless forced into it, I am violently opposed to crews” (40). He notes that as a filmmaker/ethnographer, those who aid in the filming and recording must “absolutely be able to understand the language of the people being recorded,” and that these individuals should be members of the group being filmed. This gives agency to the ‘subject’ by making them an equal part of the process. The director cannot make an ethnographic film without the subject/participants, and Rouch has taken it a step further. By requiring that this form of anthropology be shared, Rouch makes it far more difficult for meaning to be distorted or ‘lost in [visual] translation.’ In other words, it’s a veritable system of checks and balances and community engagement.

The idea of a ‘shared anthropology’ is essential to Jean Rouch’s construction of Cinema-verite, which he initially describes as “a new type of art the art of life itself” (38). This methodology is concerned with the ways in which reality is construction within visual representation. Rather than using “partial fragments of truth…as if they were scattered crumbs” in order to create a constructed reality based on an argument or intention (something thoroughly covered by Eugene Nida is his discussion of Formal/Dynamic Equivalence), Rouch suggests that the fragments of knowledge collected from field work “must be elaborated into an organic collective, which, in turn, constitutes thematic truth” (Rouch 38). Rouch argues that this reality cannot be realized without the direct intervention and participation of the subject under study, which can be seen through his insistence for a soundman to understand the language of a community (41). Let us return back to the idea of an ‘organic’ construction of reality which Rouch discusses. Before even filming, Rouch notes that there is a certain “dynamic improvisation” where “nothing is known in advance” (41). I think that this can be applied to pre-filming interviews and the fieldwork that takes place before the camera is even raised. Many ethnographers (both through visual mediums and literary ones) discuss the fact that they went in to filming with a plan that inevitably feel through in lieu of a topic or problem that was discussed by the community. It becomes apparent, naturally, organically, etc., what needs to be filmed by having that link to the participants and giving them agency to co-author rather than be mindless actors for the intentions of a stranger.

While watching Jean Rouch’s Chronicle of Summer, I was struck by the first section of the ethnographic film. I realized, with slight disbelief that there was an anthropologist in my ethnographic film. Sitting at a table smoking cigarettes was Jean Rouch, Edgar Morin, and Marceline. I realized that Rouch began his film in a manner that was in direct conflict with previous tendencies of ethnographic film, and is instead presenting his methodologies and his manifesto.

Commandments of Ethnographic Film

1. Thou shalt not be Invisible to the audience.

The director/ethnographer/filmmaker is not omniscient, and is as human in front of the camera as behind it. To represent truth and reality, one must portray the individuals who are involved with making the final product; those with agency.

2. Thou shalt respect the agency of the participant.

In the first few minutes of the film, Rouch and Morin tell Marceline “Anything you object to we can always cut out,” corresponding to the suggestion of a “shared anthropology” and the idea of “feedback” (Rouch 38).

3. Thou shall allow the media to elaborate into an organic collective.

At the start of the film, Rouch and Morin tell Marceline that there is no script to the questions being asked of the public. Instead, the interviews were to be largely conversational. (Rouch 38)

4. Thou shalt violently oppose having a crew which does not understand the language being recorded.

In Chronicles of Summer, Marceline acts as both a participant and as a part of the Rouch crew. She obviously has a familiarity with French on the level of a native speaker. During the course of the film, Marceline is able to ask participants questions without missing a beat—drawing out experience while reducing barriers through translation. Even though Rouch and Morin also spoke fluently, they were not the ones asking questions and responding accordingly.

There are certainly more commandments that could be made to describe the work done by Jean Rouch. I would, however, like to conclude on something that I noticed throughout the entire film. Many of the individuals who were speaking in front of the camera would not be facing the camera when speaking, but to another individual in the same room. I noted that there are several instances throughout the film where a participant takes a brief glance at the lens of the camera.I do wonder if Jean Rouch noticed the seemingly subconscious acknowledgment of the camera lens. I am sure that there have been documentary films made where these moments are erased through the process of editing or otherwise discouraged during filming.

1 note · View note

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Photo Wallahs

Like many ethnographers and anthropologists, the MacDougalls did not begin with the idea of studying photography in India in particular. The MacDougalls were drawn to the multiplicity of meanings which photos can hold for individuals. They were curious about the ways photographs can “reflect the concerns of communities [and] how people use them to establish their own identity” (MacDougall 1992: 96). The history of photography in India demonstrates some of the many different intentions behind the camera lens.

When discussing the history of photography in India, the MacDougalls suggest that it was initially utilized by the indigenous population. Photographic studios popped up in major cities, and became an art form in higher class “court life” (96). The utilization of photography shifted under the British Colonial administration. According to the MacDougall’s, the British colonizers used photography to “document the people under its control,” making it an “instrument of power.” In order to apply for a job or license, an individual had to have photos. In the contemporary era, the MacDougalls suggest that individuals have only recently gained access to cameras and therefore, the power to produce this form of media.

This small and somewhat broad definition of the history of photography in India speaks to the cultural differences between Western and non-Western societies. What began as a form of art was turned into a way to have evidence of who was under a governmental or administrative body. The differences go a step further when MacDougall suggests that the Indian view of the photograph as iconographic rather than the “indexical” ideas of photography in the West (96).

When making their film, the MacDougalls note that they were using “one photographic medium to describe another” (97). By just realizing this, they were able to begin a comparative process between singular instantaneous images and performance-driven video. The MacDougalls have a larger process which caught my attention. They suggest that there are a multitude of perspectives that can be taken when trying to understand the film. By entering it through the form of representation, one can delineate between the contrasts between still photography and “the very different world of film and video” (97). But there are many other ports of entry can be seen as the way that people represent themselves between the two mediums.

If one were to enter the understanding of the video through ethnography, many thinks can be understood. The person behind the lens has worked to bring together many different elements rather than sticking to a chronological or story based thematic. By resisting the urge to “tell a story,” the MacDougalls allow the individuals under study to have their own agency within their section of the video. These individuals can choose to dress the way they like when interacting with the camera, and to say what they like. This was particularly present during the last section of their film when individuals stood in front of a sign denoting that an individual could be on tv if they stood there. In that space, the subjects could choose to do what they liked (a man reading a newspaper) or say what they liked (singing). The individual under study has the ability to represent themselves in the way they would like to be recognized.

I think that this could be considered an ethnographic film. Jay Ruby probably would not agree since he believes that ethnographic films are meant for the anthropologist. But ultimately, any individual may gain certain understandings about culture by watching this video. I think that because of the processes employed by the MacDougalls which highlights a cross-cultural analysis can be employed for any viewer, not just one from the West.

My Thoughts:

During the course of the video I had many thoughts. The screen shot above acted for me as a visual representation of what the MacDougalls called an “intellectual hall of mirrors” (97). Representing representation is a precarious route, but the MacDougalls were able to approach this topic in a way that was consumable for the audience. I was struck by the beauty of exploring the instantaneous nature of a still photo through the medium of film. When individuals were being filmed while getting ready for a photo, the video camera was still running, allowing the audience to see a visceral difference between preparing for a moment (photo) and getting ready for a performance (film/long shot).

While the different sections of their films were not voiced by an outsider, an invisible intangible ghost of authority, many sections were able to speak for themselves. The still above is from a section which allowed for a subject to talk about photography as a “heritage record.” It made me think about the current moment in the United States. My family used to take a lot of photos of one another. At my home in Ashton, we have a cabinet which holds the artifacts of the period of time which disposable film was still in use. We have something like 10 full albums documenting the lives of my brother and I, but also the family and friends which we interacted with. But the albums stop after 2000 or so, right when other forms of picture productions became available.

After the digital camera, there are almost no traces of images of kinship groups which are physical. Now all of our photos reside on Facebook or another form of social media. It leads me to wonder if we have switched to a new way of recording our kinship connections/history, and if this is better or worse than having a photo.

1 note · View note

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Push It Along

What follows is a collection of thoughts elicited from the article Push it Along: On not Making an Ethnographic Film in Baltimore written by Matthew Durington and Samuel Collins.

In his work, Ways of Seeing, John Berger suggests that “the relation between what we see and what we know is never settled” (Berger 7).

Representations of Baltimore in the mainstream news as well as in television shows like The Wire continue to shape the way the city (and its residents) are perceived. Following the death of Freddie Gray in 2015, ethnographers were in a precarious ethical space. While an ethnographic film might create an alternative to the discourse of violent unrest among stereotyped groups, Collins and Durington ultimately realized that “any representation [they] produced would be subject to political appropriation” by the same mass media which capitalizes on sensationalism and ignores the underlying forces of institutional racism and economic inequality. Collins and Durington suggest that one of the groups targeted by the media during and after the Uprising was Baltimore City youth.

I was living in Baltimore during the protests in 2015. At this time, I don’t think that I had a clear understanding of structural violence. I remember sitting on the porch of my apartment off York Road with my roommate, huddled around a tablet flashing through images of burning buildings and “rowdy” youth. Like many others, I was dazzled by the spectacle and questions of oppression, racism, and inequality were all forgotten in the fear and panic that was instilled within me. What I saw and felt during media representations of the Uprising does not match up with my current understanding of the multiplicity of violence.

In his Critique of Violence, Walter Benjamin discusses the possibility for violence to be utilized for a ‘just end.’ In the context of the conceptual moment in 2015, a video was released of an African American mother disciplining her child publicly. She was deterring her son from participating in the protest and many believed that this display of physical violence was acceptable in order to stop a potential ‘rioter.’ The video went viral, and the news buzzed with split perspectives on her actions. The physical violence was lauded as a means for a just end. Going back to the work of Durington and Collins, this particular situation makes one wonder: if this child had been white, would the reaction from the public have been the same?

Rather than setting out and making a quick documentary on Baltimore, Durington and Collins elected to give agency to individuals who were impacted by the events surrounding Freddie Gray and a longer history of systemic oppression. Durington and Collins express this when they suggest that groups like Wide Angle Youth Media would create alternative perceptions which “relied upon the social reality on the street, rather than on the stereotypic representation of Baltimore” on prominent media outlets. Earlier today, Zhanae and I were discussing Walter Benjamin and his assertion that “guided by the cameraman, the camera continually changes its position with respect to the performance.” (1936: 9). This brought me back to Jay Ruby, who asserts that “the camera is constrained by the culture of the person behind the apparatus”(Ruby 1996, 1345). When I read that Logan, a youth producer with Wide Angle Youth Media, noted that “if the national media had turned the lens a different way [during the Baltimore Uprising] they might have seen something different,” it indicated that across time and cultural boundaries there is agreement that when utilizing film, the intention of the individual behind the camera predominately drives the message and reality of the produced media (Collins and Durington).

Durington and Collins suggest that within the realms of social media, individuals are constantly “sending a signal to amplify another” when they are sharing information. By “pushing along,” the anthropologist avoids inserting their own opinion. This could be discussed in terms of expanding viewership so that a larger audience has access to the original aura/authenticity.

Durington and Collins suggest that these messages do not need to be “remixed” by individuals—they have their own agency and importance (Durington and Collins). The authors address this directly by asking, “Shouldn’t we just pass these social media along without subjecting them to our own hermeneutic violence?”

“Stand aside and act as conduits and carriers of an important message without any filtering”

The amplification that is suggested by Durington and Collins could be chaotic without some sort of ultimate goal. Instead of sending signals into the endless aether of turbo media, the authors provide several ways for one to utilize social media networks strategically to pass information among different individuals

Media can be utilized as a means of translation. (Connection to the works of Eugene Nida Principles of Correspondence, and Itamar Even-Zohar The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem) Ideas of literary translation can be applied to those which are spoken over the various platforms particularly in discussions of consumption and audience.

1 note · View note

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Visual Blog Entry 2 Roots of Love

Roots of Love

I would like to begin my post by talking about the content of the film, Roots of Love directed by Professor Harjent Gill. While I consider myself to be an accepting person of the norms of different cultures; however, I do believe that watching this ethnographic video exposed me to my own gaps in understanding when it comes to other cultural identities. I think that the most surprising aspect was the assertion that cutting hair can be equated to ‘committing hair murder.’ Even though I was experience culture shock in the comfort of my own home, it brought several thoughts to mind, and I was able to relate some of the ideas to my understandings about Judaism.

My father’s side of the family is Jewish, and when I was younger I often would visit my grandparent’s home for major holidays. I have a vague memory of a family member telling me that if I got a tattoo, I would not be able to consider myself Jewish, since Jewish Law prohibits body modification. While it is certainly not a one-to-one correspondence, I can understand the desire to adhere to certain traditions and values that have been held by the generations before. While I do not consider myself Jewish in the religious sense, I have chosen to adhere to this tradition because it (along with many other parts of my heritage) makes me feel connected to other people who identify the same way as I do.

In the film, I noticed that to be considered a real Sikh, one must adhere to a set of strictly enforced rules, and many of which had to do with visual representations of religion. The wearing of the turban along with the condemnation of trimming of hair were discussed in the film as two examples of these visual representations. In Jewish Orthodoxy, the wearing of Tzitzit and the Yamaka might also be seen as visual representations of an individual’s faith. The separation of ‘real’ members of a religion and ‘fake’ exists in many religions, and indeed, my grandmother was often grumpy that she was the only one who kept a kosher household.

The designation of a ‘real’ or ‘fake’ member to me (personally, in my own cultural context) is extremely problematic. By deciding that certain individuals cannot be part of a tradition because they do not hold all of the same traditions all the way back from the inception of a culture/religion, it is difficult for comradery. One individual in the video did note that some chose to abandon their turban or cut their hair because of the influence of globalization. While I agree that it is extremely important for traditions to stay alive throughout the generations, by limiting freedom in this fashion does it not cause a certain type of sterility? I am sure that these thoughts are tainted by my own cultural context, but I have experienced what it is like to be told that I may not share in a cultural identity because I am not Jewish enough—based on the fact that I ‘inherited’ my ‘Jewishness’ from my father’s side of the family. Can I not share in a cultural history which has been passed through the generations orally?

Ethnographic Film Methods

While watching the film, there were several things that I noticed on a methodological level. I was surprised that while a significant portion of the film circled around a young boy and his family, the boy did not say a word during the entire duration. During his lecture, Professor Gill noted that the person in question was “painfully shy” and barely said anything throughout the entire process. He noted that it ultimately added to the film—his mother and father were making all of the decisions for him and he remained a silent observer to his own life.

I think that through this example, there is an important lesson to be learned. Even though an involved “subject” may not be able to speak or give information in a traditional way, the presence of individuals in the film affect the reception by the audience. Rather than attempting to keep to a strict outline which would teach the audience to have a particular opinion, Dr. Gill gives agency to the interview subjects and allows them to express their own perspectives. In order to get this perspective, it was no doubt necessary to build rapport with these individuals so that they could communicate what was deemed safe.

Implementation into Class Ethnographic Films

I have not seen a lot of ethnographic films, and even my documentary watching practices have been sporadic at best. Even so, after the class with Doctor Gill and the media he provided, I think there are several things that can be implemented into later film production.

1. The importance to multiple interview sessions with the subject before actual filming

This is particularly important so that the interviewers can begin to formulate what the actual film will be about. Having a clearly demarcated script before speaking to a subject, even just interview questions, might throw off the subject. There needs to be a period in which the interviewer and interviewee decide together how the subject is going to be represented.

2. Cut-aways and audio which does not necessarily “go” with the image

As I have become a little more familiar with ethnographic film, I have noticed that cut-aways with text may be beneficial when giving background information. I found that in Doctor Gill’s video, the presence of the interviewer appears to be pushed out of the limelight. This is positive, since the film is not about the ethnographer. A cut away with text acts as a sort of meta-linguistic technique which provides information, but should be utilized sparingly as it alerts the audience to the presence of the ‘translator’. (This idea references the work of translator Eugene Nida. Textual insertions act as the footnotes to a work, alerting the audience to the presence of the translator. It is a constant reminder of the alterity of the person who puts together a work).

There was another technique utilized where a subject would be speaking (audio) which would not match up with the action of the shot (image). While viewing, I thought about the fact that these two elements which convey information happen simultaneously and provide different bits of information simultaneously. The audio can complement the image, or it can diverge completely and give differing perspectives.

1 note · View note

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Quote Repository

“The fantasies of the decline of Paris are a symptom of the fact that technology was not accepted. Those visions bespeak the gloomy awareness that along with the great cities have evolved the means to raze them to the ground”

-Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project [C7a,3]

"All worlds are engulfed, one after another, in the revivifying flames, to be reborn from them and consumed by them once more--monotonous flow of an hourglass that eternally empties and turns itself over" -Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project quoting Auguste Blanqui. [D7;D7a]

2 notes · View notes

mglixon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Media Journal Entry 1: Anthropology by the Wire

1 Musings first.

I must confess: I have never seen The Wire before. I do remember a significant amount of hype, but for one reason or another, I never actually watched any of it. After reading the chapter by Durington and Collins (2015) about Anthropology by The Wire, I was curious. I pulled up Youtube and typed in ‘best scenes in the wire’ because sometimes you just have to dive in head first. These clips and quotes which are montaged together by different users are completely removed from their original interwoven context, and tell me little about the content of the show. What I see is mostly reification of stereotypes, and a sort of honorability being attributed to The Wikipedia entry for The Wire explained that the series is lauded for “literary themes, its uncommonly acute exploration of society and politics, and its realistic portrayal of urban life.” I honestly can’t speak to the realism of this show, but I can say that every video that I viewed was monocular. It was an authoritative voice telling me through the medium of images that this is what Baltimore looked like. The literary themes do not lend themselves to the clipping together of different images that speak to individuals.

I have accepted the fact that the words of Walter Benjamin (Ben Kenobi) are a new part of my everyday life: “Reception in a state of distraction...finds in the film its true means of exercise” (Benjamin 1969, 17).

Durington and Collins make their views on the show quite clear in their research work, Anthropology by the Wire. They argue that the aura...wait, excuse me, that the true nature of Baltimore is not the same as the “seedy” representations displayed in the television show The Wire (2015, 147). The authors note that the show reifies perceptions of violence and addiction among a predominately African American population and helps “pathologized the poor” (2015, 150). These representations can have a variety of unforeseen consequences on neighborhoods and communities and can affect patterns in funding, development and politics (2015, 147).

The research project, Anthropology by The Wire, was initiated in Baltimore, Maryland in 2011. The project utilizes different forms of media and public anthropology in order to “reframe” the representations of media outlets (147). This was largely done by the work of students who went to different sites in Baltimore to record and engage the community about issues that they face (155). Fictional televisions should not be the only way in which individuals learn about the many different economic, political, and social problems affecting Baltimore, and Durington and Collins’ work encourages collaboration with community members (2015, 152).

Another aspect of their work is the incorporation of expanding forms of technology, media, and social networks (152). It is a must needed fresh breath of air for the discipline (and arguably academia in general) which tends to hold onto conceptions of ownership and pedagogy (150). These ideas are linked through ideas of perspective, but also through dissemination. The authors propose a networked anthropology which would foster critical thought and discussion through ethnographic methods. This has the ability to erase the sheen that media paints over significant issues in urban areas. Data that is gathered from the various facets of the project gives agency (and authorship) to underrepresented groups who are making working to preserve and improve their communities. These approaches also are in the pursuit of empowerment, not just for the sake of ‘progress’ and recording. By making the information useful and accessable to the greater public (and to those whose voices need to be heard), Durington and Collins (as well as the students involved in the project) have ensured a Benjaminian ‘afterlife’ to ethnographic data (which can often remained largely unused if not placed into a publication).

The approach described in the Anthropology by The Wire by Durington and Collins looks good on paper without a doubt. But it is the work of the students that echoes the potential success of these theories in future work. I viewed two videos by individuals associated with the research project. One video focused on the community group Clean and Green team. This group is located in the historic South Baltimore neighborhood known as Sharp-Leadenhall. While the video does not have scenes of gunfights and explosions, it gives background on the difficulties faced by the communities through their words. The Clean and Green team employs neighborhood youths to maintain the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The youths involved were given the ability to focus on the needs of the neighborhood such as the proliferation of vacant houses in need or renovation, the lack of a REC center, and the absence of public parks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P13CeEzm-QY

Another video was an interview of Chris Cooper, a Baltimore steel worker who became unemployed after the Sparrows Point steel mill closed its doors. There is something that I have noticed about media that has that sheen of corporate editing—it cannot convey emotion in the way that human interaction does. The difficulties that this individual went through after losing employment humanizes the sanitized and theoretical jargon often found in academia. There is no need for sanitized rhetoric in this networked anthropology, because in a way, Chris Cooper can tell me (the viewer) how the sudden unemployment strained his friendships with long-time colleagues and with his family. I don’t need guns and explosions to realize that there is something wrong with the fact that a person working 60 hours a week average per year can suddenly be out of a job in a moment’s notice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZv5VdNf3I

Rather than reading about how the various economic meltdowns had a variety of push and pull factors on individuals, I can access their reality more directly. After looking at the media from Anthropology by The Wire, I can safely say that I do not need the sheen of the television camera.

#anthropologybythewire

2 notes · View notes