Focused principally on the 20th and 21st centuries, this course will study the legacies and implications of the massive migration, forced and otherwise, from the African continent to the Caribbean, Latin America, and North America. Topics will range from the creation of racial categories in the contexts of slavery and colonialism to the making of transnational and transracial families to the recent cultural politics of “blackness” with emphasis on the ways that different kinds of archives produce multiple and often conflicting narratives. Students will produce as well as consume history. In addition to scholarly monographs and articles, course material will include film, sound, and fiction.
I’m very excited to be teaching this course, and looking forward to working with you all semester. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the website and read the syllabus. We will use this site extensively for announcements, postings, and virtual conversations. You should feel free to treat it as your own, and post links, images, videos, or anything else of interest to the class.
Follow
After visiting the exhibition of Amazonia last Tuesday and reading this week’s two articles, I felt that those experiences helped me better understand the relationship of racialized politics and representations to media and technology and the essential meaning of Amazonia exhibition. In the article, Representation, Polyphony, and the Construction of power in a Kayapo Video, Terence Turner talks about the idea of hybrid representations. It is a production of the interplay of indigenous and Western cultural perspectives. Hybridity means an international view of indigenous people: their cultural, their rights and power, not merely separation or purity them from the whole world. The article Quai Branly in Process also agree this idea. As President Chirac said, it was necessary to provide a place for infinite diversity of culture and the genius of the people and its civilizations (p.17).
Representation ways of media or museum are very important and powerful. It is useful as means of connection in time and space, in which help to redefine their relationship to the national and the transnational systems. The exhibition connects present situations with their past and future in historical time, and linking their communities in social and reality space. James Clifford, in the article Quai Branly in Process, discuss process of Quai Branly in detail. Quai Branly is a museum in Paris, France, in which features the indigenous art and cultures of African, Asia, Oceania and the Americans. I found there are common perspectives between Quai Branly and the Amazonia exhibition. They both contain the idea of living art and culture, not just artifacts from the past. They both consider its connection between the past, present and future. They express the respect and recognition of indigenous people. In layout, both of them applied multimedia ways, such as video, music, and other recorded sounds attempt to produce a “you are there” feeling. Although, the scale of Amazonia exhibition is not as large as the Quai Branly. However, this exhibition shows the possibility of the extension of indigenous recognition in a global scale, which made minority history no more silence or ignorance.
I thought both of the readings were relevant to the conversations that we had in class about the Amazonia exhibit and I liked the ways each added to the discussion in slightly different ways. I found the James Clifford piece a bit hard to follow at times, and I’m wondering if anyone had the same issue? I thought that the points brought up in the article reconciled the politics within the different spaces involved in museology in really interesting ways. It seems pretty easy to get tunnel vision when navigating through museums and galleries and only see the politics attached to the objects or exhibits on display, but I thought Clifford did a good job in shedding some light on the politics behind the scenes. Clifford’s section about interpretation and labels stood out in particular to me, with regards to the Amazonia exhibit. The exhibit being described by Clifford and the lack of labeling to place a focus on the objects themselves seemed to align perfectly with what Amazonia’s curator had attempted to do and the concerns/feelings I had about the minimization of labels and explanations at MOA are pretty much summed up by Clifford who states, “unless visitors stop frequently to explore the touch-screen options…their experience…will, at best, be exciting, at worst, confused and superficial” (12).
I thought that the Terence Turner article was pretty complementary to the Clifford article because they covered different forms of representation. A sentence that really struck me was when Turner says, “Western technologies like video, can be made the vehicle of emancipatory politics and creative cultural expression, accommodation, and change” (246). Throughout the entire article I thought of the similar themes brought up when we were discussing Afrofuturism and Indigenous futurism. Turner’s conversation between technology and self-representation ran parallel to some of the issues of museology, particularly Clifford’s concerns about the interpretation of videos of rituals and practices perpetuating a dated impression of Indigenous people among visitors. I thought that both points that were brought up (the importance of self-representation and the issues of misinterpretation) were interesting, and I’m wondering how some of the people behind the Amazonia exhibit would respond to the things brought up by Turner and Clifford.
Hi Christine,
I really enjoyed reading your response to the articles we were assigned this week, along with the connections you made to the MOA exhibit we attended. I definitely agree that the Clifford article was at times difficult to follow – I think it must have been due to the way he went about using very little structure within his essay ( in terms of subtitles). I also thought that your point regarding the tunnel vision one can get while visiting a museum was incredibly accurate. I did however have a hard time myself gathering Clifford’s opinion on such point. One point of yours that I disagreed with slightly was the connection you made between Clifford’s view on the minimal amount of labeling within the Quai Branly museum and the MOA exhibit. I actually found that the MOA exhibit had lots of labeling and information surrounding the Amazon itself, along with the artifacts that were on display. This exhibit was however the first one I had been to in a long time so in comparison to others of its kind it could very easily have been less in scale. Finally I also enjoyed the connections you made between the two readings themselves, particularly in terms of how technology and self-representation affected one another, something that was extremely present within both articles
After reading these two pieces, I was most struck by the finality and impact that comes with representing politics and identities through media and technology. In Representations, Polyphony, and Construction of Power closes by saying the “making the video of the A’ukre meeting not only fixed the meaning of the event and its outcome for its contemporary and future Kayapo audiences but was itself a contributory part of that event and its meaning” (247). By capturing this moment on video, the culture, politics, and outcome of this A’ukre meeting are archived and fixed in technology like never before. Additionally, the act of being filmed and defined within the film media affected the meeting itself.
In the Quai Branly museum, the designers chose to separate contextual data in technology from the visual impact of the objects. Regarding finality, Ralph Regenvanu “stressed the importance of working with ‘living art and culture,’ not just artifacts of the past” so that the content of the museum can stay relevant by not just showing the fixed pre-colonial cultures that once flourished but also the continued expression of art and culture since colonialism. In connection with impact, by centralizing a lot of indigenous indigenous art in one place, the Quai Branly museum boldly makes a name for itself as THE museum for indigenous art and culture and risks making these pieces of culture and history inaccessible to the rest of the world. Also, as Christine mentioned earlier from the Quai Branly in Process article, “unless visitors stop frequently to explore the touch-screen options…their experience…will, at best, be exciting, at worst, confused and superficial” (12) making the technological, contextual aspect of the museum a make-or-break component to the experience. This shows that the technology involved in these representations of identity is both key and easy to skip making its impact on identity very important.
Hi Rachel,
I really enjoyed reading your post! I’ve also been thinking through the implications of finality, self-representation, and the impact of technology, especially after our visit to the Amazonia exhibit last week.
At one point in the Quai Branly text, Clifford speaks out the dozen or so computer stations in a room that “[gave] access to a multimedia encyclopedia of anthropology” where one could go to “encounter real cultural and historical experiences,” even though “its narrow stairway” was one that was easy to miss during the exhibit (Clifford 13). To an extent, this reminded me of the Amazonia exhibit, as Dr. Porto also set up a computer station where he provides current readings on the Amazon. He also set up an audio-visual component that highlights multiple Indigenous communities living in the Amazon, which also ties into self-representation (which I will touch on later). While these elements help to squash the notion that these Indigenous communities exist only in the past, and helps to provide context, I would also argue that they are somewhat awkwardly situated, being at the very back of the exhibit or tucked away into a corner, leaving them not easily accessible. As both Rachel and Christine have noted from the Quai Branly reading, visitors who might not interact or explore the technological aspects of the museum are losing out on context.
Turner’s article also made me think about the relationship between technology and self-representation. In particular, Turner’s exploration of the different voices and perspectives that went into creating Peace Between Chiefs that “carry distinctive representations of the event – representations that are at times complementary and at times divergent” made me think about the specifications behind the video Dr. Porto put into Amazonia (243). There had to be an editing team, a translator, as well as other individuals involved. What does this mean for meaning-making? How does this impact (self)representation? What do you folks think?
Reading the Turner and Clifford articles, it was clear to see how they related to the Amazonia exhibit at the MOA. I think the MOA successfully navigates a tricky playing field as far as representation is concerned, particularly in regards to Dr. Porto’s exhibit. The exhibit features “living art and culture”, as Ralph Regenvanu emphasizes the importance of in Clifford’s Quai Branly article. Clifford points out in his article that Quai Branly, much like the MOA, features collections that are “both a wealth and a burden” (19). There is some conflict between the actual representation of indigenous cultures and those who are representing them. Although a great deal of effort was made in Quai Branly to embrace a multimedia approach to exhibits, incorporating video and audio, it’s hard to realize that some tourists will see the museum as simply a building where they can go to ogle the exotic cultures of indigenous peoples without acknowledging the problematic history of these exhibits. Clifford also mentions the somewhat dated depictions of indigenous peoples in the Quai Branly exhibitions, noting the screening of the 1965 film “Dead Birds”.
Terence Turner’s article linked really well with Clifford’s, positing more questions on self-representation. One of the sentences that I found particularly interesting was when Turner writes, “The employment by subordinated non-Western “Others” of Western means of representation, supposedly the very means of their domination and deauthentication by the hegemonic imperial power of the West, to resist domination by Western societies and to assert their own political agency and cultural values thus appears to be a contradiction” (230). I’m very conflicted in regards to this assertion. Part of me agrees with Turner that the use of Western technology to deconstruct Western hegemony is a complicated and often fruitless endeavour – I’m reminded of Audre Lorde’s assertion that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. However, another part of me disagrees with Turner and his mention of Foucault’s claim that “power (…) cannot be used against itself” (231). I came across an incredible documentary by Tsilhqot’in filmmaker Helen Haig-Brown, “My Legacy”. She uses video, the Western technology mentioned by Turner in his article, to deconstruct Western ideas of relationships in indigenous communities (Haig-Brown can put it in much more succinct terms that I can, here’s an interview with her about the film – http://muskratmagazine.com/my-legacy-interview-with-courageous-filmmaker-helen-haig-brown/).
I’m still not sure where I stand on Turner’s article, but I can definitely see the merits of either side of the debate. What do you guys think?
Hi Kate! Really great comments, I definitely want to engage with what you’re thinking through especially because I had similar opinions and thoughts as well.
Thinking through navigating and negotiating self-representation, or even representation more broadly, there are always implications when interacting in spaces such as a museum. It’s definitely hard to get around, and oftentimes there are compromises both in how communities can represent themselves and how others (curators, academics, etc.,) create modes of representation that invites guests and visitors to interact and share space. It’s difficult in the sense that, as James Clifford’s article states, it’s important to acknowledge that these artifacts, objects and materials are not just situated in the past but that they are still integral to contemporary cultural practices. But again, as we move through spaces of knowledge such as museums, there is always the implication of audiences being spectators. How do we navigate through that and how to we mitigate the implication of spaces that really balances between different power dynamics. (I have a love-hate relationship with museums because as much as I do think they are spaces that actively produce knowledge made available to the public, it’s also troubling to see culture in glass cases.)
Perhaps… And this is only an thought that I’m still working through… If there is a difference in looking at the museum as a space of preservation rather than collection. Because there is also the idea that cultural artifacts have been destroyed due to conditions of war, conflict, and displacement (whether that be cultural, political, or geographic). There was also one object (and I can’t remember what it was…) but the story that went along with it was that the making of this object wasn’t practiced anymore. In some cases, I think I lean towards being more understanding of museum collections as a means for protecting artifacts/cultural objects/materials.
I’m also thinking through the one part of the Amazonia exhibition where there was a veil that made a distance between the masks and the audiences. There’s a certain way in which the organization of the space created tension in what can be observed, and what couldn’t be. I thought it was a really interesting negotiation between having to make an exhibition where implicitly, curators are anticipating public interest, yet also creating a barrier where not everything is on display. In some ways I think that creates a level of agency for not only the cultures these objects originate from, but the objects themselves. They have real implications, and I think audiences become aware of their own positionally as well (whether or not that translates to other audiences I’m not too sure, but I really did appreciate the explanation as well as the curatorial choice)
Tons of thoughts to unpack here but thank you for sharing your thoughts and I really hope we get the chance to talk about this more in-depth in class!
Hi!
Your post reminds me of another part of MOA in the First Nations mask display – one particular mask is covered purposely. The reason for this is due to the belief that people foreign from their culture should not see these cultures, embedded within is the fear of misinterpretation and exploitation of the culture. I think in a way, the distancing between the masks and the audiences serve the same purpose.I find Turner’s statement on Western technologies to be relevant in this case.
I am foreign to these cultures and these advances in technology in media especially, helped me gain more context of these cultures. However, it is also unfortunate to realize how these technologies may also be biased in terms of representation – different representations as told by those who are not fully familiar with those particular cultures might present it in a misleading context.
After reading Turner?s Representation, I wanted to reflect on the theme of ?immobilization? that minorities experience in both this text and other media that we have studied. In Turner?s discussion of hybrid cultural forms, he points out that there is an inherent incommensurability between non-Western and Western cultures. Turner goes so far as to say that contact between these two ?polar opposites? results in an inevitability: ?the destruction and replacement of the non-Western culture by the Western?. In other words, inter-cultural communication is limited, because it ultimately results in total assimilation of one culture by the other, rather than allowing non-Westerners to employ Western ideas within their own frameworks while holding on to their authenticity. This raises several questions: how can these culture co-exist in a rapidly globalizing world? And most pertinently to this class, how then can black or other ?othered? groups hold onto their heritage if they are at risk of losing it all to this sense of cultural erosion? I believe that this echoes the notion of minority immobilization. This theme was also mentioned in the movie I am Not Your Negro, where the narrator asked how black people were supposed to act. If black people protest, they are viewed as violent and rebellious, seeking to disrupt the status quo. Similarly and quizzically, if black people do not demonstrate against injustices, they are deemed apathetic. So what is a black person supposed to do with regards to the injustices he/she faces? As within the Turner piece, the black body becomes immobilized because he/she faces a lose-lose situation. These sentiments were also voiced by Late Night talk show host Trevor Noah, who questioned alt-right supporter Tomi Lahren about how black people are supposed to conduct themselves when trying to enact change. This is a profound theme as it captures the oppression experienced by minority groups.
After reading Branly?s text, I wanted to connect the piece to the art exhibit we had the chance to see at the Museum of Anthropology last week. Branly states that ?illusion and the work of art coexist uneasily?. This became particularly salient when it was explained why certain aboriginal masks were displayed behind a veil at the Amazonia exhibit. While an initial glance may have confused the spectators about the deeper meaning of the exhibit?s set up, a more thorough examination of the exhibition reveals that this shrouding of the masks was intentional. Its purpose was to force the gallery-goers to come closer to the piece of art, symbolizing the interconnectedness that Amazonian indigenous peoples have with nature. In other words, the audience was forced to step outside of how it is most likely used to examining artwork, effectually placing it inside the perspective of local people (to the Amazonian region). In this way, this illusory veil plays a symbolic role, fostering a sense of open mindedness and dialogue between cultures. The world of art meets the realm of illusion, just as discussed in Branly?s text, ultimately facilitating a cultural exchange that leaves a more profound appreciation for the indigenous way of life. Perhaps such exercises could be useful in other contexts as well, for example in the exchange of cultural perspectives between ?white? and ?black? communities. This hints at yet another theme within race studies: how interaction with the ?other? may actually cure racist sentiments. Perhaps this artistic take on ?exposure therapy? is a tangible approach to reducing racist perspectives.
Hi Rachel,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on Turner’s essay, and was similarly struck by (in your words) : “the finality and impact that comes with representing politics and identities through media and technology.” I thought that Terrence Turner showed this really well in his break-down of how Mokuka produced his documentary. Similarly to what you’re saying, his essay also made me think about how easy it is to overlook aspects of technology (like video editing for instance) that can have a lasting impact on how a subject is recognized and thought about in a wider society. One of the points I retained from Turner’s essay was how representation (as an instrument of power) can be carefully manipulated in order to defend and assert that power the same way it can be manipulated to discredit another’s power.
This week’s readings raise questions relating to Indigenous representation, drawing similarities to the Amazonia exhibition we attended last Tuesday. James Clifford’s work offers a critical insight into the Quai Branly museum in Paris. The museum claims to be a ‘long-overdue gesture of respect for the arts and cultures of the small tribal people of America, Africa, the Pacific, and the Artic.’ (pg.5), however, it has faced a substantial amount of criticism, especially the permanent exhibition. Critiques claimed the exhibitions focuses too much on being exciting and fun for the visitor, and in doing so comes across ‘confused and artificial’, as the digital labels are easily overlooked.
With regard to representation, the Clifford piece states that the some of the Indigenous communities of Africa, Alaska, and the Pacific have no direct access to the important works from their own traditions. In this way, he states, ‘Quai Branly appears to be more a part of the problem than of its solution.’ (p19). In other words, the exhibition that seeks to show respect to the otherwise overlooked Indigenous communities, actually takes away from Indigenous communities. This leads us to ask whether the Western perspective ever fully capture and represent the Indigenous, in ways that are inclusive and respectful? Conversely, can indigenous self-representation of their own cultures be considered authentic? This question is considered in the Turner piece. Critics Faris and Wiener have claimed that indigenous employment of Western techniques of representation, for example, the video camera, have resulted in a loss of cultural integrity. One asks, how can the Indigenous community possibly represent themselves in the modern world without using western technology? This catch 22 disallows Indigenous communities to express themselves in creative and culturally empowering ways. Faris and Wiener imply that Indigenous representation be left in the hands of the Western perspective.
These questions I have posed articulate the complexities that exist with regard to the issues of representation and self-representation in the media and in a museum environment. While further interrogation on the subject matter is necessary in order for myself to establish any resolving thoughts and comments, I was wondering if the class had any points to add?
I found the very end of the article, “Quai Branly in Process” the most interesting because of how James Clifford expresses the need for museums to engage with the connections between the past and present. The entire article argues for greater fluidity in museums that can allow for varying historical connections, but the way in which this can be done comes most clearly at the end when Clifford quotes Ralph Regenvanu (Director of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre). Regenvanu encouraged the Musée du Quai Branly to work with art and culture that is being created in the present, not just works from the past, because engaging with current pieces exposes links and connections between different times and spaces. Regenvanu warned that the danger in working solely with historical artifacts is that the museum could become irrelevant. I took Clifford’s use of this warning in the greater context of the article to mean that a heavy focus on historical artifacts can cause isolation from the present and an ahistorical experience. The danger in isolation is that it prevents links between different times and spaces from being made.
Regenvanu’s collaborative and historical approach to museum displays and Clifford’s use of this approach align with the idea of promoting non-linear, non-traditional historical narratives to better understand history, the connections between the past and the present, and the realities that dominant history tends to miss. Clifford’s analysis of museum displays and Regenvanu’s advice remind me of Erika Lee’s article, “The ‘Yellow Peril’ and Asian Exclusion in the Americas”. Lee aims to revise our understanding of the global history of race by identifying transnational connections and movements of thought through the Asian migration within the Americas during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She discovers links by engaging with different perspectives and not isolating time, space, or events. Clifford and Regenvanu argue for museum displays that are collaborative, that connect different times and places, and that generate critical thought instead of isolated viewing experiences. Clifford’s article caused me to think about the different ways of telling history, from articles like Lee’s to the Amazonia exhibit at MOA. It also caused me to reflect on the importance of approaching displays from different perspectives like we would try to engage with different, non-dominant historical texts.
Turner’s article showed how state interests especially when linked with capitalist interests can be destructive to culture. He brought up the corruption FUNAI and Pombo were involved with, their power of manipulating the media to serve their own interest, and recounted Ropni’s (and the Kayapo’s) fight and subsequent victory in setting the truth straight, and in protecting Kayapo territory from capitalist interests. His explanation for how Mokuka’s role as documentarian (ie. the manipulator of the event’s representation) reaffirmed this victory and the power of the Kayapo’s led me to think about the weight-some impact the tiniest intricacies in media representation can have on how someone or something is viewed in society. His article also reminded me of corruption trends linked to neo-colonialism in some African countries.
I found Clifford’s article particularly interesting for the questions it raised on Jacques Chirac’s project: The Quai Branly museum. “Inside the exhibition space, conventional walls, false ceilings, glass cases, stairways, and informational texts will be eliminated or concealed. The result, a vast magical world, theatrically illuminated.” (4). Chirac considers the museum a gesture of respect for the arts and cultures of the small tribal peoples of the Americas, Africa, the Pacific, and the Arctic.” (5), and Stephane Martin defends the museum as a place that incites conversation about, and recognition of the cultural origins behind the exhibited art. Anthropologist Emmanuelle Desvaux who works with the museum talks of the exhibition space as a “site of reflection” where extensive anthropological information even if not highlighted as a main feature of the museum, remains accessible for visitors looking to satisfy their curiosity. The museum’s unconventional way of recognizing foreign cultures sparked a lot of controversy and criticism.
I found it interesting to think about the parallels between how representation is manipulated in the Quai Branly museum and in Mokuka’s documentary. The technology involved in the museum’s visuals and information library are proclaimed by the museum to encourage the celebration and respectful recognition of the foreign cultures exhibited, but this form of representation resulted in criticisms from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. On the other hand, Mokuka’s manipulating of video was similarly aimed at affirming the power of the Kayapo tribe. His manipulation of representation however, unlike the Quai Branly’s, seems to have served the purpose it intended. I thoroughly enjoyed how this week’s article showed how the manipulation of technology to respectfully represent culture, entails the employment of a detailed approach and of a careful consideration to the potential impact and reactions that a media representation might stir.
Of these readings, I was very intrigued by Terrence Turner’s essay “Representation Polyphony and the Construction of Power in a Kayapo Video” and the questions it raised. As I understood it, centrally at play is a debate of assimilation vs. reclamation in terms of indigenous peoples representing themselves through what could be described as “western formats.” The debate amongst the Kayapo people central in Turner’s essay seems to focus on whether or not adjusting to global change is a process of assimilation or simply an adjustment to logically chronicity of time and human evolution. In my own opinion, I find that technological advancements, while maybe originating from a place of colonialism, have in some ways stopped being an aspect of colonial culture but cross cultural phenomenon
The contrast I see comes in indigenous peoples taking these new modes into their own hands and controlling their representation, a process that can be understood as decolonization.
Colonialism is a system that has created incredible pain and cost grave prices for indigenous groups across the globe, but we cannot deny the historical formation of today’s reality, and that reality includes the collision of indigenous cultures with colonial systems, and for indigenous people who were born into cultures of colonialism, there is a power in reclaiming its systems as a way to enforce their own heritages.
After all, Ropani, the Kayapo chief who toured with Sting, successfully took hold of western culture and used its sentiments and romanticizations to help his people. The root argument against the systems of colonialism can always defer to “well, we wouldn’t be in this situation if colonialism hadn’t happened in the first place.” However, the reality of of colonialism remains, and thus Ropani can be looked at as a principle example of how to exploit western culture to benefit the needs of indigenous peoples
In contrast, the Kayapo leader Pombo can be viewed as the opposite of oppositional decolonialism, bartering off the resources of his ancestral people for capitalist wealth and commodities. Terrence Turner even notes the “trickle-down” form of capitalist Pombo engaged in, a complete and total westernization in economic thought and action employed against his own indigenous brethren.
The progress of the Kayapo and other indigenous groups in utilizing audiovisual technology to portray their own narrative also highlights the intertwining of social and global changes holistically with heretical cultures. The cultural shift towards these technologies in my mind can be understood in how it necessitates change in a variety of formats. For instance, the Kayapo meetings are dominated by male-voices, a time honored tradition of Kayapo tribal code. However, if their cultures are willing to accept the concept of change and reclamation, then so too can they look towards other progressive changes towards neutralizing the role of gender in one’s right to lend knowledge and vocality to tribal proceedings.
This article was very fascinating in its explorations of how representation can reconcile itself with the evolution of western technologies. However, while these technologies can be understood as a mechanism with origins in western culture, I think their introduction into cultures all across the global presents us a real grounded view of how crucial the integration of new representative formats and methods of communication is maintaining the voice of those who would otherwise be silenced.
Both of the articles for this week delve into issues surrounding representation, authorship, the possible agendas behind these kinds of productions, as well as the intended audience. Not to mention that this particular subject, the representation of indigenous cultures and their current socio-political contexts is incredibly layered and complex. The Turner reading on the Kayapo video “Peace Between Chiefs” provided a recent example of how the internal politics of the Kayapo chiefs, and those aspiring to become chiefs, played a major role in how the video was structured and the kind of narrative it created in regards to a foreign and western audience, and the narrative that was presented to their own community. The added context to the making of the video has critics, not only of the video itself but of indigenous communities using western tools of representation, wonder if the practice will result in a loss of ” cultural integrity and authenticity”, the video itself disproves that claim seeing as major cultural motifs and other queues re-affirm who is the narrator and what is the current situation.
After reading this week’s reading, the MOA exhibits made a lot of sense to me and it also made me wonder how the Amazonian people would have organized the exhibition differently if they had a chance to do so. The idea of representing polyphony is definitely not an easy task to do by outsiders who do not truly understand the culture that is so intricate and interactive with one another and so the photos and videos taken by the indigenous people themselves would be far more reflective of the nature of their own culture. It is another way of representing themselves and suggesting their agency, which then turns technology into something they can take advantage of as a tool. It was interesting how indigenous people, tools such as video is more about connecting, whereas for the westerners, the gear has shifted more towards separation and deconstruction of ideas through representation (244p). It feels to me that, the ways how harmonically these indigenous people put together different elements into their culture and create their own perspective to describe it, is because it is directed towards their own history and their own culture, not because it is to achieve any sense of accomplishment in western world. Like how the people of Bororo in MOA exhibit would create entirely different objects to sell to westerners, they protect and respect their own culture by creating stronger connection with each other, deepening their ties inside of their world.
This week’s readings centred on one of the key elements I took from last week’s visit to the Amazonia, space and representation. I found that the second article, “Quai Branly in Process,” reminded me more of the exhibit given the observations that museums are political spaces, and that there is a continual conflict between groups who see preservation in opposing ways. A particular quotation stood out to me in regards to this point on page seven: “the prospect of a progressive scientific-humanist tradition reduced to a glitzy presidential project, tainted with aesthetic connoisseurship and primitivism, was repellent to many.”
This past summer I had the opportunity to attend the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Education site for two weeks to carry out scholarly research. One of the biggest takeaways I got from the trip was just how alive the space is, even today, with regards to competing views on how exhibits should be curated and/or presented. Despite being an area of such historic meaning, it was interesting to see that politically the museum still had to delicately contend with competing outlooks on the site’s history, notably in the case of the Soviet remembrance of the Holocaust through the present-day Russian exhibit. The article we read, together with our visit to the MOA last week, reminded me of this.
Reading Turner’s Chapter from “Indigenous Movements, Self-Representaion, and the State of Latin America”, I was at times challenged by the dual anthropological and historical approachs to reading the text. I personally feel the desire to view the Kapayo community in isolation prevents the acceptance of evolving means of communication. In this sense, I am inclined to agree with Turner’s conclusion that video, if anything, has actually helped the Kapayo ability to transmit stories across generations, and nationally/internationally within the present. This helps them to wield by power and attention towards their cause and illuminate an otherwise unknown history/way of living in the deep Amazon. In the same way, whilst some students from our group found conflicts within the layout of the Amazonia exhibit, I believe the participatory, interactive nature of the exhibit (as is the case within the participatory cinema of “Peace Between Chiefs”), helps to further our learning and dissemination of information, despite it’s drawbacks (notably, the hammocks).
With regard to space, I thought it was interesting that Turner, through the words of filmmaker Mokuka, was able to express the visual representation of the Kapayo community through cinema. It was notable that the footage showed the layout of these rural communities, and even the value of specific buildings (such as the men’s centre), in relation to the rainforest. This helped to demonstrate how isolated these communities were, and also express that the rainforest and them live harmoniously and not at the cost of one another. For many viewers of the documentary (especially in urban areas), I imagine this may be an important takeaway.
An issue I had with Turner’s chapter was it’s use of “Western” to represent the cinematography and way of living of regular Brazilians. It seemed to me that this mass generalization juxtaposed the very niche discussion of the Kapayo communities within the chapter. I would be interested to hear what others think.
In the article, Representation, Polyphony, and the Construction of Power in a Kayapo Video. Terence Turner analyzes indigenous people use modern media to represent themselves to show how their culture are varied and creative. In order to reduce the the pressure of this research, Turner watches a lot of Kayapó social drama and their employment of western video techniques and tries to discuss that indigenous self-representations of their own cultures can themselves be considered ‘authentically’ indigenous culture products. Moreover, Turner addresses whether indigenous cultures can employ Western techniques of representation such as video cameras without losing their cultural integrity and authenticity. At the end of chapter, Turner argues that “Indigenous videos that deal with the generation and use of power, like the Kayapo example discussed here, have valuable general lessons to teach about the relations of representation and power, the issue that lies at the heart of the postmodern “crisis of representation.”
Don’t know if anyone has been keeping up with this news at the Whitney Museum and this year Biennale (or if anyone will see my comment…), but incredibly relevant to our conversations: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/why-do-white-liberal-artists-love-black-death-so-much#
Would love to discuss this in more depth.