Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Arts in Anthropological Perspective 338: Final Exam

Christine Barrera

Short Answer:
2. The film Cannibal Tours took a very interesting standpoint on

tourism in Papua New Guinea (PNG) because it made the seemingly cultured

and empathetic Westerner tourists look rather ignorant. It was clear that the

Western tourists felt they were definably more well off and intelligent than

the natives of whom they examined like at a natural history museum. This

point of view is the result of many things, primarily the Colonial ethnocentric

attitude that has remained strong through the years. Westerners do not

realize that there are other ways of thinking and living, and that in other

parts of the world like Papua New Guinea, art is not perceived of in the same

way. Art of natives appears in Western culture as a connection to the land;

Deborah Root says, “a way of symbolizing the regional character of the area”

(Root, 1996: 68). Even though the tourists are interested in the natives, and

some believe themselves to be aficionados of indigenous arts, it is difficult

for the PNG natives to sell their art to the Western tourists for many reasons:

the natives themselves are the objects of interest, there is a

misunderstanding between the cultures of what can be a souvenir, and the

tourists have a preconceived idea that art objects should look clean and

mass produced.

Westerners do not buy PNG tourist art because the natives are the

objects of interest, and not necessarily their tourist art. Seeing the natives

and taking their picture and just looking at the tourist art is satisfying. Papua
New Guinean and Western understanding of tourist art is completely

different: the PNGs think that a traditional object is all the Westerners want

when really what they want is an idealized, mass produced object that is

familiar to them, but embodies the appropriated spirit of the PNG native. This

desire is a result of the mass market economy culture the tourists come

from. “Wealthy collectors of so-called tribal art may decide to appropriate a

particular tradition and insert it into a system of capitalist exchange” (74).

The way Westerners perceive tourist art is through the commoditized, and

more familiar versions of native symbols; not the authentic and unfamiliar

object.

Difference of aesthetic perception could be one reason that art is

conceptualized differently between these societies. For Westerners, tourist

art is a nonfunctional artifact while art in PNG is directly connected to a

specific function that is likely unknown to the Westerner. This can make a

PNG object of art unfamiliar and therefore undesirable to the Western tourist.

Without commoditization of the object, the Westerner will not consume it.

“Commodities of aesthetic value are organized around consumption. To

consume the commodities that have come to stand for other cultures is to

neutralize the ambivalence cultural difference is able to generate” (69). In

order for the mass market consumer to want unfamiliar tourist art, it must be

appropriated so that it has a level of familiarity. This in turn creates an

inauthentic object. This inauthentic object however is what the tourist

desires, and when confronted with unfamiliar PNG tourist art, the object does
not seem to have as much value as an object sold through the mass market.

Although the PNG natives feel what they sell is indeed in an economic

sphere, which is technically nonexistent, and they price their goods

according to worth of the object, but they are forced by the tourist to sell it

for a “second or third price.”

3.
Photography originated in the 19th century by Daguerre in the West, but this new

invention quickly made its way over to the Colonial territories in Africa and other

“unclaimed” lands. The rise of photography shares a parallel to Colonialism. According to

Susan Sontag, as discussed by professor Askew, even the simple terminology associated

with photography links it to imperialism. The fact that one “aims” a camera, “shoots” a

subject and “captures” an image can seem violent especially when compared to the simple

and innocent way photography is used in the modern era. The familiar light-hearted hobby is

a contrast to the way photography was used in 19th Colonial empires which certainly aided in

maintaining a power relationship between the Colonialists and the colonized. Images that

Professor Askew shared such as “The Last Tasmanian” and photographs of pygmies from the

World’s Fair exhibition of “primitive” peoples is a skewed documentation of these “inferior”

groups of people. The “Last Tasmanian” for example, is a historically important portrait of an

individual, but the way she is portrayed in it was decided by the Colonialist who took the

photo. In addition, this picture was only taken as a result of Colonial disregard for native

Tasmanians. The pygmies, on the other hand, were portrayed much more as inferior subjects

than the Tasmanian woman. They were all degraded through unnaturally posed photos in

inauthentic and artificial atmospheres as well as captured in Western children’s clothing, as

opposed to Western adults or their own clothing, which obviously shows the perceived

relationship between the photographer and the subject.


The unequal social relationships that take place between the subject and

photographer does not end with the Colonial empires, but is maintained in various sorts of

inequality. Patricia Holland writes about inequalities in modern photography, “The father is

least visible, for it remains his role to handle the apparatus that controls the image, to point,

frame and shoot” (Holland, 1991: 7). Whether this was true in the past or is true now, it is

certain that the person behind the camera is the person in control. Is it possible that the

person behind the camera corresponds with the social hierarchy? The colonizer; the male as

head of the family who understands technology the best; and now the relative social balance

between men and women renders photography as a mostly neutral past time. Despite

specific social relationships, the photographer is in control by deciding exactly what the

image will look like by taking a professional standpoint. The photography is framed as

knowing what moments or actions are photograph-worthy. Interestingly, the photographer

knows what is important to capture at that moment in time, but importance of an image is

based on perception so it can never be clear which “professionally” captured images are

actually the important moments. Anyway, the person with the camera is distinguished from

the rest of the people as the designated person in control of documentation.

In the film Photo Wallahs, Indian photographers play the role of a well-trained

professional. Not only do they take the photos, but they direct the subject into elaborate

poses with elaborate costumes which only they know how to wear. In contrast, in Photo

Wallahs, from the photographed subjects perspective, it is very interesting the way in which

the subject of the photo decides how they want to be remembered. Being photographed

portrays the desired relationship of the individual to the world. This is actually kind of sad

because the idealized image of an individual is not of himself, but as someone else who has

more worldly value like a rock star or a Sikh.

Although this opposition in photography remains true, the separation between

photographer and the rest of the group has become more minimal as photography becomes

more accessible and more people gain experience behind the camera. Also, the importance
of a selected image to be captured has lessened as a result of digital photography and the

increased amounts of potentially available photographs.

Longer Essays:

1. Tattoos in America during the 20th century have undergone a great

amount of change in social context. Tattoos are classically associated with

sailors, bikers or other working-class men. And as these men were not

thought well of, or not thought of at all, they used tattoos to distinguish

themselves, in a rebellious manner, with an identity marker. “Bikers and

other marginalized individuals began to use tattoos to assert and challenge

their subordinate position in society” (DeMello, 2000: 139). Tattoos have

always been used as a form of rebellion. Marking one’s body is not very

proper and clean in American society, especially when it is with words or

symbols that convey feelings of disrespect or anarchy. The difference

between a tattooed body and a non-tattooed body maintains social order

because it is a definite opposition and boundaries between different social

classes. The physical difference between social classes is as a result of

difference in value. This mentality is mostly part of a time gone by, but still

the opposition between people with tattoos and people without tattoos

remains definitive, and in this way tattoos can be a form of rebellion.

Rebellion can occur out of opposition of values between young and old,

upper and lower classes, and even differing spiritual values.

While maintaining social order through opposition, tattoos in American

culture are symbolic within rebellion of subcultures. These are groups like
urban gangs or biker gangs. Tattoos within these groups symbolize an

affiliation and therefore in some sects of society, having a tattoo is highly

desirable and show participation within a subculture as well as disregard for

The Man. When tattooing regained popularity in the 1970s and ‘80s, and the

middle class began to enjoy wearing tattoos, the gap between social classes

seemed to lessen. However, the middle class maintained the divide by

asserting that their tattoos were applied in a superior manner, with meaning.

It has become quite common to assume that one’s tattoo would be symbolic

for something or have some other refined aesthetic meaning. DeMello says

that there are also many middle-class subculture movements to which

tattoos can be related such as self-help, new age and ecology (151).

However, these subcultures are different from bikers and gangs because

they are not associated with rebellion but only affiliation and aesthetic

appreciation for the symbolism.

In the early part of the 20th century, tattoos were not pieces of art, but

a only a very limited number of designs chosen by the tattoo artist. These

had more of a social importance than an aesthetic. Besides tattooing is a

means of defining class opposition, and before tattoos were a means of

creative self-expression, a design was received for reasons as simple as

economic means or popular images. As an example, DeMello uses the

example of a man with his friends who had five dollars total and they got

three roses because that is what they could afford. Not only would this
marking define them as working class, but also create a social tie between

the friends.

In contrast, tattooing in Samoa is much more embedded into the

culture and social norms. In Samoa, tatau is something of a rite of passage.

As seen in the film Tatau: What One Must Do even by the title, it is important

for Samoan people to receive a tatau, like Thomas, who is Samoan but he

grew up in California and missed out on many things of his heritage by not

growing up in Samoa. One year, he decided to visit his family in Samoa and

get a tatau so that he could feel closer to this lost part of his social identity.

So, having the tatau is a norm within the Samoan society, and the

maintenance of this tradition helps to keep order in the Samoan culture.

Although as a result of various cultural influences in Samoa, traditions

related to the tatau have changed, like the elaborate activities surrounding

the event of a person receiving a tatau. Yet even though there have been

changes to the culture, the element of the tatau remains a rather strong part

of the culture and social identity of the people. Many Samoans who have

moved to other places do not suppress their cultural heritage but spread it to

those who are interested. Samoan tatau has had an interesting relationship

with Colonialists and appropriation because most Western people seem to

like it, and the appropriation easily works both in Samoa and other cultures.

During WWII, the symbolic American Eagle image was incorporated into a

tatau design. “Samoan tattooists were open to new ideas and readily

incorporated them into their cultural products”(Mallon, 2005: 152). This


shows that even though the tatau is well incorporated into and maintains

social order in Samoa, it is not stagnant and is possibly one of the few native

art forms that is not seen as dead or flat by others. The fact that it is not

secluded in the Samoan island and others have an interest in the tatau keeps

it a lively part of Samoan culture. In fact, “for many young Samoans [like

Thomas] it has become an ethnic marker, a means of signifying Samoan

heritage and an imporant link to what can sometimes seem like a distant

heritage and way of life” (153).

2. Alfed Gell suggests that methodological philistinism is the first step towards an
anthropology of the arts. He means that aesthetic preference must be disregarded and an

indifference towards aesthetic value of arts must be taken (Gell, 1999: 161). However, one

may not go so far as to forget about aesthetics, or the feeling and understanding of beauty.

What is necessary is to consider the characteristics that make an object beautiful without

feeling the pleasure that it can cause. As for understanding what Gell means by the

“technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology,” he says that the various

forms of art are “essential to the reproduction of human societies” (163). Human society is

only possible as a result of the work of skilled artisans who create beautiful objects. So the

creation of art is a technology just like any other essential trade skill. In addition,

enchantment is the social consequence that is the result of the creation of a piece of art, or,

the result of this technology. The enchantment of technology is seeing the skillfully crafted

art objects through its affective aesthetic qualities. The magical feeling that emanates from

a piece of art is what enchantment is.

The molimo in Baaka pygmy society is an art object that is highly valued, but not in

the monetary sense (although as a sacred native object it could be). The molimo is highly

valued as a result of the form, content and context within Baaka society. In form, the molimo
is a unique musical instrument vaguely comparable to the didgeridoo of native Australians.

Traditionally it is created out of a hallowed piece of wood from the rainforest in which the

Baaka live. It is a simple instrument and made of a metal drainpipe that modernization has

brought into the rainforest and thereby simplified the technical processes of this art form. In

other words, a technology of modernization that has been brought into the rainforest has

increased the technology of art while simplifying the process of art creation. The context in

which the molimo is brought out of it’s sleeping place in the trees results from the idea that

since the Baaka live in the rainforest, they believe it to be a living thing because it protects

them and provides them with everything they need. In contrast, when they are outside of

the forest, bad things happen to them like death or the cruel initiation lead by the villagers

(who offer relatively little protection.) So if something bad happens to the Baaka it is

because the forest has fallen asleep and is not watching them, so they have to wake it up.

The content that results from the form of the molimo and the context of Baaka society is the

molimo festival. This is a strenuous month long nightly celebration that the males participate

in. Waking the forest up is a technical, serious matter, but coincidentally it is a fine act of

beauty through instrument, song and dance around the kumamolimo (the festival fire).

The object of the molimo is a result of a skilled craftsman who either refines a piece

of wood, or selects a piece of metal drainpipe for technical qualities that are necessary to

produce, through the technology of music, an enchanting sound designed to wake the forest.

The physical molimo object is not sacred or valued although it is respected. The important

technology of the molimo is the sound which it can produce through a skilled artisan. The

sound is magical enchanting, and the molimo is important for that very reason. As the result

of a technical process, the molimo has an enchanting characteristic and this is what Gell

calls the “technology of enchantment.” The “enchantment of technology” is the root of

Colonialist misunderstanding of non-Western art. Colin Turnbull, author of The Forest People,

thought that the molimo would be a physically beautiful instrument with otherworldly,

ornate artisan technology as part of the molimo’s physical characteristics. Turnbull was

expecting an enchantment of technology which he did not find through the molimo’s
exterior, but it could be said that he did find it in the otherworldly enchantment of the sound

produced by the molimo.

To examine the art of the molimo and it’s enchanting sound, Gell says that the

aesthetic characteristics must be picked out and understood but not for one’s own pleasure.

In moving away from aesthetics as having the simple function of pleasure, he breaks down

what makes art beautiful. Art is made of a technology of skilled people within a society, and

the enchantment which is the aesthetic or magical effect that the object of technology

contains if it is done correctly.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi