Oberhardt, Suzanne. (2000). Frames within frames. The art museum as cultural artifact. (pp.1-38). NY: Peter Lang.
Oberhardt sees art museum as an artifact that resides in popular culture and takes Foucauldian discourse as its analytical framework. In this first chapter, in particular, she lays out her theorerical and methodological backgrounds through reviewing critical theories, Gramsci's theory of hegemony, Foucault's approach to cultural institution that produces subjectivities discursively and normalizes them, and critical pedagogy, etc.
While redefining popular culture, she criticizes Frankfurt theorians' eliticism that viewed mass culture as deception, which is aligned with Plato's disdain for art in general. Conversely, she argues, "Consumer-oriented text of mass culture are rich archives--they carry a range of discourses which permeate reading and viewing cole's livmmunities. These discourses are the resources used in constructing the everyday realities of all people's lives" (p.35). Her emphasis lays on consumers' their own meaning making, which may not be the same as intended by the museum curators or art creators. [I argue, however, this meaning making process itself is not free from power dynamics that intermingle with the system of art making and displaying.]
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Interrupting the sign: The asethetics of research texts
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. & Barone, T. (1998). In J. Jipson & N. Paley (Eds.), Daredevel research: Recreating analytic practice (pp.83-107).
The authors argue that often displayed in ethnographic research, linear chronology hides negotiation and recursion that occurs throughout conversations by isolating individuals from the context. Moreover, in pointing out the linearity that constitutes the rhetoric of the standard research paper/presentation format, they advocate intervention of readers in relation to the authoritative power of canonical text formats by writing, "A non-standard format prompts a careful search for the warrant of the report, indeed, militates against acceptance of the validity of the report. The authority of the text comes at the expense of the power of the reader to question the ramification of the canonical textual format" (p. 87).
While most texts follow in conventional ways so that readers can focus more on the content than the form of a text, the authors assert that a text is intrinsically free from the author's intentions and can be subverted and such non-conventional reading can be demanded through non-conventional forms. Thus, form and content, signified and signifier in deconstruction are conflated into a whole entity in their argument: "The activity of sense-making afforded by the lack of familiar anchors may even become a kind of aesthetic experience, an experience in which form and content, signifier and signified become a powerful, synthetic, informative whole" (pp. 90-91).
Lastly, in their discussion about soliloquy as a form of data display, they address that although individuals go through their daily life in integrity without a feeling of 'disjunctures' of characters, transcript display only fragments individual speech and even hide the sense of personal coherence.
The authors argue that often displayed in ethnographic research, linear chronology hides negotiation and recursion that occurs throughout conversations by isolating individuals from the context. Moreover, in pointing out the linearity that constitutes the rhetoric of the standard research paper/presentation format, they advocate intervention of readers in relation to the authoritative power of canonical text formats by writing, "A non-standard format prompts a careful search for the warrant of the report, indeed, militates against acceptance of the validity of the report. The authority of the text comes at the expense of the power of the reader to question the ramification of the canonical textual format" (p. 87).
While most texts follow in conventional ways so that readers can focus more on the content than the form of a text, the authors assert that a text is intrinsically free from the author's intentions and can be subverted and such non-conventional reading can be demanded through non-conventional forms. Thus, form and content, signified and signifier in deconstruction are conflated into a whole entity in their argument: "The activity of sense-making afforded by the lack of familiar anchors may even become a kind of aesthetic experience, an experience in which form and content, signifier and signified become a powerful, synthetic, informative whole" (pp. 90-91).
Lastly, in their discussion about soliloquy as a form of data display, they address that although individuals go through their daily life in integrity without a feeling of 'disjunctures' of characters, transcript display only fragments individual speech and even hide the sense of personal coherence.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Carlos Flores
(2007). Sharing Anthropology: Collaborative Video Experiences among Maya Film-makers in Post-war Guatemala. In S. Pink (Ed.), Visual Interpretations: Applied Visual Anthropology (pp. 209-224). NY: Berg.
Following up Jean Rouch's notion of 'shared anthropology' within the postmodern thinking of multivocality where a researcher's subjectivity and univocal representation are challenged, Flores embarked on film-making with local film makers in a Mayan community.
In his observance of the local filmmakers' less engagement in editing process, Flores realizes his position: while his presence was negligible during the shooting process because he was lack of local knowledge, his conventional post-production approaches might have constraint how the local filmmakers edited the rushes. More importantly he perceives the importance of individual and collective actions in establishing social power in Mayan communities. Those actions are regarded as services for the communities, thus the filmmakers already achieved social status and leadership through the actions of filmmaking in the community. [Through this statement, Flores, as Pink mentioned, repeats that the process of making is more important than the outcome products in shared filmmaking.]
Through his experience of recording traumatic experiences in a community under brutal militarism, he stresses that the memory apparatus employed in filmmaking was not only therapeutic acts of the community members but also an instrument to reframe fragmented past events within a social/political context.
In a collaborative yet contradictory situation, he suggests to find common grounds among participants with diverse existential and political backgrounds. [I think that continuous negotiations and discussions to get to common grounds are essential, although common grounds sound misleading if researchers don't count whose voices are more important. Values cannot be separated from the forms where they reside.]
Following up Jean Rouch's notion of 'shared anthropology' within the postmodern thinking of multivocality where a researcher's subjectivity and univocal representation are challenged, Flores embarked on film-making with local film makers in a Mayan community.
In his observance of the local filmmakers' less engagement in editing process, Flores realizes his position: while his presence was negligible during the shooting process because he was lack of local knowledge, his conventional post-production approaches might have constraint how the local filmmakers edited the rushes. More importantly he perceives the importance of individual and collective actions in establishing social power in Mayan communities. Those actions are regarded as services for the communities, thus the filmmakers already achieved social status and leadership through the actions of filmmaking in the community. [Through this statement, Flores, as Pink mentioned, repeats that the process of making is more important than the outcome products in shared filmmaking.]
Through his experience of recording traumatic experiences in a community under brutal militarism, he stresses that the memory apparatus employed in filmmaking was not only therapeutic acts of the community members but also an instrument to reframe fragmented past events within a social/political context.
In a collaborative yet contradictory situation, he suggests to find common grounds among participants with diverse existential and political backgrounds. [I think that continuous negotiations and discussions to get to common grounds are essential, although common grounds sound misleading if researchers don't count whose voices are more important. Values cannot be separated from the forms where they reside.]
Sarah Pink
(2007). Applied Visual Anthropology: Social Intervention and Visual Methods, In S. Pink (Ed.). Visual Interpretations: Applied Visual Anthropology (pp.3-28). NY: Berg.
In her definition of visual intervention as bridging gaps between applied and academic visual anthropology, the notion of social intervention interweaves naturally because applied visual anthropology usually entails problem solving and social changes through collaboration among participants. In this regard, Pink calls applied visual anthropology "cultural brokerage". Thus, what matters in applied visual anthropology, the author argues, is that it not the film itself but the collaborative and reflexive processes it undertakes as a means of generating enlightened self-awareness and identity among participants.
Whereas stating the contingency and fluidity of the definition of applied visual anthropology, the author points out its collaborative dimension as the most prevalent theme of this research method and delineates common methodological aspects in three categories: 1) although applied visual anthropology is given a shorter timescale compared to observational cinema type visual method, the means of collaborative knowledge production through participatory scripting practices makes this approach more effective. 2) In addition, this method is intrinsically project-based, which requires interdisciplinary collaborations with colleagues as well as with research participants. 3) Lastly, audiovisual texts created through this method brings forth individual experiences and narratives, whereby intrigues a new understanding of their one self identity while generating empathetic understanding of others' experience among the audience.
With regard to ethics that applied visual anthropology poses on top of the basic ethics code, Pink discuss it in two dimensions: image itself and participants. Pink argues that the interpretation and use of images should be considered and at the same time questions of ownership should be clarified, in particular, in case of unexpected commercial uses of the research materials. For that reason, Pink stresses participants' right to be informed with respect to dissemination as well as confidentiality. [I also add to this researcher-as-filmmaker's subjectivity. It is inevitable that a researcher-as-filmmaker sees social phenomena through his or her eyes and certain aspects of the phenomena are highlighted. While a filmmaker-as-artist may ignore questions of his or her subjectivity by taking an authorship of the material although it doesn't mean discard moral responsibilities entailing the film-making, a researcher will need to pay attention to sources of conflicts that might arise during the film-making. Pink insinuates collaborative scripting practice for this matter, but it requires the researcher's constant reflexivity at the bottom.]
In her definition of visual intervention as bridging gaps between applied and academic visual anthropology, the notion of social intervention interweaves naturally because applied visual anthropology usually entails problem solving and social changes through collaboration among participants. In this regard, Pink calls applied visual anthropology "cultural brokerage". Thus, what matters in applied visual anthropology, the author argues, is that it not the film itself but the collaborative and reflexive processes it undertakes as a means of generating enlightened self-awareness and identity among participants.
Whereas stating the contingency and fluidity of the definition of applied visual anthropology, the author points out its collaborative dimension as the most prevalent theme of this research method and delineates common methodological aspects in three categories: 1) although applied visual anthropology is given a shorter timescale compared to observational cinema type visual method, the means of collaborative knowledge production through participatory scripting practices makes this approach more effective. 2) In addition, this method is intrinsically project-based, which requires interdisciplinary collaborations with colleagues as well as with research participants. 3) Lastly, audiovisual texts created through this method brings forth individual experiences and narratives, whereby intrigues a new understanding of their one self identity while generating empathetic understanding of others' experience among the audience.
With regard to ethics that applied visual anthropology poses on top of the basic ethics code, Pink discuss it in two dimensions: image itself and participants. Pink argues that the interpretation and use of images should be considered and at the same time questions of ownership should be clarified, in particular, in case of unexpected commercial uses of the research materials. For that reason, Pink stresses participants' right to be informed with respect to dissemination as well as confidentiality. [I also add to this researcher-as-filmmaker's subjectivity. It is inevitable that a researcher-as-filmmaker sees social phenomena through his or her eyes and certain aspects of the phenomena are highlighted. While a filmmaker-as-artist may ignore questions of his or her subjectivity by taking an authorship of the material although it doesn't mean discard moral responsibilities entailing the film-making, a researcher will need to pay attention to sources of conflicts that might arise during the film-making. Pink insinuates collaborative scripting practice for this matter, but it requires the researcher's constant reflexivity at the bottom.]
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
3rd and 4th bibliography
Feb 9, 09
Dear Kay,
Again, going back to your 3rd bibliography, it's good to see you wrestling with Arendt and Weber.
It sounds as though you might want to read more of Arendt ... The Human Condition is the one that contains her political philosophy. However, The Origins of Totalitarianism might be the one of interest to you ... She also has books like : On Violence. Another: On Revolution.
Another philosophical book of hers, but that imparts her vision of history, is: Between Past and Future.
I'd have to go back to some of these to see how she develops her ideas. The one I know the best is The Human Condition. I spent a long time studying that book, especially the section on Action.
---------------------------
Some difficult and intensive but foundational readings ...
I'm glad to see you are embarking on these as well. They add depth. I'm also glad to see that you are engaging in tracing scholarship, as in your observation of where Marcus' writings were originally published; that can be useful information at some point.
In terms of subject matter: here are ways of conceptualizing "consumption" and "taste" and like concepts. Dewey falls short, critically, although you can make this clearer, perhaps by using the perspectives granted by the other theorists and bringing them to bear. Dewey has given us X but does not deliver on Y, etc., as in the manner that Kamler & Thomson suggest.
In the first annotation, what is the relationship between the first and the following paragraphs? I know that the first paragraph is grappling, in a short space, with difficult, complex concepts. What is their relationship to what follows?
Teresa
Dear Kay,
Again, going back to your 3rd bibliography, it's good to see you wrestling with Arendt and Weber.
It sounds as though you might want to read more of Arendt ... The Human Condition is the one that contains her political philosophy. However, The Origins of Totalitarianism might be the one of interest to you ... She also has books like : On Violence. Another: On Revolution.
Another philosophical book of hers, but that imparts her vision of history, is: Between Past and Future.
I'd have to go back to some of these to see how she develops her ideas. The one I know the best is The Human Condition. I spent a long time studying that book, especially the section on Action.
---------------------------
Some difficult and intensive but foundational readings ...
I'm glad to see you are embarking on these as well. They add depth. I'm also glad to see that you are engaging in tracing scholarship, as in your observation of where Marcus' writings were originally published; that can be useful information at some point.
In terms of subject matter: here are ways of conceptualizing "consumption" and "taste" and like concepts. Dewey falls short, critically, although you can make this clearer, perhaps by using the perspectives granted by the other theorists and bringing them to bear. Dewey has given us X but does not deliver on Y, etc., as in the manner that Kamler & Thomson suggest.
In the first annotation, what is the relationship between the first and the following paragraphs? I know that the first paragraph is grappling, in a short space, with difficult, complex concepts. What is their relationship to what follows?
Teresa
Sunday, February 8, 2009
"Let's not leave this problem"
"Let's not leave this problem": exploring inclusive education in rural South Africa
(Mitchell, C., De Lange, N., & Xuan Thuy, N. (2008). Prospects, 38, 99-122, UNESCO)
This article presents a participatory video project undertaken among teachers in a rural South Africa as an effective method to bring about inclusive education with bottom-up grassroots policy making in mind. In defining inclusion, the authors interpret Slee's (1998) term, "supported inclusion" to stress making provision for necessary support of learners in the mainstream class, which practically does not exist in rural South Africa. Upon describing the scripts of the short videos (Needy learners and Poverty) produced by the participant teachers and immediate actions taken after the screenings, the authors emphasize video making as a medium for community engagement[how? why?] and list constructedness, reflexivity and collectivity as the most critical components while working with teachers. By constructedness the authors mean the understanding of socially constructed knowledge through nothing-for-granted selection process involved in video making, as explained as "nothing is accidental". Reflexivity is refered to as being aware of their own images and representation in mass media while collectivity is explained as a strong sense of a collective response built through participating in multiple roles such as viewers, actors, technicians, etc. With regard to the importance of collective response, the authors write, "in the case of gender violence, which is social in nature and multi-layered in meaning, the collective response is vital."
As the significance of visual methodologies, the authors affirm that it not only made possible a deeper understanding of the problems but also better informed inclusive education policy by bringing in the insiders' voice inclusively. In stressing inclusive education, the authors argue that inclusion requires new types of research that empower both teachers and students with voice and authority. Inclusion, in this article, is vividly described through the lens of Allan's (2005) "politics of desire": "the only possible way to undertake this process is to actually be attracted to change, to want it, the way we want a lover--in the flesh" (Braidotti).
------------
Allan, J. (2005). Inclusion as an ethical project. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Slee, R. (1998). The politics of theorizing special education. In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.), Theorising special education (pp. 126–136). London: Routledge.
(Mitchell, C., De Lange, N., & Xuan Thuy, N. (2008). Prospects, 38, 99-122, UNESCO)
This article presents a participatory video project undertaken among teachers in a rural South Africa as an effective method to bring about inclusive education with bottom-up grassroots policy making in mind. In defining inclusion, the authors interpret Slee's (1998) term, "supported inclusion" to stress making provision for necessary support of learners in the mainstream class, which practically does not exist in rural South Africa. Upon describing the scripts of the short videos (Needy learners and Poverty) produced by the participant teachers and immediate actions taken after the screenings, the authors emphasize video making as a medium for community engagement[how? why?] and list constructedness, reflexivity and collectivity as the most critical components while working with teachers. By constructedness the authors mean the understanding of socially constructed knowledge through nothing-for-granted selection process involved in video making, as explained as "nothing is accidental". Reflexivity is refered to as being aware of their own images and representation in mass media while collectivity is explained as a strong sense of a collective response built through participating in multiple roles such as viewers, actors, technicians, etc. With regard to the importance of collective response, the authors write, "in the case of gender violence, which is social in nature and multi-layered in meaning, the collective response is vital."
As the significance of visual methodologies, the authors affirm that it not only made possible a deeper understanding of the problems but also better informed inclusive education policy by bringing in the insiders' voice inclusively. In stressing inclusive education, the authors argue that inclusion requires new types of research that empower both teachers and students with voice and authority. Inclusion, in this article, is vividly described through the lens of Allan's (2005) "politics of desire": "the only possible way to undertake this process is to actually be attracted to change, to want it, the way we want a lover--in the flesh" (Braidotti).
------------
Allan, J. (2005). Inclusion as an ethical project. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Slee, R. (1998). The politics of theorizing special education. In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.), Theorising special education (pp. 126–136). London: Routledge.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Cinematic Society and The Reflexive Interview
(Norman Denzin. (2003). In J.F. Cubrium & J.A. Holstein (eds.), Postmodernism Interviewing (pp. 141-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage)
In writing "we inhabit a secondhand world" (p. 141)where we experience only representations of the world, Denzin names the contemporary society postmodern cinematic society--"the society that knows itself through the reflective gaze of the cinematic apparatus". The birth of cinematic surveillance in the early 20th century, he explains, made the society exceptionally prone to listening and looking, and this tendency brought about interview society as a consequence of the advent of cinematic realism such as color and sound as well as the emergence of journalistic reporting in mid 1920s. He observes expansions of the use of interview in all sectors of social life and studies such that "the interview society has turned the confessional mode of discourse into a public form of entertainment" and "a public commodity".
He categorizes into four formats the machinery of interview that the interview society takes: objectively neutral format, entertainment and investigative format, collaborative or active format and reflective interview format. By reflexive interview format he means careful interpretation of hidden meanings by paying attention to details and deconstructing the interview itself.
In reviewing "technological apparatus that produce truthful statement" from M. Trinh (1991, When the Moon Waxes Red: Representation, Gender and Cultural Politics. NY: Routledge; p.39), he agrees with Trinh on the influences of documentary interview style on the culture of cinematic society: that is, a filmmaker-as-interivewer sculpts the illusion that viewers watch unmediated reality by using the apparatus and this became predominant cinematic practice in American culture, in particular TV commercials and news. Echoing Trinh's emphasis on reflexive reading, Denzin reminds us that reality is socially constructed and writes, "Filmmaking and documentary interviewing thus become methods of "framing" reality".
In writing "we inhabit a secondhand world" (p. 141)where we experience only representations of the world, Denzin names the contemporary society postmodern cinematic society--"the society that knows itself through the reflective gaze of the cinematic apparatus". The birth of cinematic surveillance in the early 20th century, he explains, made the society exceptionally prone to listening and looking, and this tendency brought about interview society as a consequence of the advent of cinematic realism such as color and sound as well as the emergence of journalistic reporting in mid 1920s. He observes expansions of the use of interview in all sectors of social life and studies such that "the interview society has turned the confessional mode of discourse into a public form of entertainment" and "a public commodity".
He categorizes into four formats the machinery of interview that the interview society takes: objectively neutral format, entertainment and investigative format, collaborative or active format and reflective interview format. By reflexive interview format he means careful interpretation of hidden meanings by paying attention to details and deconstructing the interview itself.
In reviewing "technological apparatus that produce truthful statement" from M. Trinh (1991, When the Moon Waxes Red: Representation, Gender and Cultural Politics. NY: Routledge; p.39), he agrees with Trinh on the influences of documentary interview style on the culture of cinematic society: that is, a filmmaker-as-interivewer sculpts the illusion that viewers watch unmediated reality by using the apparatus and this became predominant cinematic practice in American culture, in particular TV commercials and news. Echoing Trinh's emphasis on reflexive reading, Denzin reminds us that reality is socially constructed and writes, "Filmmaking and documentary interviewing thus become methods of "framing" reality".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
