#amirightorwrong

The first class on visual anthropology, I was worried . Coming from Cultural Heritage Studies, experienced in documentary movie making I am started to doubt myself on my capacity to learn the new perspective on how you can produce and view movies. I am always afraid of academia, from one side it expands understanding of this world, from another it just limits it with the theoretical frames. And here we go first reading is Lycien Taylor text on “Iconophobia”, I was on another side “Academiaphobia”. Going through the text I started to understand that I am more protecting filmmakers here, even if it is ethnographic filmmakers. For example “Visuality itself becomes merely ancillary, illustrative rather than constitutive of anthropological knowledge.” My argument here is why the ethnographical movie perceived so superficial, and cannot compete with written text? It‘s the question of what filmmaker can miss in his or her work what anthropologists would observe?! Also, who are ethnographical filmmakers in a filmmaking scene are they academics or filmmakers? Why anthropologists afraid of visual evidence, as the documentary? Is it because when observed characters see the camera it turns to reenactment? It’s it like this only when they see a camera, or it is human nature that we change our attitude when someone observes us?! Or iconophobia evoked by fear that the director shows only what he or she wants to show? Why we are not considering that anthropological text can do the same? Even worse, reinterpret what he or she observed in his/ her way or capacity of knowledge in this field? There are too many questions why maybe because I am not an anthropologist and it’s hard for me to understand their iconophobic point. Or maybe they just afraid that someone who uses film as can reveal that they were wrong on some points? But with this sense, I also came up with more why questions. Why anthropology does not describe the feelings of people who observed, feelings towards being observed? Remembering myself now when I perfectly know than someone staring at me even if not directly to understand who I am. My attitude will change depending on who is this person and what I want this person to think about me. Is it the same with an anthropologist who spends years in his/she fieldwork to write a new masterpiece?! How objective can be this observation and framing of one who probably knows nothing about others, especially do not know how they feel about it. Yes, you can depict, grasp some way of living, tradition, social roles and ect. but how you can be sure that you get it right?! The example of "Them and Me", Stéphane Breton brings us to the other side of the anthropologist world, but we still do know how "They" really feel about it. Another point on the text: “Film, Hastrup goes on to say, consists of no more than concrete images of what-once-was, while text transcends the particular and conveys a more comprehensive truth, the truth of the "ethnographic present." It does not mean that the film does not provide us with the truth, maybe it is just limited by viewer knowledge, movie perception, and reinterpretation. It is limited with time and space, but it is can be true within its frames. It also can open the doors for the viewer to question what was not shown and described or how it was shown and described. So it gives more space for reflection. My last point will be on:” To me, the most striking quality of these examples is the extraordinary anxiety the academic authors evince toward images, especially film image. The fear that films will somehow destroy or discredit their anthropological makers and viewers.” For me this anxiety can come from two points: 1. Is it only about the truthfulness of the movie? How true is it in comparison with academic text? 2. Is it anxiety to reveal that Accademia also can be wrong and we do not need someone’s imposed knowledge on our way of living with theoretical restrictions and frames?!