Knowledge at the birth of knowledge by Christian Suhr Nielsen https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp Upload 1-2 sentences with the most interesting idea you got from reading the texts or a question about something you simply didn’t understand or strongly disagree with en-us 2018-07-31 11:17:28 UTC 2019-09-06 12:00:49 UTC hello@padlet.com Chr Suhr christiansuhr https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/271545641 I dont understand Mead and Bateson's quarrels about tripods - should I use a tripod or not?]]> 2018-07-31 11:22:18 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/271545641 Nicole Miller nicole_m_miller24 https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/277746474 MacDougall’s mention of an “anthropology of consciousness” is refreshing in comparison to Hastrup and Mead's perspectives, in that he recognizes the limitless possibilities of film and it’s potential to enhance the range and means by which ethnography is done through incorporation of  emotion, sensory elements, and creative input.


]]> 2018-09-04 20:19:31 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/277746474 Ida https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/277852655 Does Hastrup fail to recognize the communicative possibilities of the visual? - that you by using camera can reach a wider audience?  When it comes to collecting data, I would agree that you need the textual aspect as well. Her analogy with the visual and textual to space and place, and thick and thin descriptions seems harsh. I have seen movies and pictures, where I definitely felt that the space was communicated as much as the place. 

On another note, I would like to go deeper into Macdougall's concepts of seeing and "seeing", along with his use of metaphors and general challenge of Hastrup's views.  ]]> 2018-09-05 06:40:33 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/277852655 Shub https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/278312659 I found it very refreshing to read this section in David MacDougall text. I believe MacDougall points out a really important matter:

'... These forms include the commonalities being human that are taken as given and are therefore usually left out of written ethnographic descriptions - in part because the writers' interests lie elsewhere ... Yet every visual image of a person explicitly redundantly shows this.'
(MacDougall 1998: 246)]]> 2018-09-06 08:22:32 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/278312659 Silvia scdogaru https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/278328871 I loved this piece of 'anthro-poetry', that I found in MacDougall's text, about the red thin line between love and loss, when in comes to filmmaking (and creation, in general, I might add):

'In sharing the worlds of others so intimately, it is possible to lose sight of your own boundaries. 
It is not uncommon to discover yourself inhabited by your own subjects. Long after making a film, you sometimes feel in yourself a gesture or hear in your mind an intonation of voice that is not your own. Filmmakers and film viewers have this in common, that things seen and heard are capable of reaching out and possessing us. The possession is not so much a matter of spirit as of material being. It may come from how someone moves, speaks, stands in a room, or handles an object. We nevertheless experience it in ourselves - how it is to be someone else in the world. 
Our consciousness comes alive in watching others' actions, which resemble but differ from our own.'

]]> 2018-09-06 09:36:49 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/278328871 Fine https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/278542995 Hastrup raises the question of the invisibility (of sensory experience) in visual modes of representation. I find this an interesting point of departure for rethinking the possibility of film to transgress its two-dimensional nature. How is it possible to "catch an atmosphere" or stimulate a (sensory) perception beyond the visual/ rational content ?]]> 2018-09-06 16:59:24 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/278542995 Rosa https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/379956515 "What is immediately conveyed by ethnographic films is cultural difference; that is what gets on the map. The inherrent anthropological problem is that it creates a gulf between 'us' and 'them', and thus in spite of itself may be implicitly racist. (…) The inherent problem in visual representation is exactly that; that it reifies and freezes cultural difference" (Hastrup 1992:19).
What a death sentence to pass over ethnographic film! I picked out this paragraph because, even though I dont agree, her statement haunts me a bit. Was a delight to read MacDougalls views afterwards. Still, can we connect some reflections or comments to this claim? ]]> 2019-09-04 15:00:22 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/379956515 Karin https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380612473 Hastrup mentions the possibilities of scrolling the pages of a book or another text as an advantage for the reader. However, the text was written in 1992 and now the option of scrolling and repeating is often possible for videos too. Would this be something that affects her arguments?]]> 2019-09-05 19:00:03 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380612473 Jakob https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380635157
"It is therefore quite possible to see without looking. Can one learn to look more attentively?" (MacDougall 2008: 7)
Seeing without looking is something we all do from time to time; flow tv, speed scrooling through social media, reading the newspaper etc. 
So, for me this is one of the most interesting questions. Not only how we can learn to look more attentively, but if we can learn to make images or films that creates (and not just demands) a deeper form of attention. Perhaps some methods can dull or even remove the fear of looking for the audience - even if it's just for a moment.

]]> 2019-09-05 19:51:05 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380635157 Charlotte https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380754479 Mead and Bateson discusses scientific film versus artsy films. Where is the line between these two and are there not many examples of films that can display scientific material in a artsy way today? 

]]> 2019-09-06 05:22:59 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380754479 Hannah hannah511 https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380830531 Hastrup insists that, "[...] 'the text is not to be seen as a depiction or a revelation within itself in what it says, but is to be 'seen through' by what it cannot say, to show what it cannot say and say what it cannot show' (ibid., p.197). It is this transparency which is the most powerful feature of the ethnographic text by comparison to the ethnographic film, which cannot be seen through, because it is already visual."(Hastrup, 1992. p.20) Yet could one argue that film analysis, as we do orally in class for example and based on theoretical work, is precisely an attempt at "seeing through" the film, in conveying purpose and meaning to the visuals we are presented?]]> 2019-09-06 11:43:23 UTC https://padlet.com/christiansuhr/9ggcbcq1mpdp/wish/380830531