PROMISLJANJE TRADICIONALNOG U ETNOGRAFSKOM FILMU: Reprezentacija, etika i autohtonost/KOMENTARI/OSVRT NA KOMENTARE

Abstract

Cinema has been an important instrument in the colonialist production of the ethnographic Other. Images create concepts as well as embody cultural concepts. They enact symbolic forms of power. Ethnographic ^lm is not only a representation of reality but also a construction and an interpretation of another reality based on cultural conventions from the ^lmmaker's culture. Therefore we are challenged to discuss whether it is possible to present cultural knowledge "di^erently"; that is, to question historically, culturally, politically and ideologically bound hierarchies implicit in colonial culture? Do images embody cultural knowledge as Sol Worth and John Adair (1972, 1981) claimed? W hose knowledge do they present? What values images have in Western cultures as opposed to non- Western worlds? Do images necessarily "victimize" the Other (Ruby 1991; Kuehnast 1992; Hall 1993)? Ethnographic ^lm theory has been an ongoing discussion of issues of objectivity, subjectivity, realism, and ethical questions of representation. In recent years ethnographic ^lmmakers have looked for solutions, and new approaches to documentary ^lmmaking have provided some answers to these questions. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Film je bio zna^ajan instrument kolonijalne proizvodnje etnografskog Drugog. Predodzbe stvaraju koncepte te otjelovljuju kulturne koncepte. One provode simboli^ke oblike mo^i. Etnografski ^lm nije samo reprezentacija stvarnosti, ve^ i konstrukcija i interpretacija neke druge stvarnosti na temelju konvencija redateljeve kulture. Tako smo suo^eni s pitanjem je li kulturno znanje mogu^e predstaviti "druga^ije"; drugim rije^ima, je li mogu^e propitati povijesno, kulturno, politi^ki i ideoloski uvjetovane hijerarhije kolonijalne kulture? Otjelovljuju li predodzbe kulturno znanje, kako to tvrde Sol Worth i John Adair (1972, 1981)? ^ije znanje predstavljaju? Kakvu vrijednost imaju predodzbe u zapadnja^koj kulturi u usporedbi s nezapadnim svijetom? "Viktimiziraju" li slike nuzno Drugoga (Ruby 1991; Kuehnast 1992; Hall 1993)? U sklopu teorije etnografskog ^lma kontinuirano se raspravlja o pitanjima objektivnosti, subjektivnosti, realizma te o eti^kim pitanjima reprezentacije. Posljednjih godina autori etnografskih ^lmova traze rjesenja, a novi pristupi reziranju dokumentaraca daju neke odgovore na ta pitanja.

Klju^ne rije^i: etnografski ^lm, etika, reprezentacija, Drugi

Izmjestanje Drugoga

Proces gledanja Drugoga ne moze se jednostavno racionalizirati. Podjela na "nas" i "njih" duboko je ukorijenjena u antropologiji i etnografskom ^lmu. Kako tvrdi Bill Nichols, "lo- kacija Drugoga antropologije mozda se ne nalazi toliko u drugoj kulturi, koliko, takore^i, u antropoloskom nesvjesnom" (1991:32). Nesvjesno je uobi^ajeni naziv za sve osobitosti, konvencije i forme koje zapadnja^ki gledatelj nesvjesno koristi kada konstruira znanje o Drugome. Romanti^na estetizacija Drugoga duboko je ukorijenjena u zapadnja^ki um. Povi- jest etnografskog ^lma je tako povijest proizvodnje Drugosti. Kathleen Kuehnast taj proces naziva "vizualnim imperijalizmom": "Vizualni imperijalizam je kolonizacija svjetskoga uma pomo^u selektivnih predodzbi koje sluze kao reprezentacija dominantne ideologije ili, sto je ^esto slu^aj, kao reprezentacija istine" (1992:185). Skup rasnih stereotipa dominantne kulture uvjetuje predodzbu koju gledatelj dobiva o Drugome. U fantaziji koju proizvodi an- tropologija, Drugi se smatra blizim "prirodnom" stanju ^ovje^anstva. Monopolisti^ka kon- trola nad vizualnim medijem od strane dominantne kulturne skupine sprje^ava promicanje suprotne ideologije od strane pod^injenih, autohtonih i manjinskih naroda.

"Realisti^ke konvencije" koje etno-sineast koristi mogu se razlikovati od konvencija dru- gih kultura. Posljedica toga je da se zbog dominantnih konvencija etnografskog ^lma neka drustva doimaju pristupa^nima, racionalnima i privla^nima, a druga ^udnima (MacDougall 1998:141). Kulturna nekompatibilnost duboko je ukorijenjena u sustavu reprezentacije. Vizualne predodzbe, jednako kao nase poimanje stvarnosti, drustveno su konstruirane ko- munikacijske forme. Stoga je potrebno istraziti nasa upisivanja u kulturnog Drugoga kako bismo razotkrili kako nase interpretacije reproduciraju hegemonijski diskurs. Pozitivisti^ka kulturna antropologija temeljila se na pretpostavci da vizualni antropolozi trebaju predstav- ljati svijet onako kako ga vidi Drugi. Antropolozima je pripisivana mo^ svjedo^enja totaliteta doga^aja. Vizualna se reprezentacija smatrala privilegiranim oblikom znanja, objektivnim i vjerodostojnim. Svevide^i i sveznaju^i autori etnografskih ^lmova nisu o^ekivali odgovor od svojih subjekata.

Novi, vise kolaborativni pristupi u stvaranju etnografskih ^lmova koji su se po^eli po- javljivati 1960-ih, pokazali su kako je nemogu^e promatrati Drugoga i ostati neprimije^en.1 Kako tvrdi MacDougall, "nijedan etnografski ^lm nije tek zapis o drugom drustvu: on je uvijek zapis o susretu autora i tog drustva" (1998:134).2 Danas je uobi^ajeno da autori sura- ^uju s onima koje snimaju, sto za sobom povla^i pitanje autorstva. Kolaborativni, suradni^ki ^lmovi i ^lmovi zajednice su samo neki od primjera novih formi zajedni^kog autorstva ono- ga koji snima i onih koje se snima. Pomak prema viseglasnim etnografskim ^lmovima doveo je do promjene paradigme u odnosu izme^u promatra^a i promatranoga. Po^elo se ponov- no promisljati o moralnim implikacijama etnografskog autorstva. Zahtjevi za zajedni^kim autorstvom traze korjenite promjene na^ina na koje se proizvode predodzbe. Propituje se ideja objektivnosti, jednako kao i nase pretpostavke o prirodi dokumentarnog i etnografskog ^lma. U suradni^kim etnografskim ^lmovima reprezentacija Drugoga za sobom povla^i pita- nje odgovornosti i legitimiteta; mo^i i autorstva.

Prema Jayu Rubyju (1991:58), kako bi se napravio istinski kolaborativni ^lm, sve strane moraju biti jednako kompetentne, a suradnja mora postojati u svim fazama produkcije. Ruby sumnja da je suradnja zaista mogu^a jer ne postoji tehni^ka jednakost me^u svim sudionici- ma. Drugi problem ti^e se prijenosa znanja subjektima. Ruby (ibid.:58) tvrdi da je etnograf- ski ^lm alat za stjecanje mo^i i kontrole nad Drugim. Stoga je ^ak i u kolaborativnim projek- tima autohtone zajednice nemogu^e podu^iti tehnikama snimanja, a da ih se u isto vrijeme ne podu^i zapadnja^kim ^lmskim konvencijama. Mogli bismo re^i kako je ova pretpostavka proizvod kolonijalnog zapadnja^kog uma koji pretpostavlja da autohtoni ^lmski autori nisu u stanju razviti vlastitu estetiku, neovisnu od zapadnja^ke tradicije. Ili da je neizbjezno da postanu zrtve zapadnja^kih medija ^im usvoje tehni^ke vjestine (zajedno sa zapadnja^kim na^inima reprezentacije). Jay Ruby (1995) tvrdi da antropolozi i autori etnografskih ^lmova ne mogu pobje^i moralnoj odgovornosti prema kulturi koju predstavljaju bez obzira na me- todu koju koriste. U isto vrijeme preuzimaju odgovornost i prema gledateljima; osje^aju se duznima otkriti neke strategije reprezentacije kojima se sluze putem referentnijih tekstualnih konstrukcija Drugoga.3

Dok je Ruby skepti^an po pitanju promjena u postkolonijalnom etnografskom ^lmu, Faye Ginsburg (1995) postmoderni etnografski ^lm vidi kao mogu^nost predstavljanja glasova manjinskih naroda na globalnoj razini. Usprkos razlikama izme^u etnografskih ^l- mova ^iji su autori zapadnja^ki vizualni antropolozi i onih ^iji su autori subjekti, vizualna bi antropologija trebala analizirati i jedne i druge. Autohtone ^lmove ne treba dozivljavati kao prijetnju niti oni trebaju zamijeniti etnografski ^lm. Ne implicira se kako je u postko- lonijalnoj vizualnoj antropologiji Drugi nestao ili je izgubljen, kako tvrdi Ruby (1995:77). On je postao slozeniji entitet. Cilj vizualne antropologije kao znanosti nije privilegiranje ili isklju^ivanje bilo koje od metoda stvaranja etnografskog ^lma, ve^ prihva^anje njihova supo- stojanja. To ne implicira nuzno da kolaborativni i autohtoni ^lmovi destabiliziraju vizualnu antropologiju. Upravo suprotno, oni predstavljaju korak naprijed prema stvaranju autore- ^eksivnih etnografskih ^lmova koji bi mogli zamijeniti bestjelesnu i neutralnu zapadnja^ku reprezentaciju. Kao takvi, oni predstavljaju izazov promatra^kom dokumentarnom ^lmu kao dominantnoj praksi.

Od zajedni?kog autorstva do etnografskih filmova koje stvaraju subjekti

Postkolonijalni etnografski ^lm preokrenuo je "spasiteljski" model reprezentacije (Cli^ord 1986:112) i dao prostora druga^ijim povijestima i glasovima. Ti novi glasovi potkopali su autoritet i dominaciju zapadnja^kog diskursa, sto se moze shvatiti kao dio sireg procesa koji George Marcus i Michael Fischer (1986) nazivaju "krizom reprezentacije". Dok je prije ne- koliko desetlje^a istrazivanje drugih kultura podrazumijevalo gledanje ^lmova o "njima" kao razli^itih od "nas", novija produkcija zamagljuje tu ostru granicu. "Mi" nije univerzalni entitet koji implicira dominantno bijelu, musku publiku. "Njihovi" se glasovi tako^er predstavljaju i oni imaju priliku utjecati na na^in na koji ih drugi zele predstaviti. S pojavom novih glasova i pogleda promijenio se i proces konstrukcije antropoloskog znanja: on nije jednosmjeran, ve^ se radi o dijaloskoj praksi suprotstavljanja autohtonog znanja i zapadnja^kog pogleda. U postkolonijalnim etnografskim ^lmovima oni koji su u proslosti bili snimani sada preuzimaju pravo kontrole nad predodzbama njih samih. Autori vise nemaju prava koristiti bestjelesni i depersonalizirani diskurs znanja i mo^i. Ovo Griersonovo naslje^e4 u dokumentarnom ^lmu radikalno je uzdrmano etnografskim ^lmovima koje stvaraju subjekti. "Njihovo" otjelovljeno iskustvo na ekranu rekon^gurira reprezentaciju; oni vise nisu tek prou^avani subjekti, ve^ aktivni glasovi u proizvodnji "stvarnoga".

Pretpostavlja se kako autohtoni etnografski ^lmovi daju glas onima koji ga nemaju; pod- ^injenim marginaliziranim skupinama kojima je ranije uskra^ivan pristup sredstvima za proi- zvodnju predodzaba o sebi samima. Tradicionalni "bozji glas" postao je tek jedan od mnogih i izgubio svoj apsolutni autoritet. Pomak od promatra^a prema promatranome dekonstruira interpretaciju antropologije kao prou^avanja drugih. ^in reprezentacije nije vise tako jedno- zna^an kao sto je nekad bio; politika lokacije i pitanja otjelovljenja ti^u se onoga koji snima i onoga kojeg se snima. Autohtoni etnografski ^ lmovi izbjegavaju naratora koji govori u ime zajednice. Nove su forme re^eksivnije i interaktivnije i za autora i za gledatelja. Postkolo- nijalni ^lmovi koje stvaraju subjekti ne generaliziraju i ne zaklju^uju; oni se temelje na su- bjektivnim narativima subjekata koji su osobno i tjelesno uklju^eni u proizvodnju zna^enja i reprezentacije. Catherine Russell (1999) te nove potkategorije etnografskog ^lma naziva "eksperimentalnom etnogra^jom", te tvrdi da su postmoderni etnografski ^lmovi prvenstve- no politi^ki i drustveno angazirana djela, a da njihov glavni cilj nije samo uklju^iti Drugoga u modernost, ve^ i preispitati uvjete realisti^ke reprezentacije.

Eksperimentalna etnogra^ja obuhva^a i rekonceptualizaciju povijesne prirode Drugosti, uklju^uju^i ne samo na^in na koji je Drugi bio (i jos uvijek jest) konstruiran u kolonijalnom diskursu, ve^ i na^in na koji su kulturna razlika i "autenti^nost" povezani u postkolonijalnoj sadasnjosti i budu^nosti (ibid.:11).

Proces davanja mo^i subjektu ne podrazumijeva automatsko izjedna^avanje pozicije antropologa i autohtonog autora. Prostor dan autohtonim autorima u ve^ini je slu^ajeva rezerviran za ^lmove o zivotu i kulturi njihove vlastite zajednice. ^esto ih se podsje^a na teritorijalne granice u kojima bi trebali ostati. Dokumentaristi^ku preciznost ne jam^i nji- hovo obrazovanje, kao sto je to slu^aj sa zapadnja^kim antropolozima, ve^ ^injenica da kao insajderi mogu s autoritetom govoriti o vlastitoj kulturi. Davanje kamere u ruke domoroda^- kom autoru povla^i za sobom pitanja autenti^nosti takozvanog autohtonog znanja. Ne bismo smjeli pretpostavljati kako su ^lmovi o drugim kulturama, ^ak i kad ih stvaraju pripadnici te iste kulture, objektivniji ili vjerodostojniji. Nijedna skupina nema privilegirani uvid u vlastitu kulturu. Iako se idealnim etnografskim ^lmom smatrao onaj u kojem je predodzba o drugoj kulturi predstavljena kao oblik kulturnoga znanja, u postkolonijalnoj vizualnoj antropologiji to je "znanje" ograni^eno na ideje rase i etniciteta. Filmovi o drugim kulturama koje stvaraju pripadnici tih kultura nisu nuzno reprezentativniji za njihovu vlastitu kulturu i narod.

Radi se o paradoksu kolonijalnog uma: ono sto Autsajder o^ekuje od Insajdera jest, ustvari, projekcija sveznaju^eg subjekta koji Autsajder obi^no pripisuje sebi i onima sli^nima sebi. (...) Drugost postaje osnazuju^a kriti^na razlika kada se ne daje, nego kada se ponovno stvara. (Minh-Ha 1991:70-71)

Mjesto domoroca uvijek je vrlo dobro ograni^eno u globalnom ^lmu i medijima. Minh-Ha vidi nove forme autore^eksivnog etnografskog ^lma kao mehanizme "razotkrivanja djelova- nja ideologije" (ibid.:77), ^iji je cilj stvaranje autenti^nije predodzbe o Drugome. Ona kri- tizira konvencije etnografske objektivnosti i podjelu izme^u onih "tamo" i nas "ovdje". Ta podjela, prema njezinom misljenju, implicira da je Drugi postvaren te da su autor i gledatelj subjekti percepcije. Utopijski projekt postkolonijalne etnogra^je, tvrdi Minh-Ha, jest nadi^i binarnu opoziciju izme^u sebe i Drugoga.

Mapiranje etnografskog filma u digitalnoj eri

Etnografski ^lm zadobiva nova zna^enja u postmodernom dobu, zahvaljuju^i transformaci- jama Drugoga u digitalnoj eri. Zamagljuju se granice izme^u etnografskog ^lma s jedne, i vi- dea i novih formi mehani^ke i elektroni^ke reprodukcije s druge strane. Koristenje digitalnog videa postalo je rutinski dio antropoloskog terenskog rada. Rezultat toga je i preispitivanje prihva^enog kanona etnografskog ^lma. Tehnoloske inovacije sredstava proizvodnje donije- le su promjene u na^inu distribucije etnografskih audiovizualnih radova. Sve vise me^una- rodnih i alternativnih distribucijskih kanala (kao sto su ^lmski festivali) olaksava disemina- ciju etnografskog ^lma na globalnoj razini. Novi mediji daju priliku autohtonim narodima da kontroliraju predodzbe o sebi. Suvremeni autohtoni ^lm i video koriste se kao uvjerljiva sredstva u pregovaranju ili odrzavanju kulturnog identiteta. Polozaj Drugoga u globalnom multikulturnom svijetu podlozan je stalnim pregovorima i rede^nicijama, na sto utje^u politi^ke, drustvene i tehnoloske promjene. Slika se ne smatra ^istom reprezentacijom, ve^ politi^kim ^inom i alatom kontrole nad vlastitim kulturnim identitetom. Stvaraju se novi hi- bridni i interkulturni identiteti. Mnogi kolaborativni projekti, kao sto su Video nas aldeias (Video u selima), Kayapo Video Project (Kayapo video projekt), Alaska Native Heritage Project (Projekt aljaskog domoroda^kog naslje^a), Chiapas Media Project (Medijski projekt Chiapas), Ojo de Agua Comunicación, dali su mogu^nost autohtonim narodima da se upoznaju s video kamerom te da po^nu snimati vlastite video radove. Novi mediji bili su od koristi autohtonim zajednicama sirom svijeta, oni su postali njihov prozor u svijet. Predstavljanje njihove slike vlastite kulture dalo im je mogu^nost osporavanja kulturne hegemonije Zapada i mainstream sluzbenih drzavnih narativa. Mediji i ^lmovi pod kontrolom autohtonih zajednica igraju vaz- nu ulogu u kulturnim i politi^kim borbama. Oni se ne koriste pod izlikom o^uvanja domoro- ca koji izumire, ve^ kao alat trazenja politi^kih prava te u aktivisti^ke svrhe. Etnografski ^lm postao je platforma za proizvodnju politi^kih i drustvenih realnosti. "Pravo na reprezentaci- ju smatra se pravom kontrole nad vlastitim identitetom u svjetskoj areni" (Ruby 1991:51). Doslo je do zna^ajnog pomaka u na^inu na koji se autohtone zajednice predstavljaju; koriste video i medije za komunikaciju sa strukturama mo^i te za "ispravljanje" iskrivljene zapad- nja^ke slike o vlastitoj kulturi.

Polozaj etnografskog ^lma unutar vizualne antropologije promijenio se zahvaljuju^i transnacionalnom sirenju novih tehnologija koje su utjecale na estetiku etnografskog ^lma. Faye Ginsburg pozitivni je u^inak autohtone etnogra^je na vizualnu antropologiju opisala kao "efekt paralakse":

(...) autohtone medije moze se shvatiti i kao da nastaju iz historijski nove pozicije proma- tra^a iza kamere, tako da objekt - ^lmska reprezentacija kulture - izgleda druga^ije nego sto je to slu^aj iz promatra^ke perspektive etnografskog ^lma. Ipak , suprotstavljanjem ovih razli^itih, ali povezanih ^lmskih pogleda na kulturu, mogu^e je stvoriti svojevrstan efekt paralakse; ako se upotrijebe analiti^ki, ovi " blago razli^iti kutovi gledanja" mogu ponuditi potpunije razumijevanje kompleksnosti drustvenog fenomena koji nazivamo kulturom i onih medijskih reprezentacija koje se s njom sv jesno hvataju u kostac. Moj je argument kako je paralaksa koju stvaraju razli^ ite perspektive u ovim medijskim praksama klju^an dio odgovora na suvremene kritike etnografskog ^lma koji autohtone medije i srodne prak- se smatraju ^avlom u lijesu zanra. (Ginsburg 1995:65)

Pomak u poziciji subjekta donio je promjenu u proizvodnji etnografskih ^lmova. Nove forme dekoloniziranog etnografskog znanja zahtijevaju reviziju teorijskog okvira vizualne antropologije. Ginsburg naglasava vaznost otvaranja visestrukih perspektiva u vizualnoj an- tropologiji i prosirenja okvira koji moze obuhvatiti autohtoni ^lm, medije i druge drustvene prakse. Faye Ginsburg (1994) zanima upravo prosirenje granica polja vizualne antropologije. Tek analizom visestrukosti predstavlja^kih praksi mozemo shvatiti razli^ite na^ine razumije- vanja kulture. Kako bismo danas razumjeli etnografski ^lm, moramo ga promatrati u odnosu prema drugim kulturnim i medijskim formama (reality emisijama, ku^nim video snimkama, cyber-aktivizmom, video umjetnos^u, televizijskim i radijskim programima itd.). Masovni su mediji dugo smatrani tabuom za antropologiju, iako se ideja "antropologije vizualne komu- nikacije" javlja ve^ u radu Sola Wortha (1981). Sve ve^a dostupnost medija me^u ljudima koji su tradicionalno bili ti koje se snima zahtijeva ponovno promisljanje i prosirenje polja vizualne antropologije. Na takvo kriti^ko promisljanje tjera nas i teorijski pomak povezan s pitanjima etike, politike i poetike etnografske reprezentacije te utjecaj postkolonijalnih studi- ja na antropologiju. Kako bi se uokvirilo polje kulturne proizvodnje, nije dovoljno prou^avati samo etnografski ^lm, ve^ i druge oblike medijske potrosnje koji predstavljaju zna^ajna mjes- ta za istrazivanje kulturnih praksi na lokalnoj, regionalnoj i transnacionalnoj razini.

Etami Borjan

Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb

Etami Borjan

Odsjek za talijanistiku

Filozofski fakultet Sveu^ilista u Zagrebu

Ivana Lu^i^a 3

10 000 Zagreb

Hrvatska

[email protected]

Komentari

Etnografski video za dvadeset i prvo stolje?e

Tijekom dvadesetog stolje^a etnografski ^lm utemeljen je kao zanr etnografske prakse i re- prezentacije, doduse s mnogim varijacijama u stilu, svrsi i na^inima prakticiranja. Rasprava Etami Borjan taj proces stavlja u prvi plan, zajedno s jos nekim debatama i pitanjima koje su autori pokrenuli i s kojima su se susretali u tom razdoblju. Doista, u tom razdoblju pokrenuta su mnoga klju^na pitanja, kako Borjan navodi, koja su se ticala prava na predstavljanje drugih te na^ina na koji su etnografski ^lmovi bili (i jos uvijek jesu) dio aktivisti^kih projekata. Bor- jan navodi i kako pomak prema digitalnom videu utje^e na razvoj etnografskog ^lma. U tek- stu koji slijedi dotaknut ^u se obiju tema i komentirati zna^aj tih dvaju pomaka i tendencija. Prvo, odmi^u^i se pomalo od aktivisti^kog ^lma, fokusirat ^u se na to kako etnografski ^lm moze biti "aktivan" u drustvu, odnosno kako se moze iskoristiti u primijenjenim kontekstima te kakvih intervencija moze biti dijelom. Drugo, promisljat ^u dalje o nekim implikacijama ^injenice kako je ve^ina etnografskih ^lmova danas digitalna. Klju^na stvar koju trebamo imati na umu kada govorimo o "etnografskim" ^lmovima u suvremenom kontekstu je ta da vise ustvari ne govorimo o etnografskom ^lmu. Najvazniji medij za stvaranje etnografskih dokumentaraca te za koristenje audiovizualnih medija u etnografskom istrazivanju je digi- talni video.

Usporedo s razvojem etnografskog ^lma u dvadesetom stolje^u javlja se i serija kritika etnografskog ^lma. Borjan izdvaja neke od njih, ali postoje i druge, koje se rje^e spominju. Jedna od tih manje spominjanih fokusira se na pitanje njegove svrhe te na pitanje u kojoj mjeri etnografski ^lm nije ispunio ono sto se smatralo njegovim primijenjenim potencija- lom (vidi npr. Chalfen i Rich 2007). Dok su vode^i autori nastavili raditi ^lmove koji su bili hvaljeni i prikazivani na festivalima etnografskog ^lma, drugi klju^ni autori u polju vizualne antropologije koristili su ^lm, kasnije i video, kako bi razvijali primijenjena istrazivanja. Ti radovi stvarani su u iznimno vaznim poljima obrazovanja (npr. rad Johna Colliera Jnr., vidi Collier 2007) i zdravstva (npr. rad Richarda Chalfena, vidi Chalfen i Rich 2007), u kontekstu projekata koji su pokusavali nesto promijeniti u drustvu.

Moj cilj u ovom kratkom tekstu jest istaknuti tu drugu, sve vazniju ulogu prakse etno- grafskog ^lma, zapitati se koja bi mogla biti uloga i svrha etnografskog ^lma u drustvu koja bi isla dalje od stvaranja etnografskih ^lmova za prikazivanje drugim autorima na ^lmskim festivalima i studentima antropologije. Ne zelim re^i kako konvencionalni i vise akademski orijentirani etnografski ^lmovi nemaju vaznu ulogu; vjerujem da su oni vazni za razvoj tehni- ka etnografskog ^lma, znanosti o ^lmu te za istrazivanje i predstavljanje svjetova drugih ljudi. Me^utim, postoji jos jedna srodna uloga etnografskog ^lma, a to je njegov doseg izvan akade- mije. Na to ^u se ovdje usredoto^iti. Godine 1999. po^ela sam koristiti tehnike etnografskog videa u primijenjenim istrazivanjima (npr. Pink 2004), realiziraju^i potencijal takvih metoda izvan granica samog stvaranja ^lmova. Ipak, na moj su rad istovremeno utjecali i radovi au- tora koje sam prou^avala deset godina ranije, u Centru za vizualnu antropologiju Granada (Sveu^iliste u Manchesteru, Velika Britanija). Po^etkom 2000-ih, po^ela sam prou^avati kako drugi autori etnografskih ^lmova i vizualni antropolozi rade s tehnikama snimanja et- nografskih ^lmova, praksama i proizvodima u kontekstu primijenjenog istrazivanja. Rezultat toga bila je uredni^ka knjiga naslova Visual Interventions: Applied Visual Anthropology [Vi- zualne intervencije: primijenjena vizualna antropologija] (Pink 2007a), koja sadrzi radove brojnih autora ^lmova i znanstvenika ^ija praksa obuhva^a razli^ita podru^ja, poput zdravlja, katastrofa i postkon^iktna podru^ja te razvoj zajednice, kao i suradnju s industrijom. O tome sam pisala i u kasnijem eseju, u kojem sam iznijela azurirane informacije o novim tendencija- ma te se osvrnula na njihov digitalni kontekst (Pink 2011). Na praksu etnografskog ^lma tih znanstvenika, kao i na moju vlastitu, utjecale su klju^ne teme vizualne antropologije, uklju- ^uju^i re^eksivnost, participativni i kolaborativni pristupi, uz pokusaj suosje^ajnog bavljenja osjetilnim i afektivnim dimenzijama ljudskih zivota, te radovi vode^ih autora etnografskog ^lma i znanstvenika, kao sto su David MacDougall i Jean Rouch. Kao sto sam navela u uvodu knjige (Pink 2007b), u tim ^lmovima ^esto nije bio vazan tek ^lmski proizvod, ve^ rezultati procesa snimanja; primjerice, utjecaj koji je sudjelovanje u stvaranju ^lma imalo na identitet i samosvijest subjekata i sudionika te na^in na koji su se subjekti mogli uklju^iti u prikazivanje ^lma u nekim su slu^ajevima predstavljali zna^ajne elemente stvaranja i prikazivanja etno- grafskih ^lmova u kontekstu primijenjenog istrazivanja.

U suvremenom kontekstu primijenjene i akademske tendencije u etnografskom ^ lmu i u koristenju tehnika etnografskog ^ lma u primijenjenom istrazivanju imaju, kako sam ve^ napomenula, malo veze s ^lmom kao medijem. Ti radovi prvenstveno nastaju koristenjem digitalne video tehnike. To, s jedne strane, zna^i da je doslo do razdvajanja razli^itih vrsta tehnologija koje mozemo koristiti za proizvodnju etnografske pokretne slike; od kamera na mobilnim telefonima do najnaprednijih digitalnih video kamera. S druge strane, dolazi do priblizavanja onoga sto se moze napraviti koristenjem iste tehnologije; etnografski se doku- mentarac moze snimiti, montirati i distribuirati izravno s mobilnog telefona s kamerom. Da- kle, kako bismo razumjeli digitalne etnografske ^lmove i njihov potencijal, trebamo se okre- nuti pitanjima i literaturi koji izlaze izvan tradicionalnih granica etnografskog ^lma. Moramo se okrenuti prou^avanju digitalnih medija kako bismo shvatili kako njihova sveprisutnost u nasim istraziva^kim praksama i svakodnevnim zivotima subjekata i sudionika u istrazivanju otvara nove mogu^nosti. Te nam mogu^nosti nude nove na^ine snimanja, montiranja i di- seminacije etnografskih dokumentaraca, koji mogu biti re^eksivni i participativni na sasvim nov na^in. To moze uklju^ivati rad u svojstvu autora dokumentarnog ^lma ili primijenjenog video istraziva^a na mjestima koja su istovremeno online i o^ine. To zahtijeva i na^ine dise- minacije koji mogu koristiti internet, drustvene medije i cijeli niz platformi za video hosting. Ovdje ne govorim o speci^^nim internetskim resursima, so^veru i hardveru jer, kako napo- minjem u tre^em izdanju svoje knjige Doing Visual Ethnography [Raditi vizualnu etnogra^ju] (Pink 2013), tehnoloski i prakti^ni krajolik tog konteksta ubrzano se mijenja.

Ukratko, etnografski dokumentarac i koristenje tehnika etnografskog dokumentarca u istrazivanju i reprezentaciji po^inje na nov na^in sudjelovati u znanosti i primijenjenom istra- zivanju. Time se stvara vazan kontekst za nastanak novih formi znanosti o javnoj vizualnoj etnogra^ji, ^emu digitalni mediji mogu doprinijeti. To je dio budu^nosti etnografskog videa, a na nama je da omogu^ imo njegov nastanak.

Sarah Pink

Sveu?iliste RMIT, Melbourne, Australija

Sarah Pink

RMIT University

GPO Box 2476

Melbourne VIC 3001

Australia

[email protected]

Poziv na situiranje znanja

Clanak Etami Borjan sazimlje debatu o participativnim i kolaborativnim pristupima u sni- manju etnografskih ^lmova unatrag nekoliko godina. Tvrde^i, poput Faye Ginsburg, kako "nove forme dekoloniziranog etnografskog znanja zahtijevaju reviziju teorijskog okvira vizu- alne antropologije", Borjan spominje i teorijske i metodoloske rasprave o autohtonom ^lmu, ulogu novih drustvenih medija te druge drustvene prakse. Iz tog pregleda proizlazi i poziv na dijalosku praksu koja uklju^uje i suprotstavljanje "autohtonog znanja" "zapadnja^kom po- gledu". Kako bismo izbjegli pretjerano pojednostavljivanje i apriorni vrijednosni stav o ovim naizgled suprotstavljenim ili barem komplementarnim pozicijama, predlazem da a) poblize promotrimo potencijal i zamke autohtonih rede^nicija drustvenog aktivizma i b) ponovno promislimo Harawayi^inu ideju o situiranom znanju kao valjanom teorijskom pristupu kon- ceptualizaciji vizualnosti.

Za radikalni teorijski zaokret u vezi s pitanjima etike, poetike i politike reprezentacije u polju vizualne antropologije, nije dovoljno tek utvrditi kako se razli^ite forme masovnih medija mogu antropoloski istrazivati, sto ovaj ^lanak, ^ini se, sugerira. Po mom misljenju, jednako je klju^no biti svjestan novih formi vizualnog imperijalizma zamaskiranih u obra- zovni ili politi^ki aktivizam te izbje^i zamku privilegiranja "pod^injenih" ili "insajderskih" perspektiva, jer je "najmanje vjerojatno da ^e [upravo one] dovesti do opovrgavanja kriti^ke i interpretativne jezgre svega znanja", kako nas podsje^a Haraway (1988:584). Njezino upozo- renje o tome koliko je opasno romantiziranje i/ili aproprijacija pogleda onih manje mo^nih, dok u isto vrijeme tvrdimo kako gledamo s njihove pozicije, sada je istinitije nego ikada prije. Stoga bismo trebali imati na umu da ne postoji nevina pozicija, ^ak i kada s naklonos^u gleda- mo na razvoj novih mogu^nosti politi^kog izri^aja i organizacije - od Kaira, preko Tripolija i Parka Zucco^i na Wall Streetu, pa do najnovijeg slu^aja, Parka Gezi u Istanblu - temeljenih na digitalnoj slici i drustvenim mrezama.

Dok su javne informacije koje su dostupne i koje cirkuliraju platformama drustvenih mreza (uklju^uju^i fotogra^je i video snimke postavljene na Flickr, YouTube i Vimeo) po- stale nezaobilazne za mnoge aktiviste na terenu, takav razvoj doga^aja ima i svoje nali^je. Ne samo da represivni rezimi u^inkovito koriste te iste tehnologije za spijuniranje, hakiranje, rusenje i sirenje dezinformacija, primjerice u slu^aju Zelene revolucije u Iranu 2009., ve^ postoji i izrazito varljiva forma politi^kog djelovanja, poznata pod nazivom "slacktivism". To je pogrdni naziv za ljude koji zele odati dojam da nesto rade za odre^enu stvar, ali ustvari ne moraju raditi nista, i odnosi se na one koji na Facebooku ^esto pritiskuju gumb like i share, ali njihove radnje nemaju nikakvu svrhu osim da se oni sami osje^aju dobro.

Medutim, najgori primjer zlouporabe participativnog videa ili kolaborativnog ^lma kao naizgled primjerenog alata za prikaz borbe neke autohtone skupine za me^unarodno pri- znanje je 55-minutni ^lm Shooting with Mursi [Snimanje s Mursijima] (2009), autora Bena Younga i Olisaralija Olibuija. Prema sluzbenoj internetskoj stranici:

ovaj jedinstveni ^lm pri^a pri^u o jednom od najizoliranijih plemena Afrike - plemenu Mursi - kroz o^i jednog od njegovih pripadnika, Olisaralija Olibuija, koji u jednoj ruci nosi kalasnjikov, a u drugoj kameru. Etiopijskom sto^arskom plemenu Mursijima prijete druga plemena, planovi za otvorenje nacionalnog parka i izgradnja nove ceste koja dovodi turiste. Film daje izvanredan i na trenutke uznemiruju^i uvid u svakodnevni zivot ljudi ^ija je kultu- ra, kako kaze Olisarali, "suo^ena s izumiranjem". (h^p://www.shootingwithmursi.com/)

Dok se gledatelju predstavlja pojednostavljeno "suprotstavljanje autohtonog znanja i zapad- nja^kog pogleda" (Borjan), Olisarali zauzima klasi^nu poziciju kulturnog posrednika koji iz perspektive insajdera gleda na potesko^e s kojima se suo^ava njegova zajednica u vremenu ograni^enih zemljisnih prava, turizma i me^uplemenskih sukoba. Me^utim, umjesto kori- stenja Olisaralijevih izvornih ^lmskih snimaka, on se pretvara u ^lmski lik, bivaju^i sveden na banalnu, ali univerzalnu tvrdnju kako kameru smatra korisnijim alatom za "davanje glasa" vlastitom narodu od kalasnjikova. Snimanje s Mursijima ne problematizira ^injenicu kako je ve^inu vizualnog materijala u kona^noj verziji ^lma - iznimno egzotiziraju^e snimke Olisa- ralija i lokalne Mursi zajednice - snimio Ben Young, prisvajaju^i Olisaralijevu perspektivu kako bi "objasnio" doga^aje zapadnja^koj publici. Po mom misljenju, taj ^lm nije samo los primjer neuke spasiteljske antropologije; jos gore, on tako^er romanti^no estetizira i egzoti- zira Olisaralija kao tehnologiji vi^nu verziju "plemenitog divljaka", koji govori engleski i koji zeli pomo^i vlastitom narodu koriste^i postvaruju^i ^lmski medij.

Taj sam ^lm koristila na predavanjima kako bih studente potakla na kriti^ko promislja- nje problema mo^i i etike reprezentacije; prema mom iskustvu, me^utim, ve^ina gledate- lja nasjedne na kolaborativnu kompoziciju ^lmskog narativa, bivaju^i uvjerena kako je ^lm "istinita", ili barem "istinitija" reprezentacija stvarnosti Mursija zato sto je jedan od autora ^lma Mursi. Ne pitaju se bas ^esto tko kontrolira taj ^lm niti ^ak je li ^lmski medij imao per- formativnu i/ili informativnu funkciju u zajednici Mursija. Razlog varljivom djelovanju toga ^lma jest taj sto on trenutno uzbudi publiku nenaviknutu na "govor podre^enih", me^utim, on ne propituje odnose mo^i, djelovanja i vizualnog imperijalizma. ^injenica da je ovaj ^lm dozivio me^unarodni uspjeh i osvojio niz nagrada, izme^u ostalog i nagradu UNESCO-a na Millenium Film Festivalu u Bruxellesu, govori o dominantnom osje^aju zbunjenosti koji vlada u vezi s dekolonizacijom znanja kao takvog te napose dekolonizacijom etnografskog pogleda.

Na tom tragu, vizualni antropolog Martin Gruber upu^uje na "novu tiraniju" participa- tivnih pristupa u razvojnim kontekstima (Gruber 2012). U svojoj nedavno dovrsenoj dok- torskoj disertaciji o "participativnom etnografskom ^lmu u primijenjenom kontekstu", ilu- strira kako sudjelovanje moze prikriti i osnaziti opresiju i tvrdi da su participativne metode ugnijez^ene u odnose mo^i te da i same predstavljaju neki oblik mo^i (ibid.).

To, naravno, ne zna^i da ne postoje odli^ni primjeri autohtonih medija i kolaborativnih etnografskih ^lmova koji zaista uspijevaju promijeniti odnos snaga u politi^koj areni (Prins 2002:72). Neki od njih koje posebno cijenim su ^lmovi, video uraci i TV programi u pro- dukciji kanadske tvrtke Igloolik Isuma Productions, Inc. (h^p://www.isuma.tv/isuma-pro- ductions). Kao platforma za autohtone autore, Isuma TV stvorila je jedinstveni stil "zivljene" drame i producirala dramsku TV seriju Nunavut [Nasa zemlja] u trinaest nastavaka, te cijeli niz ne^kcionalnih radova u serijalima Testimony [Svjedo^anstva] i Documentaries and Youth [Dokumentarci i mladi] te ^lm Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change [Znanje Inuita i klimat- ske primjene]. Kroz prenosenje autenti^nih inuitskih pri^a na izvornom jeziku inuitskoj i drugoj publici na cijelom svijetu, Isuma razvija nove originalne forme pri^anja pri^a, drama- turgije i estetske kompozicije te doprinosi kulturi i jeziku inuitske zajednice. Drugi uspjesan primjer je Djeca Srikandija (2012.), prvi ^lm o queer zenama Indonezije:

Osam autenti^nih i poeti^nih pri^a isprepleteno je s prekrasnim prizorima kazali sta sjena koje pri^aju pri^u o Srikandiju, jednom od likova indijske Mahabharate. Ova skupna an- tologija rusi granice izme^u dokumentarnog, igranog i eksperimentalnog ^ lma. (h^ p:// lauracoppens.com/#/^lms/)

Me^utim, i dalje preostaje suprotstaviti se dominaciji zapadnja^kog na^ina gledanja/prikazi- vanja i zapadnja^kog znanja, ali bez napustanja projekta vizualne etnografske reprezentacije. ^ini mi se kako nitko tu zbrku nije opisao bolje od Donne Haraway koja, govore^i iz radikal- no feministi^ke perspektive, pise:

Tako je, ^ini se, moj i "nas" problem u tome kako posti^i istovremeno postojanje iskaza ra- dikalne historijske kontingencije za sva znanja i sve subjekte, kriti^ke prakse prepoznavanja vlastitih "semioti^kih tehnologija" stvaranja zna^enja, i ozbiljnu predanost prema vjernom prikazivanju "stvarnoga" svijeta. (Haraway 1988:579)

Ovaj se komentar moze izravno precrtati na dilemu s kojom se etnografski ^lm i autohtoni mediji suo^avaju posljednjih desetlje^a. Tako Haraway poziva:

Ne zelimo teoriju o nevinoj mo^i prikazivanja svijeta, u kojoj jezik i tijela zapadaju u bla- zenstvo organske simbioze. Ne zelimo ni teoretizirati o svijetu, a jos manje zelimo djelovati u njemu, u smislu Globalnih sustava. Me^utim, treba nam globalna mreza veza, uklju^uju^i djelomi^no i mogu^nost prevo^enja znanja me^u vrlo razli^itim zajednicama, razli^itima izme^u ostalog i u smislu mo^ i koju posjeduju. (Haraway 1988:579-580)

Nadalje, ona potvr^uje kako zauzimanje za parcijalnu perspektivu ne zna^i ujedno i napusta- nje zelje za akumulacijom znanja i ustanovljavanjem istine (istina). Imaju^i to na umu, drzim kako bi vizualni antropolozi i oni koji se bave kolaborativnim ^lmom trebali po^eti prihva^ati ^injenicu kako nema neposredovanog pogleda sa stajalista podre^enih te kako strah od zau- zimanja "pristrane" pozicije - bez obzira na to je li ona rezultat manjkave "politi^ke korektno- sti" ili kulturnog relativizma - ^esto prije^i nastanak razumnih prikaza svijeta u kojem zivimo te time i proizvodnju poticajnih i inovativnih (visedimenzionalnih, visezanrovskih) ^lmova.

Michaela Schäuble

University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Michaela Schauble

School of Social Sciences

Social Anthropology

Arthur Lewis Building

University of Manchester

Manchester M13 9PL

UK

[email protected]

Bez kolonijalnog drugog: etnografski fi lm kod ku?e

Tekst Etami Borjan, kao uvod u ovu raspravu o vizualnoj antropologiji i etnografskom ^lmu, zaista se moze smatrati po^etkom razvoja ozbiljnijeg pristupa vizualnoj antropologiji u Hr- vatskoj.

To je nesumnjivo nova disciplina u Hrvatskoj i susjednim zemljama, regiji poznatoj kao Jugoisto^na Europa. Kolegiji iz vizualne antropologije na hrvatskim se sveu^ilistima podu- ^avaju tek unatrag otprilike deset godina i tek bi nekolicina etnologa i antropologa za sebe ustvrdila da se bavi etnografskim ^lmom. Me^utim, treba re^i kako su razvoj i "otjelovljenje" vizualne antropologije u etnologiji i kulturnoj antropologiji u Hrvatskoj slijedili neke op^e trendove lokalnog razvoja tih disciplina, takozvanu antropologizaciju etnologije i obrat od "isto^ne etnologije" prema "zapadnoj antropologiji", a to je proces koji je imao svoje dobre, ali i neke zna^ajno lose strane. Kao sto se zapadna antropologija trebala "ispri^ati" za kolo- nijalni pristup prije 1960-ih, sto vrijedi i za prakse vizualne antropologije, a sto je Borjan vrlo temeljito predstavila u svom pregledu njezinog razvoja, etnologija se trebala osloboditi oznake nacionalne znanosti koja se bavi nacionalnim kulturnim fenomenima, ukorijenjene u Ruralnom Drugom, ^esto s implicitnim, a ponekad i eksplicitnim nacionalisti^kim podtek- stom. Sre^om, posljednje razdoblje promisljanja u objema disciplinama, ^ini mi se, nadislo je ta pitanja zauvijek.

Stoga je povratak starijim teorijama u uvodnom tekstu izvrsna po^etna to^ka za nove rasprave u kombiniranom pristupu vizualnoj antropologiji, koji uzima u obzir neke druge tradicije snimanja Drugoga, ne izri^ito "zapadnja^ke", tko god Drugi/a bio/la u tim nekolo- nijalnim tradicijama istrazivanja kulture. Naime, jedan od temeljnih nedostataka antropolo- gizacije etnologije, uklju^uju^i i ulazak vizualne antropologije, bio je nekriti^ko preuzimanje postoje^ih zapadnja^kih teorija na Istok, sto nam je u akademskom svijetu dalo "dozvolu za podu^avanje", ali nas je u svijetu etnografskog ^lma natjeralo da zaboravimo kako smo bili nositelji gotovo stoljetne tradicije snimanja Naseg Drugoga. Ne tvrdim, naravno, da je jedan pristup bolji od drugoga, pokusavam ocrtati alternativnu povijest snimanja alternativnog Drugoga.

Po^etkom i kroz gotovo cijelu prvu polovicu dvadesetog stolje^a Hrvatska je bila egzo- ti^no odrediste mnogih pustolova i putnika koji su trazili nedirnutu, ^ak divlju Europu. ^ak i stolje^e i pol ranije, od vremena Alberta Fortisa, dalmatinsko zale^e bilo je poznato kao dom vrlo zaostalog, vrlo "primitivnog" naroda, Morlaka (Fortis 1774). Nisu bas Morloci (Wells 1895), ali gotovo jednako divlji. Kada je na scenu stupila kamera, Morlaci, oni pravi kao i izmisljena predodzba o njima, ve^ su odavno nestali, ali putnici opremljeni kamerama bili su jednako op^injeni pastirima nomadima, nepasteriziranim doma^im sirom, kolibama u kojima su stoka i ljudi spavali (gotovo) uz bok jedni drugima, lon^arijom, tekstilom, ov^jim kozama, zivotinjskim maskama te jednostavnos^u zivota u njegovom ^istom obliku. Sarka- zam nastranu, bez kolonijalne situacije kako je de^niraju antropolozi, pristup je bio jednako, recimo to tako diskusije radi, kolonijalan.

Otprilike u isto vrijeme, dakle u prvoj polovici dvadesetog stolje^a, u Hrvatskoj je zivio i snimao prvi hrvatski vizualni antropolog, Milovan Gavazzi. Njegova etnografska ^lmogra^ja obuhva^a razdoblje od 1920-ih do 1970-ih, autor je mnogih etnografskih ^lmova, ali nje- govi su subjekti bili njegovi vlastiti Drugi; preciznije re^eno, Drugi njegove vlastite kulture - hrvatski "seljaci" i njihova ruralna svakodnevica. Dakle, strogo uzevsi, radio je etnologiju i vizualnu etnogra^ju kod ku^e te je stoga trebao biti lisen nadmo^nog zapadnja^kog pogleda na autohtonog Drugoga, pogleda koji je odredio i razvoj etnografskog ^lma. No, je li tome doista bilo tako?

Bio je sveu^ilisni profesor etnologije, kojemu su se divili i kojega su se sje^ali mnogi stu- denti, koji je ustajao kada bi usli u njegov ured u vrijeme konzultacija. Nikada samoga sebe ne bi bio nazvao vizualnim antropologom, iako je upoznao tu disciplinu tijekom dugogodisnje- ga pisanja etnogra^ja i snimanja etnografskih ^lmova (iako su neki njegovi ^lmovi izgubljeni, sam ili u suradnji s drugim autorima snimio ih je preko 20). Nikada nije problematizirao koncept etnografskog ^lma ili vizualne antropologije, sve do samog kraja radnog vijeka i dva- ju intervjua koji su se izravno doticali upravo te teme (Kriznar 1992), a i tada na inzistiranje drugih, a ne iz vlastite potrebe da objasni svoj teorijski i metodoloski okvir. U intervjuima je priznao kako ga je fascinirao Nanook te kako se iznimno divio Jeanu Rouchu. Nista od toga nije se vidjelo iz njegovih ^lmova. Sli^no kao Franz Boas sa svojim vizualnim, ali ne naro^ito ^lmi^nim prikazima materijalne kulture i napose "ruralne" tehnologije (^inilo se kako je Ga- vazzi njome bio op^injen), Gavazzi je jednostavno stvarao vizualni pandan svoje etnoloske teorije, spasiteljske etnogra^je. Namjerno, ne slu^ajno. Iz vlastite kulture i za vlastitu kulturu.

U svim njegovim radovima vidljiva je njegova fascinacija onime sto bi se u teoriji zvalo autohtonim znanjem. Bio je odli^an terenski istraziva^, imao dobru mrezu kaziva^a in situ i nikada nije propustao priliku da snimi, na primjer, vrlo slozen postupak promjene lokacije ku^e, poseban na^in ribarenja, zakuhavanja mlijeka vru^im kamenom, nosenja preminuloga na velikim drvenim saonicama, posebne tehnike tkanja itd. Prema anegdotama koje se i dalje prepri^avaju na Odsjeku za etnologiju i kulturnu antropologiju, znao je izjuriti iz ureda s kamerom u ruci nakon sto bi dobio informaciju o ne^emu vrijednom snimanja. Kako ka- zuju njegovi kolege i studenti koji su ga pratili na njegovim putovanjima, znao je uspostaviti odli^an odnos sa svojim sugovornicima na selu. Ipak je bio Profesor (kako su ga svi zvali), gost u ku^i, znao je i htio razgovarati o svakodnevnim borbama svojih seoskih sunarodnjaka, zanimalo ga je sto oni imaju za re^i, ponuditi i pokazati. Njegovi nijemi snimljeni subjekti ^esto su spremno gledali u kameru, kao da pitaju jesu li bili dovoljno kooperativni. Me^utim, njegov interes za njih i njihove zivote proizlazio je iz njegovih vlastitih znanstvenih pobuda, odlu^ivao je sto je bilo reprezentativno, a sto ne, imao je zadnju rije^ u toj razmjeni znanja i interesa i, naravno, kao sto sam ve^ naglasila, bio je Profesor s velikim po^etnim slovom, "znalac", "u^en" gost, pripadnik "elite".5 Dakle, njegovi etnografski ^lmovi predstavljaju na- metanje nadmo^nog pogleda, pogleda koji se isto moze nazvati kolonijalnim, iako ne postoji kolonijalna situacija ili Kolonijalni Drugi.

Drugi, jednako intrigantan pristup etnografskom ^lmu kod ku^e datira iz otprilike istog razdoblja, od 1930-ih do 1970-ih, a "krivci" su u ovom slu^aju lije^nici i njihovi kolege iz za- greba^ke Skole narodnog zdravlja "Andrija Stampar". Njihova etnografska ^lmogra^ja je go- lema. Me^utim, njihov etno-^lmski pogled na vlastitog Ruralnog Drugog jos je nadmo^niji, jos vise ekskluzivisti^ki. To je pogled zdravstvenih radnika, profesionalno (ne nuzno osobno, iako je i to izvjesno) sokiranih higijenskim, drustveno-ekonomskim i medicinskim uvjetima u kojima je zivjelo ruralno stanovnistvo. Tako je "kolonijalni" karakter njihova pogleda bio znanstven i profesionalan, utemeljen u politici i mo^i medicinskog sustava.

Prosla su desetlje^a, nesto vizualne etnogra^je nastalo je u Institutu za etnologiju i folklo- ristiku u Zagrebu, a potom je nastupilo razdoblje uvoza vizualne antropologije o kojem sam govorila na po^etku. Studenti etnologije, (socio)kulturne antropologije i kulturnih studija s hrvatskih sveu^ ilista gledali su zadivljuju^e, genijalne ^ lmove koje su napravili Flaherty, Rouch, Gardner, Marshall, Ash, MacDougall, ^itali su teorije Hockinga, Heidera, Banksa, Rubyja, Ginsburga, Pink, el Guindia, Minh-Ha; neki hrvatski etnolozi i antropolozi snimali su vlastite ^lmove (niskobudzetne ili ^es^e bez budzeta), a po^eli su se pojavljivati i festivali etnografskog ^lma, neki potpuno novi (u Rovinju), neki ponovno pokrenuti (u ^akovu). Me^utim, selekcija i nagrade na nekima od tih festivala odavali su dojam kao da pokusava- mo dokazati kako smo nau^ili vizualnu antropologiju, a festivali su, bez promisljanja o tome zasto se to doga^a, te kako bi dobili sredstva i privukli siru publiku, po^eli pozivati, i kasnije, kako im je popularnost rasla, privla^iti ^lmove koji su osvojili nagrade na drugim me^una- rodnim festivalima etnografskog ^lma. Publika na festivalima (ne naro^ito velika, ali tko bro- ji) dobila je dobre ^lmove o ljudima i mjestima koje nikada nisu vidjeli, nisu sanjali da ^e ih vidjeli ili ^ak marili za to da ih vide, ali sve su to dobri aspekti stvaranja etnografskih ^lmova, organizatori su dokazali svoje organizacijske sposobnosti, a mi, hrvatski etnolozi i kulturni antropolozi, dokazali smo da smo nau^ili teoriju. Me^utim, propustili smo se zapitati je li ova teorija primjenjiva, u kojem opsegu i, sto je najvaznije, na koji na^in, na ono sto smo radili posljednjih dvjesto godina u pisanom i otprilike posljednjih sto u vizualnom mediju - a to je etnogra^ja kod ku^e ili, preciznije re^eno, etnogra^ja nase vlastite kulture.6

U raspravi o festivalima etnografskog ^ lma i potom o recepciji etnografskog ^ lma, mo- ramo spomenuti jedan vazan element, koji su Ruby i Hocking, me^u mnogim drugima, iz- dvojili prije dvadesetak godina - publiku. Prili^no sam sigurna da Profesor Gavazzi s po^etka ove pri^e nije uop^e mario za "masovnu" recepciju svojih ^lmova. Njegovi studenti i kolege bili su dovoljna publika. Iako primjerice ^lm Forest of Bliss [Blazena suma] Roberta Gardnera smatram remek-djelom, ^lmom koji me o^arava, manje entuzijasti^nom gledatelju tesko ga je razumjeti i pratiti. Ako su etnografski ^lmovi snimljeni "da bi se gledali" (Banks i Ruby 2011), zna^i li to da ^e etnografski ^lm u sadasnjim ili budu^im fazama razvoja, kako bi se zadovoljila publika (ovdje se mozemo vratiti aristotelijanskoj teoriji knjizevnosti) morati biti vise ^lmi^ni i vjestije koristiti ^lm kao medij izrazavanja znanja, zna^enja, emocija? (Osjetil- na vizualna antropologija i etno-^kcija ^ine se kao dobri primjeri.)

Mozemo, naravno, tvrditi kako motiv za snimanje etnografskih ^lmova nikada nije bio zadovoljenje publike, ve^, u idealnom slu^aju, podu^avanje publike, obrazovanje, izazivanje osje^aja, poticaj na razmisljanje, zauzimanje strana, mozda i djelovanje i, prvenstveno, dava- nje glasa onima koji ga nemaju te pokretanje viseglasja koja ^ine nas svijet. Vrlo plemenita zada^a, slazem se. Ali, je li to mogu^e posti^i?

Iako nas Drugi nije bio u podre^enom polozaju poput Kolonijalnog Drugog, ve^ je u Gavazzijevo vrijeme to bio isklju^ivo Ruralni Drugi, a danas je, u nedostatku boljeg termina, Nas Drugi (iz ruralnog i urbanog okruzenja, iako je tu razliku sve teze uspostaviti), nas ^lm- ski proces biranja i interpretacije podataka, znanja, utisaka, misli, emocija koje gajimo prema njima i njihovo upakiravanje u vizualnu formu "snimljenu da bi je gledali" neki Tu^i Drugi, doista je vrlo "kolonijalan" proces. Parafraziraju^i Foucaultov termin medicinskog pogleda kao onog koji vidi i zna (Foucault 1963), rekla bih kako je etno-^lmski pogled onaj koji vidi i "zna", u analiti^kom procesu smi sljanja ^lmi^ne pri^e, njezinog stvaranja, razvoja, postavlja- nja pitanja i davanja odgovora. Odgovori mogu i trebaju biti viseglasni, kako su u svojim ra- dovima i dokazali brojni suvremeni autori etnografskih ^lmova, a glas autora moze biti puni vibrato ili namjerno prigusen sapat, ali ^e uvijek biti glasova koji su skriveni iza onih koji se ^uju. Ni autohtona kinematogra^ja ne moze pobje^i ovoj zamci. Kao i druge kinematogra^je, zajedni^ke, participativne, kolaborativne itd., i ona samo moze biti vrlo postena u otkrivanju svojih izbora.

Kada govorimo o kolaborativnom etnografskom ^lmu, danas je to jednostavno logi^an odabir ako se stvar zeli napraviti dobro. Naravno da ^ete obratiti paznju na to sto vasi "objek- ti" zele, naravno da ^ete uzeti u obzir njihovo neslaganje s ne^im sto ste upravo ponudili kao interpretaciju onoga sto oni kazu ili rade. Napose, naravno da ^ete dopustiti starici koju snimate kako lomi kruh na "tradicionalni" na^in da skine svakodnevnu prega^u i stavi "bolju", ako glasno prosvjeduje jer je kamera uklju^ena, a ona nosi prega^u u kojoj ne zeli biti snimlje- na. Neke skole drze kako bismo je trebali nagovoriti da ostane u svakodnevnoj prega^i, druge kako bismo trebali snimiti njezinu molbu da prega^u promijeni dok gotovo perverzno ^eka- mo da izgovori naglas kako to treba napraviti zbog kamere, sto bi pokazalo kako smo otkrili okruzenje i metodologiju. I jedno i drugo ^ini se pomalo neeti^nim prema samoj starici. Bila je ljubazna, spremna da nam pokaze sto zelimo, razgovarala je s nama, dala nam hranu, neki su od nas spavali u njezinoj ku^i i imala je pravo zeljeti biti snimljena u ne^emu sto ^emo mi prepoznati kao "etnografsku prijevaru" ili osjetljivost na prisutnost kamere.

A sto je sa staricom? Sto ona zeli? Bolju mirovinu, vise ljudi u malom jadranskom selu u kojem zivi, manje turista, redovitiju opskrbu namirnicama i da joj unuka diplomira. Ne, nije je bilo briga za etnografski ^lm, ali svi^alo joj se nase zanimanje za njezin zivot. Ono sto zelim re^i jest da je davanje kamere u ruke onima koje snimamo tek jos jedna iluzija da ^emo se "pribliziti istini" i udaljiti od kolonijalnog pogleda.

Mnogi Nasi Drugi koje sam upoznala, posebno oni mla^e generacije, imaju entuzijazam i ^esto vrlo dobre kamere, i mogu sami snimiti pri^e. Naravno, mogu nau^ iti osnove sni- manja, tu nema problema. Ali ako zele ispri^ati nesto o svojoj regiji, svakodnevnom zivotu, aktivnostima, zele razgovarati o stvarima koje ih osobno zanimaju. Neki zele snimiti lokalnu nogometnu utakmicu, neki svoju promociju, neki divlju zabavu na plazi, neki, koju su pazili u skoli, pri^u o starom tornju u njihovom gradu, neki o oste^enoj cijevi za vodu na gradskoj rivi itd. Ali svi imaju svoje motive i to se viseglasje ne^e nuzno suprotstaviti mainstream hegemo- niji ili donijeti kulturnu ili politi^ku promjenu. Za mene osobno, aktivizam je moj odabrani na^in bavljenja etnogra^jom i, da parafraziram Ruth Behar, za mene je to jedini na^in bavlje- nja etnogra^jom. Me^utim, aktivizam kao takav ne bi smio biti misao vodilja kod snimanja etnografskih ^lmova.

Da zaklju^im, etnografski ^lm je snazan, nadmo^an, autorski i (donekle) autoritativan pogled na drustvo, kulturu ili osobu. ^ak i bez kolonijalne pozicije koja je de^nirala razvoj etnografskog ^lma i bez Kolonijalnog Drugoga, njegove su prakse duboko "kolonijalne" u nametanju onoga koji snima nad onim kojeg se snima. Kamera moze promijeniti vlasnika, moze se promijeniti smjer snimanja, pa je onaj koji je prije bio sniman sada taj koji snima, ali diskurs ^lma kao cjeline smjesten je u tre^oj stvarnosti (Edwards 1997:56), izvan etnograf- skog susreta kao takvog. ^ak i kada se bavimo etnogra^jom kod ku^e, radimo iste "pogreske".

Dakle, autohtona kinematogra^ja moze biti velik i vrlo pragmati^an, potreban i prakti^an podzanr etnografskog ^lma, iznimno vazan za budu^nost razvoja samog zanra te jednako va- zan kao i ostale vrste etnografskog ^lma; on mozda moze donijeti i novi poticaj staroj formi, ali nikada ne^e izbrisati problem autoriteta i pogleda u etnografskom ^lmu.

Tanja Bukovcan

Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb

Tanja Bukovcan

Odsjek za etnologiju i kulturnu antropologiju

Filozofski fakultet

Sveu!iliste u Zagrebu

Ivana Lu!i#a 3

10 000 Zagreb

Hrvatska

tbukovcan@$ zg.hr

Etnografski fi lm u promjenjivom kontekstu

Clanak Etami Borjan predstavlja neke od glavnih tropa u antropologiji, pozicioniraju^i ih u odnosu na etnografski ^lm: Drugi, zajedni^ko autorstvo, viseglasje, objektivnost i subjektiv- nost. ^ak i ako ih posebno imenujemo i analiziramo, oni su nesumnjivo me^usobno pove- zani i me^uovisni. Rasprava o jednom od njih vodi nas promisljanju o drugima te o njihovoj nelinearnoj povezanosti. Stoga ovdje prilazem nekoliko misli o tome kako se ovi koncepti me^usobno prozimaju u promisljanju etnografskog ^lma u promjenjivim kontekstima.

Raspravljaju^i na drugom mjestu7 o vezama izme^u mainstream antropologije i vizualne antropologije, napisala sam sljede^e:

Vizualna etnogra^ja kao metoda danas nije upitna. Od najranijih dana pokazala je vrijed- nu sposobnost prilago^avanja zahtjevima teorija koje je konstituiraju. Veliki dio antropo- loske teorije, pak, fokusira se na metodologiju discipline, sve dublje promisljaju^i njezino koristenje. Etnogra^ja nije samo praksa koja svijet ^ini objasnjivim, ona je priznata kao praksa stvaranja svijeta. U ovom se smislu slozenost nasega svijeta iznova proizvodi kroz nasa objasnjenja. ^ini se kako posebno etnografski ^lm uspijeva u nadilazenju prostora okularnosti i u pretvaranju slika u jedinstvo osjeta.

Pod "jedinstvom osjeta" mislim na sposobnost etnografskog ^lma da na ^lmski na^in evo- cira zivljenu stvarnost. U takvim prilikama slozenost ^lmske forme prozeta je slozenos^u fenomena o kojem se radi. Shva^en na ovaj na^in, navela sam, etnografski je ^lm istrazivanje odre^enoga fenomena te je, u isto vrijeme, i sam fenomen koji se promatra: on je "lokacija". To je lokacija materijalne, teorijske i osjetilne prisutnosti.8

Lokaciju mozemo posjetiti, analizirati je, iskusiti, te mozemo pokusati razumjeti sto ona evocira svojim sadrzajem i formom.

Sli^no shva^anje etnografskog ^lma nekada se nazivalo eksperimentalnom etnogra^jom (Russell 1999; Webster 1993).9 ^ini mi se, me^utim, kako u suvremenom fragmentiranom svijetu nijedna druga forma (vizualne) etnogra^je ne sluzi svrsi. Jer etnografski ^lm vise ne predstavlja Drugoga (osim ako istovremeno ne predstavlja i nas), vise nije objektivan (osim ako istovremeno nije i subjektivan), vise nije jednoglasan (osim ako istovremeno nije i vise- glasan).

I ne zaboravimo, suvremeni svijet nije samo postkolonijalni svijet, ne sastoji se samo od prijasnjih objekata pretvorenih u subjekte; sastoji se i od novih subjekata. Subjekata koji ni- kada prije nisu bili promatrani, osim od strane samih sebe. Takozvane "male etnologije" (Pri- ca 2001), kao sto je nasa, trebaju obratiti paznju na na^in na koji utvr^ivanje terminologije oblikuje promatranje i interpretaciju. Ve^inu ^lmova snimljenih u nasoj regiji u posljednjem stolje^u koje mozemo nazvati etnografskima, nisu snimili pripadnici neke daleke kolonijalne sile, ve^ pripadnici iste (nacionalne, regionalne, drzavne) zajednice. Ovdje se ne previ^a pro- blem objekti^kacije kao implicitan u promatranju i analizi; sve dok postoji promatranje, po- stoje i objekti tog promatranja, ^ak i ako smo to Mi. Me^utim, kao svjedoci ere "antropologi- je kod ku^e" u velikom svijetu te uz naslije^e europskih etnologija (koje su uvijek vise-manje bile kod ku^e), vrlo smo svjesni preklapanja Drugih i Nas, objekata i subjekata, objekata koji su postali subjekti. Ono sto pokusavam re^i jest da se u bavljenju vizualnom etnogra^jom (kao i pisanom etnogra^jom) objekti^cira samoga sebe kao i drugoga, naravno, uvijek uz primjenu teku^ih teorijskih alata, bilo to viseglasje, re^eksivnost ili nesto tre^e.

Dakle, kada snimam u Italiji, Bosni i Hercegovini ili Hrvatskoj, moram nadi^i nevidljive pukotine, ponekad i zidove, prona^i prolaze (jer oni uvijek postoje) u pokusaju evociranja osjetila i zivljene stvarnosti (procesa) zajednice (napuljskih ribara, mostarskih Muslimana i Hrvata ili radni^ke zajednice u Rijeci). Na neki sam na^in uvijek autsajder fenomenu koji promatram, ^ak i ako se on doga^a u ulici u kojoj zivim (primjerice, brodogradiliste "3. maj" u Rijeci). "Autsajderstvo" o kojem ovdje govorim razli^ito je od onoga u postkolonijalnoj teo- riji (Minh-Ha 1991, citirano u Borjan, ovdje) te bismo se stoga trebali suzdrzati od koristenja te terminologije bez upu^ivanja na nijanse razli^itosti.

Tko danas moze tvrditi da posjeduje "autohtono znanje"? Antropolog/inja u vlastitoj kulturi u^i razumjeti kako se posjedovanje takve vrste znanja mijenja zajedno s promjenjivim kontekstima u kojima radi. Ono sto ostaje je bivanje antropologom/antropologinjom, vla- snikom obrazovanja koje jam^i analiti^ku i dokumentarnu preciznost, na isti na^in na koji su one zajam^ene u slu^aju njegova kolege "autsajdera".

U skladu sa siroko prihva^enom pretpostavkom da je danasnji svijet heterogeno "global- no selo" koje nije samo uve^ana verzija lokalnoga sela (Cheater 1995), svijet naseljen lokal- nim subjektima koji mogu postati kozmopoliti u razli^itim kontekstima svog svakodnevnog zivota (Abu-Lughod 1997), trebali bismo ponovno promisliti koncepte kao sto su "lokalni antropolog" i "autohtoni autor etnografskog ^lma". Kako se mijenjaju nasi subjekti, tako se mijenjamo i mi.

Sanja Puljar D'Alessio Department of Cultural Studies, University of Rijeka Croatian Radio-Television, Zagreb Tanja Bukov?an

Odsjek za etnologiju i kulturnu antropologiju Filozofski fakultet Sveu^iliste u Zagrebu Ivana Lu^i^a 3 10 000 Zagreb Hrvatska

Sanja Puljar D'Alessio

Odsjek za kulturalne studije Sveu!ilista u Rijeci

Trg bra#e Mazurani#a 10

51000 Rijeka

Hrvatska

spuljar@$ ri.hr

Problemi vizualne etnografi je/antropologije: razmisljanja o Drugom - zablude o Sebi

Dokad ^e se zapadnja^ko glediste i pristup drugim kulturama smatrati isto^nim grijehom vizualne antropologije, koji se onda generalno pripisuje svakoj (audio)vizualnoj etnograf- skoj produkciji? Filmovi se ve^ odavno na rade samo na Zapadu, niti su metode i principi zapadnja^ke kulturne/socijalne antropologije jedini legitimni na^in gledanja i prou^avanja kulture. Istodobno, ne vidim zbog ^ega bi etnoloski/antropoloski rad uvijek nuzno morao biti i aktivisti^ki, tj. zasto bi se u interpretaciji Drugog uvijek i neizostavno morali i zalagati za njegova (razli^ita) prava? Etnolog/antropolog, naime, nije primarno politi^ar ili aktivist. On to moze biti ako zeli, ali i ne mora. Ono sto mora je, prije svega - koja god tema/kultura bila predmetom njegova istrazivanja - unato^ svojim nesavrsenostima, biti stru^njak i kao takav jasno i glasno re^i sto je, kako i na temelju ^ega zaklju^io o doti^noj temi/kulturi/zajednici. To mu je i pravo i obveza. I zbog toga, zasto etnologu/antropologu odricati pravo interpreti- ranja kulture nekog drugog/Drugog? Pa, za to se skolovao. Stru^njak uvijek, barem donekle, vidi "siru sliku", jer je za to obrazovan. Naravno da pri tom moze pogrijesiti, ali to nije i ne moze biti razlog da mu se odrekne pravo na njegovu temeljnu djelatnost, odnosno da se to svima zabrani zato jer je netko pogrijesio.

Tekst Etami Borjan vrlo je pregledan presjek povijesti stru^nih razmisljanja i koncep- cijskih dostignu^a na polju (antropoloske) vizualne prezentacije kulture, s naglaskom na problematici istrazivanja tu^e kulture, tj. pogleda na Drugog/Druge. No, o^ito je da je au- torica prihvatila zapadnja^ki kut gledanja na tu tematiku, jer o njoj progovara referiraju^i se isklju^ivo na njega i s njim u skladu intonira i svoja razmisljanja. Smatram da taj kut gledanja (kao i autorica u svojem tekstu) konstantno propusta razumjeti i prihvatiti neke jednostavne ^injenice, kada je o (audio)vizualnoj interpretaciji kultura, ili, uvjetno re^eno, proizvodnji etnografskih ^lmova rije^.

Radi se o tom "vje^nom", da ne kazem mitskom, poimanju Drugog kao "jadnog" i "potla- ^enog". Me^utim, Drugi je uvijek "potla^en", jer druk^ije ni ne moze biti.

No, da bismo to shvatili, najvaznije je, prije svega, de^nirati tko je uop^e taj Drugi, prven- stveno u kontekstu ^lmskog izrazavanja, o kojem je u ovoj raspravi rije^.

Vidim to ovako: samim time sto postojim, to sam Ja/Prvi. Osim mene, postoje i Dru- gi; to su svi ostali, koji nisu Ja. Podrazumijeva se da sam oblikovan - odgojem/kulturnim obrascem/obrazovanjem, tj. stavovima koji su mi na taj na^in usa^eni. Stoga je posve pri- rodno, neodvojivo od mene i neizbjezno da to bude prizma kroz koju promatram, biljezim i interpretiram sve ostale, a to je/su Drugi. Logi^no je onda da su to i uvjeti nastajanja moje etnogra^je Drugog. Oko toga je u antropologiji postignut konsenzus, koji u svojem tekstu opisuje Etami Borjan.

Me^utim, za razliku od kolegice Borjan, misljenja sam da je, upravo s aspekta dozivljaja Drugog, potpuno nebitno je li neka ^lmska etnogra^ja napravljena u celuloidnoj, elektron- skoj ili digitalnoj tehnici, odnosno epohi. To^no je da su razvoj i pristupa^nost tehnologije snimanja, pogotovo digitalne, priblizili mogu^nost takve aktivnosti mnogim ljudima i time je demokratizirali. Me^utim, rekao bih da sustina problematike interpretiranja Drugog time nije nimalo promijenjena, sto je ^lmasima oduvijek bilo jasno, a etnolozima/antropolozima kao da nikad nije ili kao da zapravo presu^uju da jest.

Prije svega, proizvodnja vizualne interpretacije (video-zapisa, video-prezentacije, TV emisije ili ^lma) tehni^ki/tehnoloski je slozen proces, koji zbog toga ima i niz drugih uvje- tovanosti, sto dodatno komplicira i relativizira na taj na^in napravljenu etnogra^ju, a pritom su te uvjetovanosti neizbjezne, one su conditio sine qua non. No, ^ak i pored toga, esencijalno ostaje isto - Ja interpretiram Drugog. Potpuno je nebitno jesam li u toj interpretaciji svoj komentar iznio izravno ili neizravno - on uvijek postoji. Zabluda je misliti da su etnolozi/an- tropolozi dali slobodu progovaranja Drugom onog trenutka kad su u svojim ^lmovima odu- stali od izravnog osobnog komentara, izrazenog svojim izgovorenim (spikerskim) tekstom i time sto su po^eli intervjuirati Drugog (sto - treba posteno priznati - prije nego sto im je postala dostupna tonska kamera, nisu ni mogli). Zabluda je to zbog jednostavnog razloga sto je ^lm kao takav uvijek komentar. Jer, tko odlu^uje sto ^e se snimiti/zabiljeziti? Ja (onaj tko radi ^lm). Tko postavlja pitanja kaziva^ima, odnosno tko bira o ^emu ^e govoriti? Ja (onaj tko radi ^lm). Tko zatim radi selekciju njihovih odgovora? Ja (onaj tko radi ^lm). Tko sve to naposljetku stavlja u kona^ni redoslijed (montira ^lm)? Gle, opet Ja (onaj tko radi ^lm). Prema tome, ^itavim tim procesom, Ja interpretiram Drugog. Isto pravilo vrijedi i kad Drugi uzme kameru u vlastite ruke - ako ^e Drugi raditi etnogra^ju o sebi i "svojima", on je onda Ja, a "njegovi" mu postaju Drugi; ako Ja radim ^lm/etnogra^ju o sebi i "svojima", sam sebi postajem Drugi, kao sto onda i "moji" meni postaju Drugi.

I pritom sam, sto je najvaznije naglasiti, uvijek kolonizator! ^im stupim na popriste snimanja, posvajam prostor, a (donekle) i ljude u njemu. Etnogra^ja biljezena olovkom / diktafonom mozda je manje agresivna, tj. manje "posvojna". Ali, etnogra^ja biljezena kame- rom (pogotovo ukoliko sam odlu^io raditi ^lm, a ne samo video zapis - tj. svoju interpretaci- ju Drugog/Drugih) podrazumijeva intenzivniju (vise selektivnu) interpretaciju, jer neizbjez- no mora pro^i kroz tehni^ke procese (snimanja, montaze, obrade slike i zvuka), sto zna^i da se visekratno (po^evsi ve^ od planiranja ^lma) podvrgava odluci o odabiru, pa je samim time i intenzivnija. U tom smislu, nebitno je dolazi li (^lmski) etnograf/etnolog/antropolog iz drzave koja je (ili je neko^ bila) kolonizator drzave u kojoj radi etnogra^ju, ili radi etnogra^ju unutar vlastite drzave/zajednice, ili, pak, na nekom tre^em mjestu, koje s njegovom drza- vom/zajednicom nije nikad bilo ni u kakvom odnosu. On je uvijek kolonizator, jer, ponav- ljam, samim procesom snimanja posvaja prostor i ljude u njemu - takva je priroda, odnosno psihologija stvaranja ^lma.

Uvijek, dakako, mozemo raspravljati o tome koliko nam je autor ^lma uspio pribliziti svjetonazor/obrazac/kontekst iz kojeg progovara Drugi i koliko je prema njemu pritom bio "posten", u smislu da mu je dozvolio re^i i ono s ^ime se mozda osobno ne slaze, ali ne smije- mo zaboraviti ^injenicu da se nikad ne radi o stvarnom progovaranju Drugog, ve^ (samo) o interpretaciji tog progovaranja, koju - izravno ili neizravno - uvijek daje i izgovara sam autor etnogra^je/^lma. Ne razumijem samo zbog ^ega to napokon ^lmski etnolozi/antropolozi jednom za svagda i ne priznaju.

Nije li indikativno da (vizualna) antropologija ve^ vise od pedeset godina raspravlja o istim problemima, a da je pritom jedini zaklju^ak oko kojeg se svi mogu usuglasiti taj da je sve relativno, tj. da je to put s brojnim mogu^im i jednako legitimnim pravcima, od koji je svaki nesavrsen? No, znanost je, op^enito, nesavrsen posao, a proizvodnja ^lmova jos i vise, zbog velikog broja razli^itih (tehni^kih, ^nancijskih, organizacijskih i eti^kih) uvjetovanosti, a time i ograni^enja. Stoga sam ve^ i ranije u svojim izlaganjima tvrdio da se prema ^lmu ne moze imati ista o^ekivanja kao i prema pisanom radom, jer su to razli^iti mediji, s razli^itim "jezikom", metodama i ograni^enjima, ali to nije razlog da se od bilo kojeg od njih odustane (ili, jos bolje, da ih se ne kombinira). Tako^er, tvrdim i da se ^lmski pristup ne moze poi- stovjetiti sa znanstvenim, zbog, kao sto rekoh, prevelikog broja neizbjeznih uvjetovanosti i limitiranosti u stvaranju ^lma. Film kao etnogra^ja jest koristan, jer "jedna slika govori tisu^u rije^i", no istodobno je, "roba s tvorni^kom greskom", koja je od nje neodvojiva i stoga nei- zbjezna, i to samo valja uvijek imati na umu. I to je sve - optimalnog rjesenja nema.

Aleksej Gotthardi-Pavlovsky

Hrvatska radiotelevizija, Zagreb

Aleksej Gotthardi-Pavlovsky

HRT-Hr vatska radiotelevizija

Prisavlje 3

10 000 Zagreb

Hrvatska

[email protected]

OSVRT NA KOMENTARE

U uvodnom tekstu navedeni su samo neki od osnovnih teorijskih i, djelomi^no, prakti^nih problema s kojima se etno-sineasti susre^u u etnografskom ^lmu. Na po^etku bismo se treba- li kratko osvrnuti na terminologiju i preispitati utemeljenost koristenja termina "etnografski ^lm" u vremenu kada se etnografski audiovizualni zapisi sve manje rade na vrpci, a sve vise u digitalnom formatu. Kao sto Sarah Pink tvrdi, etnografski ^lm danas je op^eprihva^en ter- min koji se koristi ^ak i kada se ne referiramo na analogno snimljena audiovizualna djela. Su- vremeni etnografski ^lm puno je siri pojam, koji obuhva^a ne samo ^lmske uratke nastale na vrpci, ve^ i audiovizualna djela nastala u novim formatima. Me^utim, smatram da je, usprkos tome, jos uvijek opravdano koristenje termina "etnografski ^lm" u kontekstu ^lmske takso- nomije. Termin etnografski ^lm koristi se kao sinonim za ^lmsku vrstu, sto, kao i u slu^aju svih ^lmskih vrsta i rodova, ne pretpostavlja homogenost ^lmskih uradaka kao ni ^isto^u granica. Novonastale forme etnografskih ^lmskih uradaka pojavljuju se pod raznim imeni- ma, ovisno o tematici, odnosu sa snimanim subjektima i autorima: autoetnogra^ja, autorefe- rencijalni etnografski ^lm, kolaborativni ^lm, ^lm zajednice, autohtoni etnografski ^lm i dr. Bez obzira na njihova razlikovna obiljezja, stanovito je zajednistvo roda ili razredno zajed- nistvo zbog kojih ih mozemo svrstati u ^lmsku vrstu poznatu pod imenom etnografski ^lm. U suvremenim etnografskim audiovizualnim uracima ^es^e dolazi do rodovsko-izlaga^kih mijesanja, naro^ito izme^u igranog, dokumentarnog, a ponekad i eksperimentalnog ^lma, ali i u tom slu^aju kod rodovskog razgrani^avanja kao glavni kriterij uzimaju se dominantne karakteristike, bez obzira sto ^lmovi dijele sporedne karakteristike s ostalim rodovima. Stoga smatram da se i danas, bez obzira na razne podvrste etnografskih uradaka i na razne formate u kojima se pojavljuju, i dalje moze koristiti naziv etnografski ^lm. Novi mediji donijeli su promjene u na^inu prezentacije, produkcije i distribucije etnografskih audiovizualnih urada- ka pa stoga mozemo govoriti o etnografskom videu, digitalnom etnografskom ^lmu i drugim podvrstama etnografskog ^lma, ovisno o tematici, stilu i formatima, ali mislim da novi for- mati bitno ne mijenjaju rodovsku klasi^kaciju u ^lmologiji.

Me^utim, ono sto jest vazno naglasiti i sto Sarah Pink isti^e u svom komentaru i u svojim knjigama, jest da su novi mediji utjecali na drustvenu funkciju etnografskih audiovizualnih uradaka, sto jest djelomi^no promijenilo prirodu etnografskog ^lma koji nije i ne mora biti klasi^nog istraziva^kog tipa. Pritom, naravno, ne smatram da suvremeni etnografski ^lm mora biti isklju^ivo aktivisti^ki. Tako^er, ne smatram da je drustveni aktivizam jedini cilj suvremenog etnografskog ^lma, kao sto to vise nije isklju^ivo proizvodnja znanstveno ela- boriranog audiovizualnog djela koje bi se vodilo principima pisane vizualne antropologije, sto je bio slu^aj s klasi^nim etnografskim ^lmom. Cilj mog ^lanka nije bio "oduzeti" ili za- nijekati pravo etnologu da interpretira Drugu kulturu ili ga pretvoriti u aktivista i tvrditi da je aktivisti^ki etnografski ^lm jedini prihvatljivi diskurs kod prikazivanja druga^ijih kultura, ve^ ukazati na probleme i dileme s kojima se etno-sineasti i redatelji susre^u kod prikaza tu^e kulture. Ne zaboravimo da etnografske ^lmove nekada, a i sada, nisu stvarali samo antro- polozi, etnolozi, etno-sineasti, nego i redatelji i sineasti. Premda za sljedbenike Heiderove i Rubyeve tvrdokorne vizualne antropologije moze biti upitna klasi^kacija uradaka nastalih od strane "neantropologa", smatram da se i ti uraci mogu u najsirem smislu svrstati u podvrste etnografskog ^lma.

Primjenom digitalnih medija, mijenja se koncept etnografskog ^lma pa tako i njegov krajnji cilj, namjena, ciljana publika, distribucija i produkcija. Suvremeni etnografski ^lm vise nije isklju^ivo vezan uz akademske krugove, sto potvr^uje sve bogatija produkcija au- tohtonog stanovnistva, sto, dakako, ne umanjuje njegovu vrijednost. Naprotiv, otvara nove mogu^nosti u tematskom, stilskom, ali i u socioloskom smislu. Jedan od njih je, kao sto Pink navodi, vaznost koju proces snimanja ima u autohtonim zajednicama. O tome svjedo^e broj- ni primjeri kolaborativnih projekata, ali i samostalnih autohtonih projekata u sklopu kojih se rade ^lmovi od etnografskog zna^aja, a u kojima na razli^ite na^ine sudjeluju ^lanovi zajed- nice. To se jako dobro vidi na primjeru dvaju projekata: ve^ spomenutog Video u selima, koji je zapo^eo kao kolaborativni projekt, a danas je autohtoni projekt, te Igloolik Isuma produk- cije, koji navodi Michaela Schäuble. Osim spomenute serije Nunavut ([Nasa zemlja], 1993- 1995), ^ini mi se zanimljivim spomenuti jos jednu inicijativu nastalu u isto vrijeme unutar iste zajednice: Arnait video produkcija nastala je 1991., u sklopu radionice za autohtone re- dateljice - Arnait Ikajurtigiit [Zene pomazu zenama] - unutar centra za video produkciju, Tariagsuk video centar. Prvi video zapisi snimljeni u sklopu Arnait centra bili su vezani uz pitanja poroda i zenskog zdravlja (Evans 2010:15). Centar je osnovala Marie-Hélène Cousi- neau, a sluzi kao mjesto za video edukaciju te nudi opremu za snimanje. Neke od sudionica u radionicama danas snimaju svoje ^lmove u produkciji ovih dviju ku^a: Marie-Hélène Cousi- neau, Madeline Ivalu, Julie Ivalu (Cache Collective 2008).

Proces sudjelovanja u stvaranju audiovizualnih uradaka od etnografskog zna^aja ima veliku ulogu u podizanju individualne i kolektivne svijesti u zajednici (Pink). Za to su ve- likim dijelom zasluzni mediji i nove tehnologije, budu^i da se fenomen moze promatrati u lokalnom, globalnom i transnacionalnom kontekstu. Rasirenost masovnih medija (video, televizija, radio, mobitel, internet i sl.) radikalno je utjecala na produkciju i distribuciju et- nografskih ^lmova. Iako kolaborativni ili autohtoni etnografski ^lmovi, ^esto snimani za po- trebe pojedine zajednice u kojoj su nastali, te u posljednja dva desetlje^a i autohtoni ^lmski uraci, uz pomo^ televizije i festivala, cirkuliraju i me^u drugim autohtonim skupinama, koje nuzno ne pripadaju istoj etni^koj grupi i ne govore isti jezik. Autohtoni ^lmovi diljem svijeta uglavnom su niskobudzetni lokalni projekti, snimani u nekomercijalne svrhe i neovisno o mainstream ^lmskoj industriji te su jos uvijek tesko dostupni sirokoj publici pa opstoje na fe- stivalima ili lokalnim autohtonim televizijskim postajama. Producenti i redatelji autohtonih audiovizualnih uradaka ve^ se 90-ih godina dvadesetog stolje^a po^inju organizirati u tran- snacionalne mreze putem festivala, udruga, konferencija i koprodukcija. I danas distribucija autohtonih ^lmova najvise ovisi o festivalima autohtonog ^lma, ^iji broj raste iz godine u godinu. Ve^ 1991. pokrenut je listserver NATIVE-L koji se bavio problemima autohtonog stanovnistva u svijetu, a posluzio je kao baza za kasnije pokretanje manjih specijaliziranih portala (Native Net, Native Web, Native Networks) koji su 90-ih sluzili kao mjesta stvaranja globalnih virtualnih autohtonih zajednica. Drustvene su mreze pomogle povezivanju regi- onalnih projekata. Jedan takav je organizacija CLACPI (Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Cine y Comunicación de los Pueblos Indígenas, [Latinoameri^ka mreza za ^lm i komunikacije autohtone populacije]), osnovana 1985. u Meksiku. Od svog osnutka do danas CLACPI je organizirao mnogobrojne festivale autohtonog ^lma, radionice i seminare (Salazar i Córdova 2008). Transnacionalno umrezavanje autohtonog stanovnistva istovremeno je nacionalnog i nenacionalnog karaktera; ideje o ujedinjenju autohtonog stanovnistva aktualne su na razini nacionalnih drzava, ali, tako^er, podrazumijevaju suradnju, povezivanje i ja^anje kolektivne svijesti o autohtonim pitanjima na globalnoj razini. Mediji su postali sredstvo putem kojeg rastrkane autohtone zajednice, dijele^i sli^na iskustva, stvaraju osje^aj pripadnosti jednoj vrsti pseudonacije - transnacionalnoj zajednici geopoliti^ki razjedinjenih skupina koje su u mogu^nosti odrzati dijalog bez obzira na nacionalne, kulturoloske i jezi^ne barijere. Stoga ne ^udi da se nove teorije u vizualnoj antropologiji fokusiraju na drustvenu ulogu koju su- vremeno autohtono ^lmsko stvaralastvo i mediji imaju u pojedinim zajednicama i oslanjaju se na komunikologiju, kulturalne studije, kao i na teoriju ^lma te na semiotiku medija (Abu- Lughod i Ginsburg 2002; Ang 1996; Appadurai 1996; Dornfeld 1998, i drugi).

Suvremeni etnografski ^lm, upravo zbog promjena u hijerarhiji odnosa kao i utjecaja koji su novi mediji imali na njegovu produkciju i distribuciju, artikulira neka epistemoloska pitanja koja su aktualna ve^ u radovima Jeana Roucha, Sarah Elder, Davida i Judith MacDo- ugalla, Johna Marshalla i Barbare Myerho^ - redatelja koji se odmi^u od tradicionalnog op- servacijskog etno-dokumentarizma i okre^u se re^eksivnom dokumentarizmu. Me^utim, otvara i neka nova pitanja vezana ne samo uz poziciju etno-sineasta nego i samog Drugoga. U postkolonijalnom etnografskom ^lmu dolazi do preispitivanja autohtonog znanja, sto po- staje interaktivni i interpretativni diskurzivni proces. Pozicija istrazivanih u globaliziranom i multikulturalnom drustvu neprekidno se rede^nira te oscilira izme^u promatra^a i subjekta, ovisno o kontekstu, pa ni identitet Drugoga nije jednozna^an, kao sto navode Bukov^an, Puljar D'Alessio i Go^hardy-Pavlovsky. Problem podjele na "nas" i "njih", kojim se anglosak- sonska vizualna antropologija dugo bavila, jasno je ilustrirala Bukov^an na primjeru razvoja etnografskog ^lma u Hrvatskoj, gdje su Drugi istovremeno "oni" i "mi". Premda se u svom ^lanku bavim pozicijom Drugoga u kontekstu "kolonijalne" vizualne antropologije, koloni- jalnog pogleda i prikaza, jasno je da etnografski ^lmovi nastali u nekolonijalnom kontekstu na druga^ije na^ine artikuliraju navedene probleme upravo zbog ^injenice da su nastali u druga^ijem drustvenom okruzenju i s druga^ijim ciljem i da bi u slu^aju "malih etnogra^ja" bilo nemogu^e slijepo primijeniti sve teorije i spoznaje zapadnja^ke vizualne antropologije (Bukov^an, Puljar D'Alessio).

U kontekstu etnografskog ^lma op^enito, podjela na "nas" i "njih" danas je riskantna jer je nemogu^e odrediti granicu gdje po^inje, a gdje prestaje Drugi. To je naro^ito evidentno u primjerima autoetnografskog i suvremenog autohtonog ^lma gdje zapadnja^ki "Drugi" postaje autorsko "ja" (Go^hardy-Pavlovsky, Puljar D'Alessio). Kao sto Bukov^an i Go^har- dy-Pavlovsky navode, etnografski je ^lm po svojoj prirodi "kolonijalan", jer u njemu autor name^e svoj pogled, viziju, interpretaciju neke kulture. Me^utim, smatram da je to odlika svakog ^lma, pa ^ak i dokumentarnog, koji je po svojoj prirodi subjektivan. Dokumentarni su ^lmovi (tu bih ubrojila i veliki dio tradicionalnih etnografskih ^lmova) naizgled objektivno i istinito svjedo^anstvo, proizi slo iz stvarnog zivota, ali su istovremeno konstrukt ideoloski, rodno, kulturoloski i povijesno odre^enog subjekta (bez obzira na to bio on "Drugi" ili "Ja"). To je slu^aj i sa suvremenim postkolonijalnim etnografskim ^lmovima koji se udaljavaju od persuazivno-demonstrativnog diskursa (tipi^nog za klasi^ni dokumentarni ^lm) te im krajnji cilj nije opazala^ko-narativno izlaganje, ve^ se okre^u referencijalnim prikaziva^kim alterna- tivama. Ono sto se mijenja u suvremenom autohtonom etnografskom ^lmu i medijima jest pozicija "Drugoga" koji postaje "Ja"; autor prikaza o sebi. Upravo nove tehnologije i mediji doprinijeli su demokratizaciji i smatram da Drugi/postkolonijalni Ja vise nije i ne mora biti potla^en, jer je u stanju sam kontrolirati proces stvaranja i snimanja ^lmova, a time i sliku o svojoj kulturi. Me^utim, vazno je naglasiti da "davanje glasa" Drugome, demokratizacija me- dija, autoetnogra^ja i autohtoni ^lm, nikako ne garantiraju njegovu "privilegiranu" poziciju ili "privilegiran" pogled, sto se moze is^itati iz komentara Michaele Schäuble. Jednako tako, bilo bi naivno pomisliti da su takvi ^lmovi "istinitiji" i "vjerodostojniji". Upravo zbog prirode samog ^lma, uvijek govorimo o konstrukciji "efekta stvarnosti" (Be^etini 2001:71), bilo da se radi o ^kcionalnom ili ne^kcionalnom ^lmu. Danas se realisti^nost vizualnog prikaza ne percipira kao ontoloska karakteristika slike, a pojam uvjerljivosti "prije je najuze retori^ka kategorija nego neko esteti^ko precizno odre^enje" (Peterli^ 2001:182).

Etami Borjan

1 Filmovi kao sto su An Argument about a Marriage [Diskusija o braku] ( John Marshall, 1969.) ili The Feast [Gozba] (Timothy Asch, 1970.) predstavljaju rane pokusaje re^eksivnijeg pristupa snimanju etnografskih ^lmova. Oni su i dalje promatra^ki u smislu metode snimanja subjekata, ali u isto vrijeme razotkrivaju proces snimanja. Jean Rouch je imao ogroman utjecaj na dokumentarni ^lm u Europi nakon sto je uveo interaktivniji pristup stvaranju etnografskih ^ lmova: "zajedni^ka antropologija" i "participativna et- nogra^ja", oprimjerene u ^lmovima kao sto su Chronique d'un été [Kronika jednog ljeta] (1960.), u kojem Jean Rouch i Edgar Morin postaju "glumci" pred kamerama, te Jaguar (1967.). Prekretnicu u razvoju vise dijaloske etnogra^je predstavlja po^etak koristenja lagane 16-milimetarske kamere i opreme za sinkronizirano snimanje zvuka.

2 MacDougallova metoda vidljiva je u njegovim ^ lmovima To Live with Herds [Zivot sa stadima] (1972.), A Wife among Wives [Supruga me^u suprugama] (1981.), Lorang's Way [Lorangov na^in] (1980.), Under the Men's Tree [Pod muskim drvetom] (1970.), Doon School Chronicles [Kronike skole Doon] (2000).

3 Rubyjeva tvrdnja povla^ i za sobom vazna pitanja o mo^i i zna^enju koje slike imaju u razli^itim kulturama. U knjizi Picturing Culture (2000:141), Jay Ruby navodi ^etiri vrste moralne odgovornosti koje etno-sineast treba uzeti u obzir: osobni moralni ugo- vor da ^e proizvesti preciznu sliku, moralnu obveza prema subjektima koje snima, institucijama koje osiguravaju sredstva i publici. Rubyjeva ideja moralnog tereta autorstva u postkolonijalnoj vizualnoj antropologiji povezana je s njegovom pretpostavkom kako bi zapadni antropolozi trebali istrazivati samo vlastitu kulturu. U protivnom, oni viktimiziraju Drugoga tako sto ga predstavljaju u skladu s diskurzivnim praksama zapadne kulture.

4 Griersonovska konceptualizacija dokumentarnog ^lma oslanja se na potvr^ivanje ^injeni^nosti ^lmskog teksta, bez uspostavlja- nja razlike izme^u dokaza i interpretacije. Takav je ^lm neupitno svjedo^anstvo stvarnosti, a svoju autenti^nost zasniva na indeksnim karakteristikama ^lma kao takvog. Dokumentarni ^lmovi snimljeni prema modelu rada Johna Griersona obi^no centraliziraju zna- ^enje bez propitivanja subjektivnosti autora.

5 Potrebno je napomenuti da ni njegov izgled vjerojatno nije pomogao; na nekim fotogra^jama s terena izgledao je bas kao E. E. Evans-Pritchard na fotogra^jama s pripadnicima naroda Azande.

6 Koncepti "etnogra^je kod ku^e" i "etnografskog ^lma kod ku^e" parafraza su poznatog teorijskog koncepta koji se javlja 1980-ih u mnogim tekstovima - "antropologije kod ku^e", sto zna^i istrazivanje vlastite kulture. Primjereniji koncept mogao bi biti "etnologija bliskoga" iz 2000-ih hrvatskih etnologinja ^apo Zmega^ i Gulin Zrni^.

7 Clanku "Construction of a Place in Ethnographic Film" (Puljar D'Alessio 2011).

8 Sarah Pink nedavno je iznijela ideju o "etnografskim mjestima" u osjetilnoj etnogra^ji, koja na neki na^ in odgovara ovdje izloze- noj ideji o lokaciji u vizualnoj etnogra^ji (Pink 2009).

9 Stephen Webster de^nira eksperimentalnu etnografsku formu kao etnografski iskaz koji u tekstualnoj formi reproducira her- meneuti^ku ili re^eksivnu teoriju terenskoga rada ili drustvene promjene: ona se zeli integrirati s drustvenim praksama koji su joj objekti, umjesto da ih reprezentira (Webster 1993).

RETHINKING THE TRADITIONAL IN ETHNOGRAPHIC FILM Representation, Ethics and Indigeneity

Cinema has been an important instrument in the colonialist production of the ethnographic Other. Images create concepts as well as embody cultural concepts. They enact symbolic forms of power. Ethnographic ^lm is not only a representation of reality but also a construction and an interpretation of another reality based on cultural conventions from the ^lmmaker's culture. Therefore we are challenged to discuss whether it is possible to present cultural knowledge "di^erently"; that is, to question historically, culturally, politically and ideologically bound hierarchies implicit in colonial culture? Do images embody cultural knowledge as Sol Worth and John Adair (1972, 1981) claimed? W hose knowledge do they present? What values images have in Western cultures as opposed to non- Western worlds? Do images necessarily "victimize" the Other (Ruby 1991; Kuehnast 1992; Hall 1993)? Ethnographic ^lm theory has been an ongoing discussion of issues of objectivity, subjectivity, realism, and ethical questions of representation. In recent years ethnographic ^lmmakers have looked for solutions, and new approaches to documentary ^lmmaking have provided some answers to these questions.

Key words: ethnographic ^lm, ethics, representation, Other

Relocating the Other

The process of looking at the Other is not easily rationalized. The separation between "us" and "them" is deeply rooted inside both anthropology and ethnographic ^lm. As Bill Nichols claims, "the location of anthropology's Other may reside less in another culture than in the anthropological unconscious, as it were" (1991:32). The unconscious is a common name that stands for all the features, conventions and forms that the Western viewer uses uncon- sciously when constructing knowledge about the Other. The romantic aestheticization of the Other is deeply embedded in the Western mind. The history of ethnographic ^lm is thus a history of the production of Otherness. Kathleen Kuehnast calls this process "visual imperi- alism". "Visual imperialism is the colonization of the world mind through the use of selective imagery that acts as a representation of a dominant ideology or, as in many instances, a rep- resentation of the truth" (1992:185). Dominant culture's set of racial stereotypes conditions the image that the viewers get about the Other. In the fantasy produced by anthropology, the Other is apprehended as being closer to the "natural" state of humankind. The monopolistic control of the visual medium by the dominant cultural group inhibits subordinated, indig- enous and minority peoples to promote a counter ideology.

"Realistic conventions" that the ethno-cineaste uses can di^er from the conventions of other cultures. As a consequence, the dominant conventions of ethnographic ^lm make some societies appear accessible, rational and a^ractive and others strange (MacDougall 1998:141). The cultural incompatibility is deeply embedded in the representational system. Visual images, just like our notion of reality, are socially constructed communicative forms. Therefore it is necessary to examine our inscriptions of the cultural Other to uncover the ways in which our interpretations reproduce hegemonic discourse. Positivist cultural anthro- pology was based on the assumption that visual anthropologists should represent the world as seen by the Other. Anthropologists were a^ributed with the power to witness the totality of an event. Visual representation was considered a privileged form of knowledge. It implied commitment to objectivity and the regime of veracity. The all-seeing and all-knowing ethno- graphic ^lmmakers expected no response from the subjects.

New and more collaborative approaches in ^lmmaking, that started appearing in 1960s, demonstrated that it was impossible to observe the Other and to remain unnoticed.1 As Mac- Dougall claims, "no ethnographic ^lm is merely a record of another society: it is always a record of the meeting between the ^lmmaker and that society" (1998:134).2 Nowadays it is a common practice for the ^lmmakers to cooperate with those who are ^lmed, which raises the problem of authorship. Collaborative, cooperative and community ^lms are just some of the examples of new forms of shared authorship between the ^lmer and the ^lmed. The move towards multivocal ethnographic ^lms has brought about a paradigmatic shi^ in the relationship between the observer and the observed. There has been a reassessment of the moral implications of ethnographic authorship. The demands for shared authorship call for profound changes in the way in which images are produced. The notion of objectivity is chal- lenged as well as our assumptions about the nature of documentary and ethnographic ^lms. In cooperatively produced ethnographic ^lms, representing the Other raises the question of responsibility and legitimacy; of power and authorship.

According to Jay Ruby (1991:58), for the production of a true collaborative ^lm, all par- ties must be equal in their competence and collaboration must occur at all stages of pro- duction. Ruby doubts that true collaboration is possible because there is no technical parity among all the participants. The other problem is related to the way of transmi^ing knowledge to the subjects. Ruby (ibid.) claims that ethnographic ^lm is a tool for exerting power and control over the Other. Therefore, even in collaborative ^lmmaking it is impossible to teach the shooting techniques to indigenous communities without teaching them Western ^lmic conventions. We might argue that this assumption is the product of the colonial Western mind which presumes that indigenous ^lmmakers are not capable of developing their own aesthetics independently from the Western tradition. Or that they are inevitably bound to become victims of the Western media once they have acquired technical skills (together with the Western modes of representation). Jay Ruby (1995) argues that anthropologists and ethnographic ^lmmakers can't escape moral responsibility towards the culture that they represent no ma^er what method they are using. At the same time they assume responsibility towards the viewers; they feel obliged to identify some of their strategies of representation through more referential textual constructions of the Other.3

While Ruby is skeptical about the changes in postcolonial ethnographic ^lm, Faye Gins- burg (1995) sees postmodern ethnographic cinema as an opportunity to bring minority peoples' voices on the global stage. Despite the di^erences between the ethnographic ^lms made by Western visual anthropologists and the subject-generated ethnographic ^lms, visual anthropology should analyze both of them. Indigenous ^lmmaking should not be seen as a threat and it should not displace ethnographic ^lm. It does not imply that in postcolonial visual anthropology the Other has disappeared or is lost, as Ruby (1995:77) claims. It has become a more complex entity. The aim of visual anthropology as a science is not to privilege or exclude any method of ethnographic ^lmmaking, but to acknowledge their parallel exist- ence. That does not necessarily imply that collaborative and indigenous ^lms have a desta- bilizing e^ect on visual anthropology. On the contrary, they are a step forward towards the production of self-re^exive ethnographic ^lms that could replace disembodied and neutral Western type of representation. As such, they subvert the observational documentary as the dominant practice.

From Shared Authorship Towards Subject-Generated Ethnographic Films

Postcolonial ethnographic ^lm production has inverted the "salvage" model of representa- tion (Cli^ord 1986:112) and has given space to di^erent histories and voices. New voices have undermined authority and dominance of the Western discourse, which can be under- stood as a part of a larger process that George Marcus and Michael Fischer (1986) call "crisis in representation". If few decades ago exploring other cultures meant exploring ^lms about them" as opposed to "us", the recent ^lm production has made this clear-cut boundary quite blurred. "We" is not a universal entity and it does not imply predominantly white, male au- dience. "Their" voices are being represented too and they have an opportunity to engage in the ways others wish to represent them. With the appearance of new voices and new gazes, the process of the construction of anthropological knowledge has changed: it is not a one way process but a dialogical practice made from juxtaposing indigenous knowledge with the Western gaze. In postcolonial ethnographic ^lms those who were ^lmed in the past are now asserting their right to control their own images. Filmmakers have no longer right to speak with disembodied and depersonalized discourses of knowledge and power. This Griersonian legacy4 in documentary has been radically shaken in subject-generated ethnographic ^lms. "Their" embodied experience on screen recon^gured the representation; they are no longer studied subjects, but active voices in the production of the "real".

Indigenous ethnographic ^lms are assumed to give voice to the "voiceless"; the op- pressed marginalized groups that were previously denied access to the means of production of their own image. The traditional "voice of God" has become one among many and it has lost its absolute authority. The shi^ between the observer and the observed deconstructs Geerzian interpretation of anthropology as the study of others. The act of representation is not clear cut as it once was; the politics of location and the issues of embodiment address the ^ lmer and the ^lmed. Indigenous ethnographic ^lms eschew voice-over commentary that speaks on behalf of a collectivity. We are o^en faced with ^rst-person testimonial discourse. New forms are more re^exive and interactive for both the ^lmmaker and the viewer. Postco- lonial subject-generated ^lms do not generalize or conclude; they build upon subjective nar- ratives of subjects who are personally and bodily engaged in the production of meaning and representation. Catherine Russell (1999) calls these new subcategories of ethnographic ^lm "experimental ethnography", claiming that the postmodern ethnographic ^lms are primarily politically and socially engaged works, and their main goal is not only to include the Other within modernity but to revise the terms of realist representation.

Experimental ethnography involves a reconceptualization of the historical nature of Oth- erness, including not only how the Other was (and is) constructed in colonial discourse but also how cultural di^erence and 'authenticity' are related in the postcolonial present and fu- ture (ibid.:11).

The process of empowering the subject does not automatically imply that the position of the anthropologist and the indigenous ^lmmaker are the same. The space given to indig- enous ^lmmakers is in most cases reserved for the ^lms about the life and culture of their own communities. They are o^en reminded of the territorial boundaries in which they are to remain. Documentary accuracy is guaranteed not by their education, like in the case of West- ern anthropologists, but by the fact that they, as insiders, can speak with authority about their own culture. Handing the camera over to a native ^lmmaker raises issues related to authen- ticity of the so called "indigenous knowledge". It should not be assumed that the ^lms about other cultures, even when produced by the members of that culture, are more objective or truthful. No group has a privileged insight into their own culture. Although the ideal ethno- graphic ^lm was considered one in which the image of another culture was presented as a form of cultural knowledge, in postcolonial visual anthropology this "knowledge" is bound to the notions of race and ethnicity. Films about other cultures made by the members of that culture are not necessarily more representative of his/her own culture and people.

It is a paradoxical twist of the colonial mind: what the Outsider expects from the Insider is, in fact, a projection of an all-knowing subject that this Outsider usually a^ributes to himself and to his own kind. (...) Otherness becomes empowering critical di^erence when it is not given, but re-created. (Minh-Ha 1991:70-71)

The place of the native is always very well-delimitated in the global cinema and media. Minh- Ha sees the new forms of self-re^exive ethnographic ^lmmaking as mechanisms of "uncover- ing the work of ideology" (ibid.:77), aimed at creating a more authentic image of the Other. She criticizes the conventions of ethnographic objectivity and the division between those "there" and us "here". That division, in her opinion, implies that the Other is objecti^ed and the ^lmmaker and the viewer are subjects of the perception. The utopian project of the postcolonial ethnography, claims Minh-Ha, is to overcome the binary opposition of self and other.

Remapping Ethnographic Film in Digital Era

Ethnographic ^lm takes on new meanings in postmodern age, due to the transformations of the Other in the digital age. Ethnographic ^lm production blurs with video and new forms of mechanical and electronic reproduction. The use of digital video has become a routine part of anthropological ^eldwork. This has resulted in the revision of the established ethnograph- ic ^lm canon. Technological innovation in the means of production has brought changes in the manner in which ethnographic audiovisual footage is distributed. Increased interna- tional distribution channels and alternative channels (such as ^lm festivals) have facilitated the dissemination of ethnographic ^lm on the global scale. New media have given a chance to the indigenous population to be in control of the images. Contemporary indigenous ^lm and video are used as persuasive tools for negotiating or maintaining cultural identity. The position of the Other in global and multicultural world is constantly being negotiated and rede^ned, which is conditioned by political, social and technological changes. Image is not perceived as a pure representation but as a political act and a tool for controlling one's cultur- al identity. New hybrid and intercultural identities are being enacted and constructed. Many collaborative project such as Video nas aldeias (Video in the Villages), Kayapo Video Project, Alaska Native Heritage Project, Chiapas Media Project, Ojo de Agua Comunicación, have given possibility to indigenous population to get acquainted with video cameras and start shooting their own videos. Indigenous communities all over the world have bene^ted from the new media that have become their window into the world. Presenting their own images about their cultures has given them the opportunity to challenge cultural hegemony of the West and the mainstream o^cial state narratives. Indigenously controlled media and ^lms play an important role in cultural and political struggles. They are not used with the pretense of sav- ing the vanishing native but as a tool for political claims and activist purposes. Ethnographic ^lm has become a ^eld for production of political and social realities. "The right to repre- sent is assumed to be the right to control one's cultural identity in the world arena" (Ruby 1991:51). There has been an important shi^ in the way indigenous communities represent themselves; they use video and media to communicate with the structures of power and to "correct" the distorted Western image about their cultures.

The position of ethnographic ^lm within visual anthropology has changed due to the transnational spread of new technologies that have had an impact on the aesthetics of ethno- graphic ^lm. Faye Ginsburg has described the positive impact of indigenous ethnography on visual anthropology as a "parallax e^ect":

(...) one might understand indigenous media as arising from a historically new position- ing of the obser ver behind the camera so that the object - the cinematic representation of culture - appears to look di^erent than it does from the observational perspective of ethno- graphic ^ lm. Yet, by juxtaposing these di^erent but related kinds of cinematic perspectives on culture, one can create a kind of parallax e^ect; if harnessed analytically, these "slightly di^erent angles of vision" can o^er a fuller comprehension of the complexity of the social phenomenon we call culture and those media representations that self-consciously engage with it. It is my argument that the parallax created by the di^erent perspectives in these media practices is crucial in responding to contemporary critiques of ethnographic ^ lm that regard indigenous media and related practices as the genre's death knell. (1995:65)

Shi^ing the position of the subject has brought about the change in the production of ethno- graphic ^lm. New forms of decolonized ethnographic knowledge call for the revision of the theoretical framework of visual anthropology. Ginsburg stresses the importance of the open- ing of multiple perspectives in visual anthropology and broadening the frame that can accom- modate indigenous cinema, media and other social practices. It is expanding the boundaries of the ^eld of visual anthropology that Faye Ginsburg (1994) is interested in. Only by analyz- ing the multiplicity of representational practices we can understand multiple ways in which culture is understood. To understand ethnographic ^lm today, it is necessary to consider it in relation to other cultural and media forms (reality show, home videos, cyber-activism, video art, TV and radio programs, etc.). For many years mass media were seen as almost a taboo for anthropology although the idea of "the anthropology of visual communication" appeared already in Sol Worth's (1981) work. The increasing accessibility of media among people who were traditionally ^lmed, calls for revision and broadening of the ^eld of visual anthropology. This critical revision is urged by the theoretical shi^ related to the questions of ethics, politics and poetics of ethnographic representation, and by the in^uence post-colonial studies had on anthropology. In order to frame the ^eld of cultural production it is not enough to study only ethnographic ^lm but all other forms of media consumption that are signi^cant sites for the research on cultural practices at local, regional and transnational level.

Etami Borjan

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb

COMMENTS

Ethnographic Video for the Twenty First Century

Throughout the twentieth century ethnographic ^lm became established as a genre of ethno- graphic practice and representation, albeit with variations in style, purpose and in the ways it was practiced. Etami Borjan's discussion brings this process to the fore, along with some of the debates and issues that ^lmmakers raised and confronted during that period. Indeed during this time a series of key issues, were raised, as Borjan points out, relating to the right to represent others, and the ways that ethnographic ^lms were (and still are) developed as part of activist projects. Borjan also notes in a timely way that the shi^ to digital video is impacting how ethnographic ^lm is developing. In what follows I pick up on both of these themes to comment on the signi^cance of two shi^s and developments. First, going slightly in a di^erent direction from activist ^lm I focus on how ethnographic ^lm can be 'active' in society, that is how can it can be used in applied contexts and what kinds of interventions it might be involved in. Second, I discuss further some of the implications of the fact that most ethnographic ^lmmaking is now digital ethnographic ^lmmaking. One key point to keep in mind when speaking of 'ethnographic' ^lm in a contemporary context is, moreover, that we are no longer o^en actually referring to ethnographic ^lm. Rather, the central medium for the making of ethnographic documentaries, and in the use of audiovisual media in ethnographic research, is digital video.

Parallel to the development of ethnographic ^lmmaking in the twentieth century, emerged a series of critiques of ethnographic ^lm. Borjan highlights some of these, yet there are others that have been less frequently commented on. One of these less discussed critiques of ethnographic ^lmmaking focused on the question of the purpose of ethnographic ^lm and how much ethnographic ^lmmaking did not ful^ll what was seen as its applied potential (e.g. see Chalfen and Rich 2007). While leading ethnographic ^lmmakers continued to make ^lms that were praised and screened at ethnographic ^lm festivals, other key contributors to the ^eld of visual anthropology were using ^lm, and later video, to develop applied research. This work was produced in core ^elds of education (e.g. the work of John Collier Jnr., see Collier 2007) and health care contexts (e.g. the work of Richard Chalfen, see Chalfen and Rich 2007), in the context of projects that sought to make a di^erence in society.

My aim in this short article is to bring to the fore this other and now growing role of ethnographic ^lm practice, to ask what the role and purpose of ethnographic ^lm might be in society, beyond the making of ethnographic ^lms to screen to other ^lmmakers at ^lm festivals and to students of anthropology. This is not to say that such conventional and more academically oriented ethnographic ^lmmaking does not have an important role; I believe it does play a key role in the development of ethnographic ^lmmaking techniques, the gen- eration of a ^lmic scholarship and in exploring and representing other people's worlds with them. However there is another related role for ethnographic ^lm in the ways it can reach beyond academia and this is my focus here. In 1999 I began to use ethnographic videomak- ing techniques in applied research projects (e.g. Pink 2004), realizing the potential of such methods beyond the making of ^lms. Yet, simultaneously my work was in^uenced by that of the ^lmmakers I studied 10 years earlier, at the Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology (University of Manchester, UK). In the early 2000's I then began to seek examples of how other ethnographic ^lmmakers and visual anthropologists were also working with ethno- graphic ^lmmaking techniques, practices and products in the context of applied research. The outcome of this was eventually an edited book titled Visual Interventions: Applied Visual Anthropology (Pink 2007a), which brought together the work of a number of ^lmmakers and scholars whose practice crossed di^erent sectors such as health, disaster and post-con^ict work, and community development, as well as collaborations with industry. I added to this in a later essay, which updated on developments and also re^ected on the digital context of these (Pink 2011). The ethnographic ^lm practice of these scholars was, like my own, in^uenced by core themes in visual anthropology, including re^exivity, participatory and collaborative approaches, seeking to engage empathetically with the sensory and a^ective dimensions of people's lives, and by the work of leading ethnographic ^lmmakers and writ- ers such as David MacDougall and Jean Rouch. As I discuss in the introduction to the book (Pink 2007b), in these works it was o^en not only the ethnographic ^lm product that mat- tered. Rather other outcomes of the ^lmmaking process were important; for instance the impact that participating in the making of the ^lm could have on identity and self-awareness processes for ^lm subjects and participants, and how ^lm subjects might get involved in the screening of the ^lms, were in some cases signi^cant elements of the making and showing of ethnographic ^lms in applied research contexts.

In a contemporary context both applied and academic developments in ethnographic ^lmmaking and in the use of ethnographic ^lmmaking techniques in applied research is, as I noted above, li^le to do with ^lm as a medium. Rather this work is predominantly produced using digital video. This means that there has been on the one hand a divergence in the types of technologies that we might use for the making of the ethnographic moving image; from camera phones to top of the range digital video cameras. On the other hand there is conver- gence in what one might be able to do using the same technology; one could video record, edit and distribute an ethnographic documentary directly from a camera phone. Thus, to understand ethnographic video making and its potential we need to now address issues and literatures beyond the traditional scope of ethnographic ^lmmaking. We need to turn to the study of digital media to comprehend how their ubiquity in our own practices as researchers, and in the everyday lives of ^lm subjects and research participants opens up new potentials. These potentials o^er us new ways to record, edit, and disseminate ethnographic documen- tary, which might be re^exive and participatory in new ways. It might involve working as a documentary maker or applied video researcher in places that are simultaneously online and o^ine. It invites modes of dissemination that can take advantage of the Internet, social me- dia and a range of video hosting platforms. I do not discuss speci^c web resources, so^ware or hardware, since I point out in the 3rd edition of my book Doing Visual Ethnography (Pink 2013), the technological and practical landscape of this context is rapidly changing.

To sum up, ethnographic documentary, and the use of ethnographic documentary tech- niques in research and representation are beginning to participate in scholarship and applied research in new ways. This creates an important context for the emergence of new forms of public visual ethnography scholarship, which digital media can support. This is part of the future of ethnographic video making and it is up to us to enable its emergence.

Sarah Pink

RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

A Plea for Situating Knowledges

Etami Borjan's article summarizes the debate on participatory and collaborative approaches in ethnographic ^lmmaking from some years back. Arguing with Faye Ginsburg that "new forms of decolonized ethnographic knowledge call for revision of the theoretical frame- work of visual anthropology", Borjan also pursues theoretical and methodological discus- sions concerning indigenous cinema, the role of new social media and other social practices. Emerging from this review is the plea for a dialogical practice that involves the juxtaposition of "indigenous knowledge" with the "Western gaze". To avoid an oversimpli^cation and a priori value judgment of these seemingly opposed or at least complementary positions, I suggest (a) taking a closer look at the potentials and pitfalls of how indigenous articulations of new media currently rede^ne social activism and (b) reconsidering Haraway's notion of situated knowledges as a viable theoretical approach to conceptualize visuality.

For a radical theoretical shi^ related to questions of representational ethics, poetics and politics in the ^eld of visual anthropology it is not enough to simply claim that various forms of mass media should be studied anthropologically, as this article seems to suggest. In my view, it is just as crucial to be aware of new forms of visual imperialism camou^aged as edu- cational or political activism, and to avoid the trap of privileging "subjugated" or "insider's" perspectives because they are "least likely to allow denial of the critical and interpretative core of all knowledge", as Haraway reminds us (1988:584). Her warning about a serious dan- ger in romanticizing and/or appropriating the vision of the less powerful while claiming to see from their position, holds true more than ever before. I therefore plead to keep in mind that there is no such thing as an innocent position, even when most favorably looking at how new opportunities, based on digital imaging and social media networks, evolve for political expression and organization - from Cairo to Tripoli to Wall Street's Zucco^i Park, and, most recently, to Gezi Park in Istanbul.

While public information supplied and circulated by social networking platforms (in- cluding the posting of photos and video footage on Flickr, YouTube and Vimeo) have be- come indispensable for many activists on the ^eld, this process has also displayed certain downsides. Not only have oppressive regimes e^ectively managed to use the same technolo- gies to spy, hack, subvert and misinform, as was the case in the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009; but a particularly deceptive form of politicking, commonly referred to as "slacktivism" has developed. A pejorative term for people who want to appear to be doing something for a particular cause without actually having to do anything, it refers to those who frequently click the Facebook "like" and "share" bu^ons, but whose measures have usually no other ef- fect than to make themselves feel good.

However, the worst example of how participatory video or collaborative ^lmmaking has been misused as a seemingly appropriate tool for representing an indigenous group's struggle for international recognition is the 55 min. ^lm Shooting with Mursi (2009) by Ben Young and Olisarali Olibui. According to the o^cial website:

this unique ^ lm tells the story of one of Africa's most isolated tribes - the Mursi - through the eyes of one of its members Olisarali Olibui, who carries in one hand a Kalashnikov and in the other a camera. An Ethiopian pastoralist tribe, Mursi are beset by potential threats from other tribes, proposals to convert their land into a national park, and the arrival of a new road bringing tourists. The ^lm provides a compelling and, at times, disturbing insight into everyday life of a people whose culture, in the words of Olisarali, "faces extinction". (h^p://www.shootingwithmursi.com/)

As the viewer is presented with an oversimpli^ed "juxtaposition between indigenous knowl- edge and the western gaze" (Borjan), Olisarali takes the classic position of a cultural broker who takes an insider's perspective on the di^culties his community is facing in an era of re- stricted land rights, tourism and inter-tribal warfare. But instead of primarily using Olisarali's original ^lmic footage, he is turned into a character in the ^lm and reduced to the banal but universally subscribable statement that he ^nds the camera a more useful tool to "give his people a voice" than the Kalashnikov. Shooting with Mursi does not broach the issue that most of the visual material used in the ^nal version of the ^lm - highly exoticizing shots of Olisarali and the local Mursi community - was shot by Ben Young while appropriating Olisarali's per- spective to "explain" the events to the Western audience. In my view, the ^lm is not only a bad example of ill-informed salvage anthropology; it also, even worse, romantically aestheticizes and exoticizes Olisarali as a technologically apt and English-speaking version of the "noble savage" who intends to assist his people via the objectifying medium of ^lm.

I have used this ^lm in classroom teaching to encourage students to critically re^ect on questions of power and ethics of representation; in my experience, however, the majority of the viewers tend to buy the collaborative composition of the ^lm narrative and are convinced that this ^lm is a "true" or at least "truer" representation of Mursi reality because one of the ^lmmakers is a Mursi. They do not o^en ask the question of who controlls or who owns this ^lm, or even whether the ^lm medium had a performative and/or informative function within the Mursi community. The working of this ^lm is particularly deceptive because it momentarily excites audiences who are not used to "hear the subaltern speak," but fails to consequently address questions regarding power relations, agency and visual imperialism. The fact that this ^lm was internationally successful and won a number of awards, amongst them the UNESCO Award at the Millenium Film Festival in Brussels, is an indication of the prevalent confusion about the decolonization of knowledge in general and decolonization of the ethnographic gaze in particular.

Along these lines, the visual anthropologist Martin Gruber points towards the "new tyr- anny" of participatory approaches in development contexts (Gruber 2012). In his recently submi^ed PhD dissertation on "Participatory Ethnographic Filmmaking in Applied Con- texts" he illustrates how participation can conceal and reinforce oppression and argues that participatory methods are embedded in power relations and are themselves exercises of power (ibid.).

This is of course not to say that there are no truly excellent examples of indigenous media and collaborative ethnographic ^lmmaking that really do help to overturn subaltern posi- tions in the political arena (Prins 2002:72). Some of the examples I appreciate the most are the ^lms, videos and TV programs produced by Igloolik Isuma Productions, Inc. in Canada (h^p://www.isuma.tv/isuma-productions). A platform for indigenous ^lmmakers, Isuma TV produced a unique style of "re-lived" drama and released the 13-part dramatic TV series Nunavut (Our Land), along with a number of non-^ction works on "Testimony", "Docu- mentaries and Youth" as well as "Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change". Telling authentic, original-language Inuit stories to Inuit and non-Inuit audiences worldwide, Isuma develops new and original forms of storytelling, dramaturgy and aesthetic composition and continues to enhance Inuit community culture and language. Another successful example is Children of Srikandi (2012), the ^rst ^lm about queer women in Indonesia:

Eight authentic and poetic stories are interwoven with beautiful shadow theater scenes that tell the story of Srikandi, one of the characters of the Indian Mahabharata. Th is collective anthology transcends the borders between documentary, ^ction and experimental ^lm. (h^p://lauracoppens.com/#/^lms/)

The challenge, however, remains to confront the continued dominance of Western ways of seeing/showing and knowing without abandoning the project of visual ethnographic repre- sentation altogether. Nobody has, in my view, outlined the conundrum be^er than Donna Haraway, who, speaking from a radical feminist perspective, states:

So, I think, my problem, and "our" problem, is how to have simultaneously an account of radical historical contingency for all knowledge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice for recognizing our own "semiotic technologies" for making meanings, and a no- nonsense commitment to faithful accounts of a "real" world (...) (1988:579)

This comment is directly transferable to the dilemma that ethnographic ^lm and indigenous media have now been facing for the last decades. And so is her plea:

We don't want a theor y of innocent powers to represent the world, where language and bodies fall into the bliss of organic symbiosis. We also don't want to theorize the world, much less act within it, in terms of Global Systems, but we do need an earthwide network of connections, including the ability, partially, to translate knowledges among ver y di^erent - and power-di ^ erentiated - communities.(1988:579-580)

Furthermore, she con^rms that subscribing to a partial perspective does not mean abandon- ing the pursuit of accumulating knowledge and establishing truth(s). With this in mind, I suggest that visual anthropologists and collaborative ^lmmakers start accepting that there is no immediate vision from the standpoints of the subjugated and that the fear of taking a "biased" position - whether it results from an ill-conceived "political correctness" or a cul- tural relativist position - o^en tends to obstruct the production of sensible accounts of the world we inhabit and hence also obstructs the production of stimulating and innovative (i.e. multidimensional, multi-genre) ^lms.

Michaela Schauble

University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Without the Colonial Other: Ethnographic Film at Home

The text o^ered by Etami Borjan as the lead text for this discussion of visual anthropology and ethnographic ^lmmaking can be de^nitely called a starting point in the development of a more serious approach to visual anthropology in Croatia.

As a discipline, it is undoubtedly a new one in Croatia and the neighboring countries, the region popularly known as the SE Europe. The courses in visual anthropology have been taught at Croatian universities only for the last ten years or so and there are a few ethnolo- gists and anthropologists today who would say that what they do is ethnographic ^lmmak- ing. Half jokingly, I could easily claim that I could name them all. However, it has to be said that the development and "embodiment" of visual anthropology in ethnology and cultural anthropology in Croatia has followed certain general trends of the development of those dis- ciplines in Croatia, the so-called anthropologization of ethnology and the turn from "East- ern ethnology" to "Western anthropology", the process which had its good points but also a few major drawbacks. As Western anthropology had to "apologize" for the colonial approach of its pre-1960s past, which was also applicable to the practices of visual anthropology and which Borjan very thoroughly presented in her overview of the development of visual an- thropology, ethnology had to get rid of the brand of a national science dealing with national cultural phenomena, rooted in the Rural Other, o^en with implicit or, sometimes, explicit, nationalistic undertones. Fortunately, I think, the last period of re-thinking of both disci- plines has overcome those issues once and for all.

Hence, return to the past theories found in the leading text is an excellent starting point for the new discussions in the combined approach to visual anthropology which takes into account some other traditions, not straightforwardly "Western" ones, of ^lming the Other, whoever He/She might be in the non-colonial traditions of the culture research. Namely, one of the major drawbacks of the anthropologization of ethnology, including the introduction of visual anthropology, was the non-critical, West-to-East-copy-paste of the existing theories which, in the world of academia, gave us the "license to teach", but, in the world of ethno- graphic ^lmmaking, urged us to forget that we were the carriers of almost a century long tra- dition of ^lming of Our Other. Of course, I am not claiming either approach as being be^er, I will just try to outline an alternative history of ^lming an alternative Other.

At the beginning and almost through the whole of the ^rst half of the 20th century, Croa- tia was an exotic destination for many adventurers and travelers who were seeking the wild, untouched, even savage Europe. Even a century and a half earlier, from the time of Alberto Fortis, the Dalmatian Hinterland was famous as the home of the very backwards, very "prim- itive" people called the Morlacks (Fortis 1774). Not Morlocks (Wells 1895), but almost as savage. When camera arrived at the scene, the Morlacks, the real ones and their invented image, were long gone, but the camera-carrying travelers were equally mesmerized by the no- madic shepherds, non-pasteurized home-made cheese, co^ages in which ca^le and people slept (almost) side by side, po^ery, textiles, sheep skins, animal masks and the simplicity of life in its pure form. Sarcasm aside, without the colonial situation as de^ned by anthropolo- gists, the approach was equally - let's call it, for the sake of discussion, colonial.

Roughly at the same time, meaning the ^rst half of the 20th century, living and ^lming in Croatia, was the Croatian ^rst visual anthropologist, Milovan Gavazzi. His ethnographic ^lmography spans the period from the 1920s to 1970s, he was the author of numerous eth- nographic ^lms, but his subjects were his Own Others, or, to be more precise, the Others from his own culture - Croatian "peasants" and their rural everyday existence. Hence, strictly speaking, he was doing ethnology and visual ethnography at home and hence, should have been freed from the superior Western gaze over the indigenous other, the very gaze which determined the de^nition and development of ethnographic ^lm. So was he really?

He was a University Professor of ethnology, admired and remembered by many of his students, and he used to stand up when they would enter his o^ce during o^ce hours. He would never call himself visual anthropologist, although he was familiar with the discipline and during his many years of writing ethnographies and making ethnographic ^lms (even though some of the ^lms were lost, there are more than 20 ^lms he made himself or in coop- eration with other ^lmmakers). He never problematized the concept of ethnographic ^lm or visual ethnography, until the very end of his working life in an interview which speci^cally dealt with the topic (Kriznar 1992) and on the insistence of others and not from his own urge to explain his theoretical and methodological framework. In the interview, he admi^ed being fascinated by Nanook and greatly admiring Jean Rouch. None of that was obvious in his ^lms. Very much like Franz Boas in his insistence on visual but not very ^lm-like accounts of material culture and, speci^cally, "rural" technology (Gavazzi seemed to be fascinated by it), Gavazzi was simply making the visual counterpart of his ethnological theory, salvage ethnog- raphy. On purpose, not by chance. From his own culture and for his own culture.

In all of his works, it was also notable that he was fascinated by, what the theory would call, indigenous knowledge. He was an excellent ^eldworker, had a good network on inform- ants in situ and would not miss the opportunity to ^lm, for example, a very complex process of changing a location of a house, a speci^c way of ^shing, boiling milk with a hot stone, carrying the deceased on a large wooden sleigh, speci^c weaving techniques, etc. Accord- ing to anecdotal accounts, which are still being re-told at my Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, he was known to rush out of his o^ce with his camera in his hands a^er he would receive an information that there was something out there worth ^lming. Ac- cording to his colleagues and the students which accompanied him on his travels, he was able to establish a great rapport with his rural interlocutors. A^er all, he was a Professor (as everybody called him), he was a guest in the house, he could and would chat of everyday struggles of his rural co-citizens, he was interested in what those people had to say, o^er and show. His silent ^lmed subjects o^en readily gazed at his camera, as if asking whether they were being cooperative enough. However, his interest in them and their lives stemmed from his own scienti^c motifs, he made the selection of what was representative and what was not, he had the upper hand in this exchange of knowledge and interests and, of course, as I already emphasized, he was the Professor with a big capital le^er, a "knowledgeable", "learned" guest, a member of the "elite".5 Hence, his ethnographic ^lmmaking was also an imposition of a superior gaze, a gaze which could also be called colonial, but without the colonial situation and without the Colonial Other.

Another equally intriguing approach to ethnographic ^lm at home was happening at roughly at same period, from the 1930s to the 1970s and the "perpetrators" in this case were the physicians and their colleagues from the School of Public Health "Andrija Stampar" from Zagreb. Their ethnographic ^lmography was enormous. But, their ethno-^lmic gaze at their own Rural Others was even more superior and exclusivist. It was the gaze of public health o^cials, professionally (not necessarily individually, but that was also quite probable) aston- ished and shocked at the hygienic, socio-economic and medical conditions the rural popula- tion lived in. Hence, the "colonial" character of their gaze was scienti^c and professional and was based on the politics and power of the medical system.

The decades have passed, some visual ethnography was done at the Institute of Ethnol- ogy and Folkloristics from Zagreb, and then came the period of the import of visual an- thropology I was talking about at the beginning. The students of ethnology, (socio)cultural anthropology and cultural studies at Croatian universities were watching the amazing and ingenious ethnographic ^lms by Flaherty, Rouch, Gardner, Marshall, Ash, MacDougall, read theories by Hocking, Heider, Banks, Ruby, Ginsburg, Pink, el Guindi, Minh-Ha; some Croa- tian ethnologists and anthropologists were making their own ^lms (low-budget or, more of- ten, no-budget) and festivals of ethnographic ^lms started to emerge, some completely new ones (in the town of Rovinj), some re-kindled ones (in the town of ^akovo). However, the selection and the awarding process at some of the festivals gave the impression that we were trying to prove that we have learned visual anthropology and, without even a re-course or a second thought as to why was this happening, the festivals, in order to get funding and a broader audience, were inviting and, later as they grew in popularity, a^racting ^lms which won awards at other international ethnographic ^lm festivals. The audience at the festivals thus (not really numerous, but who's counting) got good ^lms, about people and places they have never seen or ever dreamed of seeing or never even cared about seeing, but these are all good aspects of the production of ethnographic ^lms, the organizers have proven their organizational skills and we, the ethnologists and cultural anthropologists of Croatia, have proven that we have learned the theory. The things we have missed to ask ourselves is wheth- er this theory was applicable, to what extent and, the most importantly, in what way, to what we have been doing for the last 200 years in writing and roughly 100 years in visual media - ethnography at home or, more precisely, the ethnography of our own culture.6

In the discussion of ethnographic ^lm festivals and, subsequently, the reception of eth- nographic ^lms, we have to mention one important element, noted by Ruby and Hockings, among many others, some 20 or more years ago - the audience. I'm quite sure that Professor Gavazzi, from the beginning of this story, did not care at all about the "mass" reception of his ^lms. His students and colleagues were good enough audience. Even though the Forest of Bliss is a master piece for me, a ^lm I am bedazzled with, to a not that enthusiastic viewer, it is di^cult to understand and to follow. If ethnographic ^lms were "made to be seen" (Banks and Ruby 2011) does it mean that somewhere along the road of present or future develop- ment of ethnographic ^lms, in order to "pleasure" the audience, and here we can go back to Aristotelian theory of literature, they will have to be more ^lm-like and use ^lm more dexter- ously as the medium of expression of knowledge, meaning, emotions...? (Sensory visual anthropology and ethno-^ction seem to be good examples.)

We can, of course, claim that the motifs for making ethnographic ^lms were never to please the audience, but, ideally, to teach them something, to educate them, to stir an emo- tion, to make them think, to take sides, to act possibly and, above all, to give voice to the voiceless and to give rise to the multivocal existences that make our world. A very noble task, I agree. Can it be done?

Even if our Others were not in the inferior position of the Colonial Other, but were, in Gavazzi's time, exclusively Rural Other and today, for the lack of a be^er term, Our Other (from rural and urban se^ings alike even though the di^erence is increasingly hard to estab- lish), our ^lmmaking process of selecting and interpreting the data, knowledge, impressions, thoughts, emotions we have about them and packaging those in a visual form which is "made to be seen" by some Other Others, is a very "colonial" process indeed. Misusing Foucault's claim of medical gaze as the one which sees and knows (Foucault 1963), I would say that the ethno-^lmic gaze is the one which sees and "knows", in the analytic process of making up the ^lmic story, creating it, developing it, asking the questions and providing the answers. The answers can and should be multivocal, as many contemporary ethnographic ^lmmakers have proven in their works, and the Author's voice can be a full scale vibrato or a deliberately hushed whisper, but there will always be more voices hidden behind the spoken ones. Indig- enous cinematography can not escape that trap either. As all other cinematographies, shared, participatory, joint, collaborative, etc., it can just be very fair about revealing the choices it made.

As far as collaborative ethno-^lming is concerned, today it is simply a logical way to do this job properly. Of course you will pay a^ention to what your "objects" want, of course you will take into account their disagreement with something you've just o^ered as the interpre- tation of what they say or do. In particular, of course you will allow an old lady being ^lmed baking bread "traditional" way to take o^ her everyday apron and put on "a be^er one" if she loudly protests at camera being on and catching her in the apron she did not want to be ^lmed in. Some schools teach we should urge her to stay in her everyday apron, others to ^lm her plead at changing it, with us even perversely waiting for her to say loudly that she has to change her apron because of the camera, which would prove we have disclosed our se^ing and our methodology. Both seem a bit unethical towards the old lady herself. She was kind, very ready to show us what we wanted, talked to us, gave us food, some of us slept in her house and she had the right to want to be ^lmed in something we will detect as "ethnographic fraud" or a sensitivity to camera "being there".

What about the lady herself? What did she want? A be^er pension, more people in the li^le Adriatic village she lived in, less tourists, more regular supply of groceries and for her granddaughter to graduate from the University. No, she did not care about ethnographic ^lms, but she liked our interest in her life. My point here is that giving the camera to the ones we ^lm is just another illusion that we will get more "closer to the truth" and more away from our colonial gaze.

Many of the Our Others I have met, especially those of younger generation, have the enthusiasm and frequently, quite good cameras, to do the story themselves. Of course they can learn the basics of ^lming, no problem there. But if they want to say something about their region, their everyday life, their activities, they want to talk about things that interest themselves personally. Some would ^lm a local football match, some their prom, some a very nasty beach party, some, who paid a^ention at school, the story of the town's old tower, some, of the broken water pipe at the town's Riva, etc. But they will all have their own agendas for doing it and those multiple voices will not necessarily oppose the mainstream hegemony or bring about cultural and political changes. For me personally, activism is my chosen way of doing ethnography and, paraphrasing Ruth Behar, for me it is the only way for doing ethnog- raphy. However, activism as such should not be the leading thought for making ethnographic films.

In conclusion, ethnographic ^lmmaking is an imposing, superior(istic) and very autho- rial and authoritarian(ish) overlook of any given society, culture or person. Even without the colonial position which de^ned the development of ethnographic ^lm and without the Colonial Other, its practices are deeply "colonial" in imposing the ^lmer over the ^lmed. The camera can change hands, or even the direction of the ^lming, with the ^lmed one ^lming the ^lmer, but the discourse of the ^lm as a whole is set at a third reality (Edwards 1997:56), beyond the ethnographic encounter as such. Even when we do ethnography at home, we are making the same "mistakes".

Hence, indigenous cinematography can be great, very pragmatic, needed and practical sub-genre of ethnographic ^lm, extremely important for the future development of the genre itself and equal in importance with all other types of ethnographic ^lm, maybe bringing a new boost to the old form, but it will never eradicate the issues of authority and gaze in eth- nographic ^lm.

Tanja Bukov?an

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb

Ethnographic Filmmaking in Shifting Contexts

Etami Borjan's article introduces some of the main tropes in anthropology positioning them in regards to ethnographic ^lm: the Other, shared authorship, multivocality, objectivity and subjectivity. Even if we nominate them separately and analyze them separately, they are un- questionably related to each other and dependent on each other. Discussing ideas about one of them leads us to rethink ideas about the rest of them, and about their nonlinear connect- edness. Hence, I enclose here some thoughts of how are these concepts intertwined in the rethinking of ethnographic ^lmmaking in shi^ing contexts.

When discussing elsewhere7 the relations between mainstream anthropology and visu- al anthropology, I wrote: "Visual ethnography as a method is nowadays not in question. It showed from the early years notable ability to adapt itself to demands of theories that are constituting it. A big part of anthropological theory focuses, in turn, on discipline's meth- odology rendering its usage more and more thought-out. Ethnography is not just a practice that makes the world explainable, it is acknowledged as a practice of world making. In that sense, complexities of our world are made and remade through our explanations of them. Ethnographic ^lm in particular seems to succeed in surpassing a space of ocularity and in converting images into a unity of sense."

By "unity of sense" I meant the ability of ethnographic ^lm to evoke lived reality cinemat- ically. In such instances, the complexity of ^lm's form is intertwined with the complexity of the phenomenon in question. Taken in this way, I argued, ethnographic ^lm is the explora- tion of the particular phenomenon and is, at the same time, the phenomenon to observe: it is the 'site'. This is the site of material, theoretical and sensorial presence.8

We can visit the site, analyze it, experience it and try to understand what it evokes with its content and its form.

Similar understandings of ethnographic ^lm used to be labeled as experimental ethnog- raphy (Russell 1999, Webster 19939), but it seems to me that in this contemporary frag- mented world no other form of (visual) ethnography serves its purpose. For ethnographic ^ lm no longer represents Others (unless it simultaneously represents us), is no longer objec- tive (unless it is simultaneously subjective), is no longer univocal (unless it is simultaneously multivocal).

And let us not forget, the contemporary world is not only the postcolonial world, it does not consists only of former objects turned to subjects; it consists of the new subjects, too. Of never before observed subjects, if not by themselves. So called "li^le ethnologies" (Prica 2001), as ours is, should pay a^ention to the ways in which use of determining terminology shapes observation and interpretation. Most ^lms that were ^lmed in our region in the last century, that we may call ethnographic, were not made by representatives of some distant colonial powers, but by members of the same (national, regional, state) community. The problem of objectifying as implicit process in observing and analyzing is not overlooked here; as long as there is observation, there are objects of that observation, even if it is Us. But witnessing the era of "anthropology at home" in the big world, and having the legacy of European ethnologies (that were always more or less at home), we are more than aware of overlapping of Others and Us, objects and subjects, objects turned into subjects. What I am trying to say is that in doing visual ethnography (as well as wri^en ethnography) one objecti- ^es her/himself as well as the Other, naturally, always applying current theoretical tools, be it multivocality, re^exivity, or something else.

Therefore, when I ^lm in Italy, Bosnia and Herzegovina or in Croatia, I have to surpass the invisible gaps, sometimes walls, have to ^nd passages (for they always are) in an e^ort to evoke the senses and lived reality (processes) of the community (of ^shermen in Naples, or Muslims and Croats in Mostar, or working community in Rijeka). In some way, I am always an outsider to the phenomenon I observe, even if it takes place in the same street I live in (as does shipyard "3. Maj" in Rijeka). The "outsiderness" I am talking about here is di^erent from the one developed in postcolonial theory (Minh-Ha 1991 cited in Borjan, this issue) and therefore we should restrain from using that terminology without pointing out the nu- ances of di^erence.

Who can claim today to possess "indigenous knowledge"? Working as an anthropologist in her own culture, one learns to understand that the possession of that kind of knowledge shi^s together with the shi^ing contexts she works in. And what remains is being an anthro- pologist, with analytical and documentary accuracy guaranteed by her education, the same way this accuracy is guaranteed by her "outsider" colleague.

In accordance to the widely accepted acknowledgement about today's world as a hetero- geneous 'global village' that is not just a scaled up version of a local village writ large (Cheater 1995), and as a world inhabited with local subjects who can shi^ to cosmopolitans in variable contexts of their everyday life (Abu-Lughod 1997), we should reconsider concepts such as "local anthropologist" and "indigenous ^lmmaker". As our subjects change, so do we.

Sanja Puljar D'Alessio

Department of Cultural Studies, University of Rijeka

The Problems of Visual Ethnography/Anthropology.

Ideas about the Other - Misconceptions about Oneself

For how long will the Western point of view and approach to other cultures be considered as the Original sin of visual anthropology, which is then automatically pinned to every (audio) visual ethnographic production? For a long time, the ^lms are not produced only in the West and neither are the methods and principles of western cultural/social anthropology the only legitimate way of analyzing and interpreting culture. Furthermore, I really do not understand why an ethnological/anthropological work should necessarily be activist, i.e. why should every interpretation of the Other automatically imply ^ghting for their (various) rights? Eth- nologist/anthropologist is not primarily a politician nor an activist. He/she can be one, but doesn't need to. W hat he/she has to do, no ma^er what topic/culture he/she is dealing with and regardless of one's own imperfections and limitations, is to be an expert and, as such, be loud and clear about the conclusions he/she made about a particular topic/culture/commu- nity and the reasons for such conclusions. This is his/her right and obligation. Hence, why should we deny an ethnologist/anthropologist the right to interpret the culture of others/ Other? A^er all, that is what he/she is supposed to do. An expert should always be capable of seeing a "broader perspective", because that is what he/she was educated for. Of course he/ she can make mistakes, but this is not and cannot be the reason why he/she should be denied the right to his/her primary profession, or be banned from it, just because somebody made a colossal mistake in the past.

The text by Etami Borjan is a very thorough overview of the history of the developments and concepts in the area of (anthropological) visual presentation of culture, but with the emphasis on the problems of the research of a culture that is not our own, i.e. the culture of the Other/Others. However, it is obvious that the author has accepted the Western view on those problems, since she analyzes them referring exclusively to the Western view and fram- ing her thoughts accordingly. It seems to me that this particular view (as well as the author in her text), constantly fails to understand and accept some simple facts when it comes to (au- dio)visual interpretation of cultures or, conditionally, the production of ethnographic ^lms.

The main problem here is this "eternal", or, should I say, mythical, concept of the Other as the "poor" and "subjugated" Other. However, things are actually completely logical, self- understandable and - crystal clear. The Other is always "subjugated", simply because It is de^ned as - the Other.

To carry this point a bit further, I will try to de^ne who exactly is that Other, primarily in the context of ^lm, which is the main point of this discussion.

I see it like this: just because I exist, I am Myself/Me. And, besides me, there are Others, all those who are not Me. It goes without saying that my position has been shaped by up- bringing, education, culture, i.e. a^itudes that I have acquired. Hence it is completely natural, inseparable from me and unavoidable, that those a^itudes are the framework through which I observe, document and interpret everybody else and they are the Others. Logically, then, those are the conditions under which I make My ethnography of the Other. In anthropology, the consensus about those issues has been achieved long ago and Etami Borjan emphasizes it in her text.

However, unlike Borjan, I think that, if we take into account those basic aspects of the way we perceive the Other, it is completely irrelevant whether ^lm ethnography is made on tape, electronic or digital technology or era. It is true that the development and accessibil- ity of recording technology, especially digital, have given the possibility to many people to engage in this activity and hence, have democratized it. However, I would say that the main issues surrounding the interpretation of the Other have not moved an inch, which is some- thing the ^lmmakers have known all along, while the ethnologists/anthropologists keep la- menting on it and still use it as a bone of contention.

First of all, the production of visual interpretation (video-recording, video-presentation, TV broadcast or ^lm) is technically/technologically a very complex process, which is highly conditioned in itself. This additionally complicates and relativizes the ethnography done in this way, since those conditions are unavoidable, they are conditio sine qua non. Besides that, the essential ingredient remains the same - I interpret the Other. It is completely irrelevant whether I have made my commentary directly or indirectly - it is always there. It is a mis- conception that the ethnologists/anthropologists have given voice to the Other the moment when they decided not to use the direct personal commentary in the form of the spoken (narrator's) text and when they started to interview the Others (which, to be honest, they could not do in the past, i.e. until they started using sound camera). This is a misconception simply because the whole ^lm is, in itself, always a commentary. Because, who decides what will be documented/recorded? Me (the one making the ^lm). Who asks the questions, i.e. choses the topics? Me (the one making the ^lm). W ho makes a selection of the answers? Me (again). W ho puts all this into a ^nal narrative (i.e. edits the ^lm)? Hey, again Me. Hence, through all this, through the whole process, I am interpreting the Other. The same rule ap- plies when the Other takes camera in his/her own hands - if the Other will do an ethnog- raphy on him/herself and his/her Own people, then he/she becomes I, and his/her Own become the Others; if I make an ethnography on Me and my Own, I become the Other to myself and, consequentially, my Own became the Others to Me.

In doing this, and it is important to emphasize it, I am always the colonizer! As soon as I step on the set, I conquer the space and (partly) the people in it. Ethnography done by paper and pen might be a li^le less aggressive in this, i.e. less conquering. But the ethnography done by camera (especially if I have decided to do a ^lm and not only a video recording, i.e. decided to interpret the Other), implies a more intensive (more selective) interpretation, because it inevitably undergoes technological processes (shooting, cut editing and sound editing), which includes multiple (starting with the ^lm planning) decisions on selection and is hence more intensive. In this sense, it is completely irrelevant whether the ^lmmak- ing ethnographer/ethnologist/ anthropologist is coming from the country which is (used to be) the colonizer of the state in which he/she is doing ethnography, whether he/she is doing ethnography in one's own state/community or in a third space which was in no way connected with his/her state/community; he/she is always the colonizer since he/she, and I repeat, through the sheer process of ^lming, conquers the space and people in it - such is the nature, i.e. psychology of making ^lms.

Of course, we can always discuss whether a certain author managed to present the world- view/pa^ern/context of the position of the Other and how "fair" was he/she in that process, meaning, for example, that the author allowed the Other to express things which are contrary to his/her personal standpoints, but again, we should not neglect the fact that this is never the "real" voice of the Other, it is just an interpretation of that voice, which, directly or indi- rectly, is provided by the author of the ethnography/^lm, i.e. Myself. I simply do not under- stand why the ^lmmaking ethnologists/anthropologists don't recognize that once and for all.

Isn't it indicative that (visual) anthropology laments on the same issues for over 50 years, with the only conclusion, about which any consensus has been achieved, being that anything goes and that we have a bunch of di^erent and equally legitimate approaches, each of them imperfect? Science is generally an imperfect endeavor and the ^lm production even more so due to a large number of conditions (technological, ^nancial, organizational, ethical) and, hence, limitations. In my earlier works I have claimed that we cannot have the same expec- tations from ^lmic and wri^en ethnography since those are di^erent media, with di^erent "languages", methods and limitations, but of course these are not the reasons to give up on any of them (or, be^er, not to combine them). Furthermore, I also claim that ^lm approach in general cannot be proclaimed scienti^c, due to, as I said, a too large number of coincidences and limitations in the production of the ^lm, which are unavoidable. Film as ethnography is useful, since "one picture speaks thousand words", however, it is simultaneously a "damaged good" and this "damage" is inseparable from it and, hence, unavoidable and that is something we should all bear in mind. And that's it - the perfect solution does not exist.

Aleksej Gotthardi-Pavlovsky

Croatian Radio-Television, Zagreb

REPLY TO COMMENTS

The introductory text points to some of the basic theoretical and, partly, practical problems ethnographic ^lmmakers face in ethnographic ^lmmaking. At the beginning, we should brie^y refer to terminology and discuss the legitimacy of the term "ethnographic ^lm" in the period when ethnographic audiovisual records are decreasingly made on tape and increas- ingly in digital format. As Sarah Pink claims, ethnographic ^lm is a widely accepted term today. Even though the term was once used mainly to refer to audiovisual work in analog recording, contemporary ethnographic ^lm is a much wider term, encompassing not only ^lms recorded on tape, but also audiovisual work made in new formats. However, I think that it is still justi^ed to use the term "ethnographic ^lm" in the context of ^lm taxonomy. The term ethnographic ^lm is used as a synonym for a certain type of ^lm, which, as is the case with all ^lm types and gender, does not automatically imply the homogeneity of works or the strictness of boundaries. New forms of ethnographic ^lmmaking appear under vari- ous names, depending on topics, the relationship with the ^lmed subjects and the authors: autoethnography, self-re^exive ethnographic ^lm, collaborative ^lm, community ^lm, indig- enous ethnographic ^lm... Regardless of their di^erences, it is certain that they all share a unity of genre which allows them to be categorized as the ^lm type called "ethnographic ^lm". In contemporary ethnographic audiovisual ^lm production genre crossing and the overlapping of the modes of representation is frequent, especially between feature, docu- mentary, and sometimes even experimental ^lm, but in those cases the main criteria of de- termining boundaries between genres are their dominant characteristics, regardless of the fact that those movies share secondary characteristics with other genres. Therefore, I think that, regardless of the di^erent subtypes of ethnographic ^lms and their di^erent formats, we can still use the term ethnographic ^lm. New media have introduced changes into the mode of representation, production and distribution of ethnographic audiovisual works and we can now speak of ethnographic video, digital ethnographic video and other subtypes of ethnographic ^lms, depending on topics, style and format, but I think that new formats don't change the genre classi^cation in ^lm studies signi^cantly.

However, what is important to emphasize is what Sarah Pink points to in her commen- tary and books, and that is the fact that the new media have a^ected the social function of ethnographic audiovisual work. This has, to a certain degree, modi^ed the nature of ethno- graphic ^lm which isn't and doesn't have to be of a classic scienti^c type. I am not saying, of course, that contemporary ethnographic ^lm should be exclusively activist. I also don't think that social activism is the only goal of contemporary ethnographic ^lm, just as the exclusive production of a scienti^cally elaborated audiovisual work led by principles of wri^en visual anthropology, as was the case with classical ethnographic ^lm, was not its' sole purpose. The purpose of my article was not to "rob" or deny the ethnologist of the right to interpret the Other culture or turn him/her into an activist and claim that activist ethnographic ^lm is the only acceptable discourse of representing di^erent cultures. The purpose was to point to issues and dilemmas ethnographic ^lmmakers and directors face when representing other cultures. Let us not forget that ethnographic ^lms were not and are not made only by anthro- pologists, ethnologists, ethnographic ^lmmakers, but by directors and cineastes as well. Even though the adherents of Heider's and Ruby's uncompromising variant of hardcore ethnogra- phy might question the classi^cation of works made by "non-anthropologists", I think their ^lms can, in the widest sense, be also classi^ed as ethnographic ^lms.

Digital media changes the concept of ethnographic ^lm, changing also its goal, purpose, target audience, distribution and production. Contemporary ethnographic ^lm is no more an exclusive domain for academics, which is evident in the increasingly rich production by indigenous populations which, of course, doesn't decrease its value. On the contrary, it opens up new possibilities in the thematic, stylistic, but also sociological sense. One of them, as Pink points out, is the importance of the process of ^lming for indigenous communities. Evidence of this are numerous examples of collaborative projects, as well as independent indigenous projects producing ^lms of ethnographic value, with di^erent types of participa- tion by local community members. This is evident in two projects: the already mentioned Video nas aldeias [Video in the Villages], which started as a collaborative project and today is an indigenous project and the Igloolik Isuma Production, mentioned by Michaela Schäuble. Together with the already mentioned Nunavut[Our Land] (1993-1995) series, it seems in- teresting to mention another initiative originating in the same community: the Arnait Video Production which was established in 1991 as a part of the workshop for indigenous female directors - Arnait Ikajurtigiit [Women helping Women] - of the video production center, Tariagsuk video center. The ^rst videos recorded by Arnait center were related to the issues of labor and women's health (Evans 2010:15). The center was established by Marie-Hélène Cousineau, and it serves as a place for video training and provides recording equipment. Some of the workshop participants are currently making their own ^lms produced by these two centers: Marie-Hélène Cousineau, Madeline Ivalu, Julie Ivalu (Cache Collective, 2008).

The process of participation in the making of audiovisual works of ethnographic value plays a signi^cant part in raising individual and collective consciousness in the community (Pink). Media and new technologies are greatly responsible for this, since the phenomenon can be viewed in local, global and transnational context. The ubiquity of mass media (video, television, radio, mobile phones, the internet ...) has radically a^ected the production and distribution of ethnographic ^lms. Although collaborative or indigenous ethnographic ^lms were frequently made for the needs of respective communities, in the last two decades, indig- enous ^lms, with the help of television and festivals, are circulated among other indigenous groups who are not necessarily members of the same ethnic groups or speak the same lan- guage. Globally, indigenous ^lms are mainly low-budget local projects, made for non-com- mercial purposes, independently of mainstream ^lm industry and are still not easily available to the wider audience; they are distributed in festivals or local indigenous television stations. Producers and directors of indigenous audiovisual works have started organizing transna- tional networks as early as the 1990s, through festivals, organizations, conferences and co- productions. Even today, the distribution of indigenous ^lms mostly depends on indigenous ^lm festivals, the number of which is on the increase each year. The listserv NATIVE-L was launched in 1991, dealing with the problems of indigenous populations around the world, and it served as a basis for subsequent launches of smaller specialized sites (Native Net, Na- tive Web, Native Networks), platforms for creating global virtual indigenous communities in the 1990s. Social networks helped connect regional projects. One of them is the organiza- tion CLACPI (Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Cine y Comunicación de los Pueblos Indíge- nas, [Latin-American Network for Film and Communication of Indigenous Populations]), established in 1985 in Mexico. Since its foundation CLACPI has organized many indigenous ^ lm festivals, work shops and seminars (Salazar and Córdova 2008). The transnational net- working of indigenous populations is simultaneously national and non-national in character; the ideas of uni^cation of indigenous peoples are active at the level of national states, but also imply cooperation, association and strengthening of collective consciousness regarding indigenous issues at the global level. The media have become means through which indig- enous communities, sharing common experiences, build a sense of belonging to a form of pseudonation - a transnational community of geopolitically disunited groups which are able to maintain dialogue regardless of national, cultural and language barriers. It is no surprise, therefore, that new theories in visual anthropology are focused on the social role of contem- porary indigenous ^lmmaking and media in speci^c communities and that they draw from communication studies, cultural studies and ^lm theory and semiotics of the media (Abu- Lughod i Ginsburg 2002; Ang 1996; Appadurai 1996; Dornfeld 1998, etc.).

Thanks to the changes in the hierarchy of observer-observed relation and the impact of new media on its production and distribution, contemporary ethnographic ^lm articulates new epistemological issues already present in the works of Jean Rouch, Sarah Elder, David and Judith MacDougall, John Marshall and Barbara Myerho^ - ^lmmakers move away from the traditional observational ethno-documentarism and turn to re^exive documentarism. However, it opens some new questions related not only to the position of the ethnographic ^lmmakers, but of the Other as well. Postcolonial ethnographic ^lm questions indigenous knowledge which becomes an interactive and interpretive discursive process. The position of the observed globalized multicultural society is continually rede^ned, shi^ing between observer and subject, depending on the context; hence, the identity of the Other is not unambiguous, as pointed out by Bukov^an, Puljar D'Alessio and Go^hardi-Pavlovsky. The problem with the "we"-"they" dichotomy, which has been a topic in Anglo-Saxon visual an- thropology for a long time, was clearly illustrated by Bukov^an with the example of the devel- opment of ethnographic ^lm in Croatia where the Other is at the same time "them" and "us". Although my article deals with the position of the Other in the context of "colonial" visual anthropology, colonial gaze and representation, it is clear that ethnographic ^lms made in a non-colonial context articulate these issues di^erently, due to the fact that they originate in a di^erent social se^ing and with a di^erent purpose; it is also clear that in the case of "li^le ethnographies" it is impossible to blindly apply all theories and insights of visual anthropol- ogy (Bukov^an, Puljar D'Alessio).

In the context of ethnographic ^lm in general, it is risky nowadays to refer to the "we- they" dichotomy, because it is impossible to establish where the Other begins and ends. It is especially evident in autoethnographic and contemporary indigenous ^lms, where the West- ern "Other" becomes the authorial "I" (Go^hardy-Pavlovsky, Puljar D'Alessio). As Bukov^an and Go^hardi-Pavlovsky state, ethnographic ^lm is "colonial" by nature, because in it, the author imposes his/her point of view, vision, interpretation of a culture. However, I think this is the characteristic of all ^lms, even documentaries, which are subjective by nature. Doc- umentary ^lms (which in my view include a large portion of traditional ethnographic ^lms) are seemingly objective and truthful testimonies, based in real life, but they are simultane- ously the construct of a subject determined in terms of ideology, gender, culture and history (regardless of whether he/she is the "Other" or "I"). This is also the case with contempo- rary postcolonial ethnographic ^lms diverging from the persuasive-demonstrative discourse (typical of classic documentaries), having as their ^nal goal not the observational-narrative exposition, but referential alternatives of representation. W hat is changing in contemporary indigenous ethnographic ^lm and media is the position of the "Other", who becomes "I"; the author of representation of him/herself. New technologies and media have contributed to the democratization and I think that the Other/postcolonial I is no longer and doesn't have to be subjugated, because he/she is able to control the process of creating and producing ^lms, and, by extension, the image of his/her own culture. However, it is important to em- phasize that "giving voice" to the Other, democratization of the media, autoethnography and indigenous ^lm are no guarantee for the Other's "privileged" position or "privileged" gaze, which is evident from Michaela Schäuble's comment. Also, it would be naïve to think that these ^lms are "more truthful" or more "trustworthy". Thanks to the nature of ^lm, we always speak of the construction of the "e^ect of the real" (Be^etini 2001:71), whether we are refer- ring to ^ctional or non-^ctional ^lm. Today the realism of visual representation is not per- ceived as an ontological characteristic of the image and the notion of persuasiveness is "more a strictly rhetorical category than an accurate aesthetic characteristic" (Peterli^ 2001:182).

Etami Borjan

1 Films such as An Argument about a Marriage ( John Marshall, 1969) or The Feast (Timothy Asch, 1970) were early a^empts of a more re^exive approach in ethnographic ^lmmaking. They are still observational in the method of ^ lming the subjects but at the same time they expose the process of ^ lming. In Europe, Jean Rouch had huge in^uence on documentary cinema a^er having introduced a more interactive approach in the ethnographic ^lmmaking: "shared anthropology " and "participatory ethnography", exempli^ed in the movies such as Chronique d'un été (1960), where Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin become "actors" before the cam- era, and Jaguar (1967). The turning point in the development of a more dialogic ethnography was the introduction of lightweight sixteen-millimeter cameras and synchronous sound recording equipment.

2 MacDougall's method is visible in his movies To Live with Herds (1972), A Wife among Wives (1981), Lorang's Way (1980), Under the Men's Tree (1970), Doon School Chronicles (2000).

3 Ruby's claim raises important questions of power and meaning that images have in di^erent cultures. In his book Picturing Culture (2000:141) Jay Ruby enumerates four types of moral responsibility that the ethno-cineaste should take into consideration: personal moral contract to produce an accurate image, moral obligation towards the subjects s/he's ^lming, the institutions that provided the funds and the audience. Ruby's notion of the moral burden of authorship in postcolonial visual anthropology is related to his as- sumption that Western anthropologists should explore only their cultures. Otherwise they victimize the Other by representing him is accordance with the discursive practices of the Western culture.

4 The Griersonian conceptualization of documentary ^lm relies on asserting the factuality of the ^lmic text, without making dis- tinction between evidence and interpretation. It is an unquestionably eyewitness account of the reality and it derives its authenticity from the indexical characteristics of cinema. The documentaries made on the model of John Grierson's work tend to centralize the meaning without questioning the subjectivity of the author.

5 It has to be said that his styling also probably did not help; on some of the ^eld photographs he looked exactly like E. E. Evans- Pritchard in his Azande photographs.

6 The concepts "ethnography at home" and "ethnographic ^ lm at home" are a paraphrase of the well-known theoretical concept emerging roughly in many text during the 1980s, the "anthropology at home", which meant research of one's own culture. A more appropriate concept might be the "ethnology of the familiar" o^ered by Croatian ethnologists ^apo Zmega^ and Gulin Zrni^ in 2000s.

7 In the paper "Construction of a Place in Ethnographic Film" (Puljar D'Alessio 2011).

8 Sarah Pink recently proposed the idea of "ethnographic places" in sensory ethnography that somehow corresponds to here expo- sed idea of site in visual ethnography (Pink 2009).

9 Stephen Webster de^nes experimental ethnographic form as ethnographic account that reproduce in textual form the hermene- utic or re^exive theory of ^eldwork or of social change: it seeks to integrate with, rather than represent, the social practices that are their objects (Webster 1993).

REFERENCES/LITERATURA

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1997. "The interpretation of Culture(s) a^er Television". Representations 59:109-134.

Abu-Lughod, Lila, Faye Ginsburg and/i Brian Larkin, eds./ur. 2002. Media Worlds. Anthropology on New Terrain. Berkeley, Los An- geles: University of California Press.

Ang, Ien. 1996. Living Room Wars. Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World. New York: Routledge.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Banks, Marcus and/i Jay Ruby, eds./ur. 2011. Made To Be Seen. Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Be^etini, Gianfranco. 2001. L'audiovisivo dal cinema ai nuovi media. Milano: Bompiani.

Cache Collective. 2008. "Cache. Provisions and Productions in Contemporary Igloolik Video". In/U Global Indigenous Media; Cul- tures. Pamela Wilson and/i Michelle Steward, eds/ur. Poetics, and Politics. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 74-88.

Chalfen, Richard and/i Michael Rich. 2007. "Combining the Applied, the Visual and the Medical: Patients Teaching Physicians with Visual Narratives". In/U Visual Interventions. Applied Visual Anthropology . Sarah Pink, ed/ur. Oxford: Berghahn.

Cheater, Angela. 1995. "Globalisation and the New Technologies of Knowing. Anthropological Calculus or Chaos?" In/U Shi^- ing Contexts. Transformations in Anthropological Knowledge. M. Strathern, ed/ur. London and New York: Routledge, 117-130.

Cli^ord, James. 1986. "On Ethnographic Allegory". In/U Writing Culture, the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. James Cli^ord and/i George E. Marcus, eds./ur. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkley, 98-121.

Collier, Malcolm. 2007. " The Applied Visual Anthropology of John Collier. A Photo Essay". In/U Visual Interventions. Applied Visual Anthropolog y. Sarah Pink ed./ur. Oxford: Berghahn, 53-70.

Crawford, Peter and/i David Turton. 1992. Film As Ethnography. Manchester: Manchester University Press, Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology.

Dornfeld, Barry. 1998. Producing Public Television, Producing Public Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Edwards, Elizabeth. 1997. "Beyond the Boundary. A Consideration of the Expressive in Photography and Anthropology". In/U Rethinking Visual Anthropology. Marcus Banks and/i Howard Morphy, eds./ur. London: New Haven, 53-80.

Evans, Michael Robert. 2010. The Fast Runner. Filming the Legend of Atanarjuat. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press.

Ginsburg, Faye. 1994. "Culture/Media. A (Mild) Polemic". Anthropolog y Today 10/2:5-15.

Ginsburg, Faye. 1995. "The Parallax E^ect. The Impact of Aboriginal Media on Ethnographic Film". Visual Anthropolog y Review 11/2:64-76.

Gruber, Martin. 2012. Liparu Lyetu - Our Life: Participatory Ethnographic Filmmaking in Applied Contexts (unpublished PhD dis- sertation).

Hall, Stuart. 1993. "Encoding/Decoding". In/U The Cultural Studies Reader. Simon During, ed./ur. New York: Routledge, 90-103.

Haraway, Donna. 1988. "Situated Knowledges. The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective". Feminist Studies 14/3:575-599.

Kriznar, Nasko. 1992. "Razgovor s Milovanom Gavazzijem". Etnoloska tribina 22/15:187-200.

Kuehnast, Kathleen. 1992. "Visual Imperialism and the Export of Prejudice. An Exploration of Ethnographic Film". In/U Film As Ethnography. Peter Crafword and/i David Turton, eds./ur. Manchester: Manchester University Press, Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology, 183-196.

MacDougall, David. 1998. Transcultural Cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Marcus, E. George and/i Michael Fischer. 1986. Anthropolog y as Cultural Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Minh-Ha, Trinh Thi. 1991. When the Moon Waxes Red. Representation, Gender and Cultural Politics. New York: Routledge.

Nichols, Bill. 1991. "The Ethnographer's Tale". Visual Anthropolog y Review 7/2:31-47.

Peterli^, Ante. 2001. Osnove teorije ^lma. Zagreb: Hrvatska Sveu^ilisna naklada.

Pink, Sarah. 2004. Home Truths. Oxford: Berg.

Pink, Sarah. 2007a. Visual Interventions. Applied Visual Anthropology, Oxford: Berghahn.

Pink, Sarah. 2007b. "Applied Visual Anthropology. Social Inter vention and Visual Methodologies". In/U Sarah Pink, ed./ur. Visual Interventions. Applied Visual Anthropolog y, Oxford: Berghahn.

Pink, Sarah. 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications.

Pink, Sarah. 2011. "Images, Senses and Applications: Engaging Visual Anthropology". Visual Anthropology 24/5:437-454.

Pink, Sarah. 2013. Doing Visual Ethnography (revised and expanded 3rd edition). London: Sage.

Prica, Ines. 2001. Mala europska etnologija. Zagreb: Golden Marketing.

Prins, Harald. 2002. "Visual Media and the Primitivism Perplex. Colonial Fantasies, Indigenous Imagination, and Advocacy in Northern America". In/U Media Worlds. Anthropology on New Terrain, Faye Ginsburg, Lila Abu-Lughod and/i Brian Larkin eds./ur. Berkeley: University of California Press, 58-74.

Puljar D'Alessio, Sanja. 2011. "Construction of a Place in Ethnographic Film". Kontekst 9:139-151.

Ruby, Jay. 1991. "Speaking For, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside. An Anthropological and Documentary Dilemma". Visual Anthropology Review 7/2:50-66.

Ruby, Jay. 1995. "The Moral Burden of Authorship in Ethnographic Film". Visual Anthropology Review 11/2:77-82.

Ruby, Jay. 2000. Picturing Culture. Explorations of Film and Anthropolog y. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Russell, Catherine. 1999. Experimental Ethnography. The Work of Film in the Age of Video. Durham: Duke University Press.

Salazar, Juan Francisco and/i Amalia Córdova. 2008. "Imperfect Media and the Poetics of Indigenous Video in Latin America". In/U Global Indigenous Media; Cultures, Poetics, and Politics. Pamela Wilson and/i Michelle Steward, eds./ur. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 39-57.

Webster, Steven. 1993. "The Historical Materialist Critique of Surrealism and Postmodern Ethnography". In/U Modernist Anthropol- ogy. From Fieldwork to Text. M. Mangaro, ed/ur. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Worth, Sol and/i John Adair. 1972. Through Navajo Eyes. An Exploration in Film Communication and Anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Worth, Sol. 1981. Studying Visual Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.