The combination of reading Transcultural Media, the discussion we’ve been having in both this class and my Public Folklore class and the process of putting together our engagement projects has me wondering how anyone creates ethical and authentic cultural projects. As MacDougall states, “…a new round of self-criticism, sometimes resulting in fundamental doubts about the possibility of cultural description, sometimes in a paralyzing and, at times, proselytizing sense of guilt” (p.150). When your job is to help represent culture, there is a lot at risk, which can lead to inaction. Artist Courtney Stubbard (Director of Eugene Contemporary Art) came to visit my Media Management class and talked of how the MFA program hindered his creativity. He said that for a year after graduating he was too afraid to create anything because he was so aware of the implications of his work. This is why the arguments presented in Transcultural Media seem somewhat counter-productive to me. I have difficulty even piecing together what appears to be contrasting ideals: MacDougall advocates for observational film, but then states that pure observation is devoid of feeling. He describes how the filmmaker must act like a fly on the wall in order to capture the natural state of events, but then talks of a time in which he pushed a conversation topic with the subjects of a film to get to the truth of the situation. He uses fictional film as an example for a third party observer “capable of assuming a variety of positions” but ignores the fact that a fiction’s outcome is crafted from the start making the role of the camera inherently passive. He acknowledges that it is impossible to be truly observational in approach since what is shot and edited will be determined by the filmmaker and yet, he describes the advantages of a humanist over scientific approach to documentation. One can get lost in these looping seemingly contradictory statements and never create anything in fear of criticism. However, as mentioned in class and at the Open Engagement Conference: What is the role of the artist, if not to reflect society? The only thing anyone can hope to do is to create with the best of intentions and be prepared for criticism.
This whole discussion connects directly to the interview with Michael Shanks and Lynn Hershman Leeson and their conversation on object’s multiple meanings. As Lynn Hershman states, “Everything is defined by its relation to something else”. The past is pieced together by the evidence left behind, but how we interpret that evidence is relational. Furthermore, the evidence that is left behind is determined by the priorities of the creator. For instance, the filmmaker will determine what scenes to cut therefore only presenting a limited scale of evidence to piece together a history while the rest is lost. This is why history is largely determined by the victors: he or she gets to determine what is saved. Shanks and Hershman are arguing that this is no longer the case since the internet allows so many more people to advocate for themselves and store their identities online. However, they also state that conservation takes will. I do believe that we are more aware of a multiplicity of voices and that a diversity of perspectives is important for dialogue, but I also see that increased awareness brings more complicated representation. Can intersectionalism truly be achieved? Or can we again, just do our best?