Critical Review # 10

Critical Review # 10

Titon views film and video as two modes through which an ethnographer can channel his/her perspective on a culture and its music. So often an ethnography is solely portrayed through written work. While this form of transcription is a way to see a culture and its music from the point of view of the ethnographer, according to Titon, it does not provide a more flexible depiction. Titon states, “so long as ethnographer’s assume the authority to represent other people, they control how others will appear in their texts, even if the ethnographer allows others to speak their own words.” By using film and video as a medium of ethnography, we are able to see a culture through two lenses. Not only do we get the ethnographer’s perspective through the camera, but we are also able to see the culture through our own eyes. Yes, the ethnographer “controls” what is put on film, but are able to get a visual representation of the actual culture, rather than a controlled textual interpretation. Titon furthers this notion by saying that “realism in film and video… offers up images and sounds in ways books can never do.” By visually witnessing a culture create and perform music, we can “magnify” what we literally see and interpret it however we would like to.

In reading his article, I wonder whether Titon believes that the ethnographer will always present a “biased” or limited depiction of a culture when he/she writes of it. He seems to believe that the visual approach is the more truthful and authentic way to see into a culture and its music. Does this mean that we, as students, should question what we read a little more closely versus what we see firsthand?