the seductive gaze through the gold filter: representation, color manipulation, and technology...

The Seductive Gaze Through the Gold Filter

Representation, Color Manipulation, and Technology Choicesin Visual Ethnography

JACQUELINE H. FEWKES

Cultural representation begins before image production as visual ethnographers make equipment purchasing decisions.In this article I examine the choices made at this stage in relation to one particular category of equipment and technologychoices, color filters. I explore ideas about their use and their image manipulation potential in comparison with othercommon visual technologies. These ideas form the basis for a recommendation toward developing a critical approach tothe role of image-producing technologies in visual representations of culture, and for creating a visual framework whereaesthetics and accuracy are not mutually exclusive categories. [Key words: color manipulation, lighting, methodology,representation, visual technologies]

Introduction

Color filters are disdained by many visual ethnog-raphers as tools of extreme image manipulationthat create images overemphasizing cultural

difference. They can be used to reimagine subjects, a fea-ture accentuated in some filter advertisements, such asthat pictured below for the titled gold filter (Figure 1).

In this image, the seductive gaze, the use of cloth toinvoke veiling, and the bright colors combine multipleelements of visual culture that most anthropologistswould label ‘‘exoticizing.’’

When considering such advertisements, the use ofcolor filters may seem undesirable in visual ethnog-raphy. However, in this article, I provide alternativeways of conceptualizing color filter use in visual ethnog-raphy. My arguments in favor of color filters are not forcolor filters per se, but rather as tools that encourage di-alogue about the choices visual ethnographers make inutilizing particular types of equipment. I focus on colorfilters as one particular category of equipment choice,examining ideas about their use and impact as relative toseveral other technologies of color manipulation. Thesecomparisons are made as the basis for a recommendationtoward developing a critical approach to the role of im-age-producing technologies in visual representations of

culture. My argument is based on issues in existing visualethnography literature. It is not based on an ethnographicstudy of image production. I discuss common ideas andpractices to identify possible misconceptions about thedegree to which equipment choices impact representationnarratives in visual work.

Forms of Representation and the Technologyof Image Production

Cultural representation is not simply the act of capturinga particular viewpoint to chronicle it in photographic orvideo form. Rather, representation through visual media,like ethnographic writing, requires anthropologists tomake a series of narrative choices. This occurs in partthrough a search for coherency, as visual anthropolo-gists sort through layers of information to assemble theirvision of the most salient features, emphasized as part ofa sociocultural plot. The degree to which a particular vi-sual anthropologist wants to claim his or her work as anauthoritative plot also depends on his or her researchnarrative.

Furthermore, as Sarah Pink points out in DoingVisual Ethnography, ‘‘the medium of representation useddoes not alone determine its reception’’ (2001:116).

Visual Anthropology Review, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 1–11, ISSN 1053-7147, online ISSN 1548-7458. & 2008 by the American Anthropological Association. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-7458.2008.00001.x.

Recognizing the agency of audiences, we must under-stand the production of a film as one part of the visualexperience, as audiences and viewing also shape thatexperience. Hence, ‘‘representations, once made, areopen to re-representation, misrepresentation and appro-priation’’ (James et al. 1997:13).

While planning a new visual ethnography projectthis past year, I began to consider how representations ofculture are formed at multiple points in time, includingtimes outside of what are typically considered the crucialmoments of visual work. If we agree that the previouslymentioned forms of representation (re-representation,misrepresentation, etc.) are part of the visual researchprocess, then we should also reexamine other momentsin visual research as sites of cultural representation. I referhere to earlier choices made in visual research, as noviceand experienced visual ethnographers alike engage withcultural representation issues when they make purchasingchoices associated with video and filming technologies.These choices may seem like solely budgetary concerns,but they shape the ways in which the ethnographer andfuture audiences interact with images of culture.

Even the most rudimentary of technological pur-chase choices play a role in this process. For example,

interactions of anthropological informants, or betweenan anthropologist and informants, are representeddifferently through videos with a rough ‘‘home video’’look, compared with those with high-definition imagesand sophisticated sound/lighting. The former set of im-ages, footage shot with basic consumer video cameras,may invoke the home video look to create a sense of‘‘being there’’ in relation to the field site, to position an-thropologists as authorities, as Clifford Geertz haswritten, through ‘‘their capacity to convince us that whatthey say is a result of their having actually penetrated(or, if you prefer, been penetrated by) another form oflife, of having, one way or another, truly ‘been there’’’(1988:4–5). The latter images, using the latest prosumercategory cameras with a higher definition, may offer thedetail of the image as the source of authority, as visualanthropologists John Collier Jr. and Malcolm Collierhave envisioned, to position images as ‘‘precise recordsof material reality’’ (1986:9–10). Either approach couldbe used to validate, perhaps misleadingly, particularviews of culture and anthropological research. Thus,visual anthropologists’ work is fundamentally framed inrelation to the technology used because far before thevisual ethnographer begins to edit and shape a narrative,even before he or she lifts the camera to begin shootingfor the first time in the field, he or she is engaged in thetask of representation.

Equipment purchase lists for visual fieldwork areoften compiled in terms of items that are absolutelynecessary to complete the work (e.g., a camera) and itemsthat would be desirable (e.g., time/space-saving devices,cool new gadgets, etc.). Obviously, purchases from bothparts of the equipment list are constrained by the projectbudget. However, prioritizations are formulated withinparticular cultural settings. These decisions are informedby the several publications in use to train visual anthro-pologists, including texts such as Doing VisualEthnography (Pink 2001), Visual Anthropology: Photog-raphy as a Research Method (Collier and Collier 1986),Visual Research Methods (Stanczak 2007), and Cross-Cultural Filmmaking: A Handbook for Making Docu-mentary and Ethnographic Films and Videos (Barbashand Taylor 1997). Other sources of authority on deci-sion-making, particularly in the gadget ‘‘coolness’’category, are more elusive. Peer and mentor advice,which are both forms of disciplinary socialization, will,however, play a role.

FIGURE 1. Gold Diffusion Filter advertisement from the TiffenCompany. Image from Tiffen on-line catalog at www.tiffen.com.

Jacqueline H. Fewkes is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic Univer-sity. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2005. Her research interests are in the anthropological study ofeconomic interactions, visual ethnography, and Islamic communities worldwide. Dr. Fewkes’ most recent research focused on his-torical trade correspondence in the ethnographic context of the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir, India. She has recently begun aproject in the Maldives.

2 VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY REVIEW Volume 24 Number 1 Spring 2008

Color filters are colored glass disks attached to acamera lens to manipulate the color tone of a photo-graph or a video scene. They probably rank very low onmost visual anthropologists’ lists in both the necessaryand the desirable senses. As mentioned earlier, color fil-ters at first glance seemed like trivial, if not entirelyproblematic, tools for a visual ethnographer. Neverthe-less, color filters can act as technologies that help visualethnographers interact more critically with representa-tion issues in image formation.

Filters

While the use of a few types of photographic filters isconsidered standard and acceptable for clarity in ethno-graphic film, most visual ethnographers pay littleattention to the wide range of filters available on themarket. Among the acceptable category are the circularpolarizer (to reduce reflections and glare on reflectivesurfaces), neutral density (for reducing exposure), andother UV reduction filters. The image manipulationcapability of these lenses is generally considered so in-consequential that they are frequently recommended foruse as lens protectors.1 In contrast, color filters arecommonly thought to be artistic tools to create a moreaesthetically pleasing photograph. Their use is moreclosely associated with studio portraits and art printsthan with ethnographic image production. Some re-searchers who view objective images as their productiongoal have even ‘‘developed a strict code of practicewhich include[s] using only standard lenses without fil-ters’’ (Prosser 1992:400) (Figure 2).

Color filters are considered by many visual ethnog-raphers to be tools of extreme image manipulation, akinto the tinting and color-enhancing techniques that

Catherine Lutz and Jane Collins claim National Geo-graphic magazine editors engage during postproductionto make a place or a group of people appear more exoticto its readers. Lutz and Collins cite, for example, thework of Howard Abramson in the 1980s to show howNational Geographic tinted the skin tones of Polynesianwomen to make them darker, and thus transformed thewomen’s bare-breasted appearance from nudity intoexotic ‘‘otherness’’ (Abramson 1987:143; Lutz andCollins 1993:115–116). These approaches to color andimages of culture are suspect as ‘‘(t)he eye of NationalGeographic, like the eye of anthropology, looks for cul-tural difference. It is continually drawn to people inbrightly colored, ‘different’ dress, engaged in initiallystrange-seeming rituals or inexplicable behavior’’ (Lutzand Collins 1993:89). Color-enhancing techniques arecommonly associated with images that emphasizecultural difference in lieu of cultural understanding.

The gold filter mentioned earlier is just one exampleof such special effect color filters. This filter is producedby Tiffen, a leading filter manufacturing companywhose products are distributed by camera and electron-ics vendors around the world. The lens, named the ‘‘GoldDiffusion’’ filter, is actually dotted with a pattern of tinygold pieces, as pictured in Figure 3. Although the goldfleck pattern cannot be seen when focusing the cameraon objects in most scenes, the actual distortions are clearwith an extreme close-up focus.

Tiffen marketing techniques emphasize the useof this filter as a tool ‘‘to create a mood in a landscapeor portrait or simply as an aid to make people lookglamorous.’’ The filter is advertised in the sales catalogas adding a ‘‘soft, golden tint to shadows,’’ ‘‘infus[ing]

FIGURE 2. Examples of filters that screw onto the front of thecamera lens. From left to right, Gold Diffusion Filter and circularpolarizer filter. Photograph by Jacqueline H. Fewkes.

FIGURE 3. An extreme close-up view through the gold filter. Pho-tograph by Jacqueline H. Fewkes.

The Seductive Gaze Through the Gold Filter FEWKES 3

images with a special warmth,’’ and ‘‘balanc[ing] any mixof skin tones’’ (http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html,accessed April 10, 2007). In my test photographs, how-ever, the most noticeable effect of these filters was asoftening of the textures in the images, rather than anychange in tone or tint.

Many visual ethnographers would reject imagemanipulation through the use of filters as undesirable foruse in creating informed and meaningful ethnographicimages, particularly by those who attempt to createimages that downplay the subjectivity of visual ethnog-raphy. However, this rejection cannot be based on claimsof manipulation alone. Marked image manipulation,particularly color manipulation, occurs regularlyin the course of ethnographic photography andvideography, through the use of common technicaladjustments and camera technologies.

Implicit Forms of Manipulation

The color filter is redundant on many of the prosumercategory video cameras on the market today. Thesecameras have a manual white balance feature that can bemanipulated by knowledgeable users to produce thesame effects as glass filters. While some video camerausers may eschew the use of white balance, ‘‘auto-whitebalance’’ is a standard feature on most consumer cam-eras, and the default setting when a camera is turned on.This technical adjustment is frequently overlooked as arepresentation issue. For example, Barry Goldsteininforms readers that ‘‘modern digital cameras eitherautomatically adjust color temperature or allow the userto do so with varying degrees of sophistication’’ (Gold-stein 2007:68). In the ethnographic film handbookCross-Cultural Filmmaking (Barbash and Taylor 1997),the authors describe the problem of color balance as asimple technological limitation that must be adjusted forin production. They write:

Just as film and video cannot accommodate the vastbrightness ranges that our eyes automatically com-press, they cannot automatically make allowancesfor the different colors of the light coming throughthe lens. In the real world, light is always colored.Outdoor light, and everything it reflects on, has abluish tinge, while most artificial light, and every-thing it reflects on, is reddish. (Fluorescent tubes aregreenish.) . . . Our brains are always making allow-ances for such changes in color frequency, so thatwe usually don’t even notice them. But cameras,film stock, and video all have to be adjustedaccordingly. [Barbash and Taylor 1997:152–153]

The white balance feature on cameras is a method oftechnological adjustment to a perceived need to regulatecolor balances in photographs due to these variationsin color temperatures, which are measured in units ofKelvin. Lower Kelvin measurements correspond towarmer tones of lightFmore reddish/yellowFandhigher measurements to cooler (more blue) color tones.

Auto-white balance will adjust to different lightingsituations to create ‘‘true white’’ in all these settings.‘‘True white’’ is a phrase generally used to refer to a col-or-neutral white. This concept is problematic forethnographic image production. As Barbash and Taylornoted above, few items in daily visual experience areactually color neutral, and yet viewers do conceptualizeitems in particular contexts as ‘‘true white.’’ Becausesuch conceptualizations rely on interpretation, they arerepresentational and are crucially dependent on our ownexperiences to create linkages between the noumenon(thing represented) and the phenomenon (the represen-tation) of ‘‘true white.’’ The philosopher of scienceNorwood Russell Hanson expressed this idea aboutvisual experience in his claim that observation is a‘‘‘theory-laden’ undertaking,’’ explaining that ‘‘observa-tion of x is shaped by prior knowledge of x’’ (Hanson1975:19). He elaborates:

Seeing an object x is to see that it may behave in theways we know x’s do behave: if the object’s behav-ior does not accord with what we expect of x’s wemay be blocked from seeing it as a straightforward xany longer. Now we rarely see dolphin as fish, theearth as flat, the heavens as an inverted bowl or thesun as our satellite. [Hanson 1975:22]

In this case, seeing a light-colored object as ‘‘truewhite’’ depends on our expectations of certain items to‘‘act’’ as such in that setting. Thus, when we view colordifferences due to lighting, we interpret the color infor-mation, creating a conceptual ‘‘true white,’’ based on ourown knowledge and ideas about the surroundings,objects, and even purposes. Photographic and video im-ages disrupt this process, divorcing the color setting inthe image from knowledge production within the actualsetting. Working with white balance features on cam-eras, therefore, becomes an exercise in creating re-representations of ‘‘true white.’’ The removal of the colorinterpretation act from the cultural context increases thepotential for other settings, sets of expectations, or be-liefs about the image, to provide the basis for a viewer’sconcept of ‘‘true white.’’

While many professional photographers and videog-raphers carry a color thermometer to adjust their pro-fessional cameras in each setting, most semiprofessionalsand aspiring amateurs do not. Many anthropologists


who engage in ethnographic photography and videowork express an unwillingness to carry ‘‘extra’’ equip-ment that may become a barrier for interactions withinformants in field settings. Such users will thus oftenuse the ‘‘auto-white balance’’ setting on their camera, orchoose from a preprogrammed list for different lightsettings for environments such as ‘‘Daylight,’’ ‘‘Tung-sten,’’ ‘‘Fluorescent,’’ ‘‘Flash,’’ ‘‘Cloudy,’’ and ‘‘Shade.’’The color balance in a photograph can vary widely de-pending on the sensitivity and responsiveness of aparticular camera model, as well as the particular whitebalance setting used.

The results of using the white balance feature on acamera can be dramatic, at times obliterating the differ-ence between the fluorescent lighting of an office and thatof sunlight coming through a window, or the changingskin tones of various subjects, as shown in Figure 4.

In these photographs, the auto-white balance fea-ture created different tones than the fluorescent daylight

setting, which best describes the actual color setting inthis shooting. The images portray some of the dramaticdifferences that result from using these automatic set-tings, and no one setting can be identified here as havingcaptured a most ‘‘realistic,’’ or most desirable, tone for acomplete set of photographs.

Photographers and videographers may try to correctthe color tone in postproduction. Nevertheless, ethnog-raphers who process their images and video footageafter fieldworkFsometimes months or even years aftershooting itFmay not recall a particular shade orthe lighting conditions from the actual image context.Reliance on memory of a color setting would lead, atbest, to producing images tinted by the researcher’s ownpostconceptions.2 This viewpoint may emphasize orde-emphasize certain colors depending on the ethnog-rapher’s experiences and conceptual framework. Thus,use of this standard camera feature, assumed to be partof producing clear images, can create homogenized or

FIGURE 4. Consumer camera white balance settings on images from left to right in each set. Top row (of each set): auto-white balance,daylight, and shade; bottom row (of each set): tungsten, fluorescent daylight, and fluorescent white. The actual setting was fluorescentdaylight. Camera used in these photographs, and those of Figure 5 is of average quality for amateur consumer use, the Pentax Optio 555.Fluorescent light settings vary between daylight (65001K) and white (42001K). Photographs by Jacqueline H. Fewkes.


exaggerated representations of cultural settings, times ofday, and photographed people.

Furthermore, on most consumer cameras, the auto-white balance feature will produce colors closer to thoseviewed and conceptualized only if there is a ‘‘true white’’in the photograph. The colors in an image producedthrough use of auto-white balance will match viewers’expectations only if the image subject conformed to thelight meter’s expectation (i.e., a particular range of colortemperatures). In the absence of clear color expectations,settings that feature predominantly warm or cool tonesmay be mistaken for a color cast caused by lighttemperatures, and settings with mixed light sources mayadjust solely for the dominant source. In these situations,the auto-white balance feature can produce extremecolor variations when searching for a ‘‘true white.’’ Sucha scenario was enacted in the two photographs of Figure5, where the ‘‘auto-white balance’’ setting on a camerawas used twice with markedly different results.

In the first image in Figure 5, the subject’s coloringand the use of a combination of sunlight and fluorescentlight prompted an auto-white balance adjustment inwhich portions of the subject’s face were represented as‘‘true white.’’ The startling color change in this photo-graph would be recognized by most viewers as colormanipulation. In the second photograph, with onlysunlight as a lighting method, the auto-white balancesetting created another, more subtle color change. Thissecond photograph may seem ‘‘less’’ manipulated, asthe subtlety leads photographers and viewers alike tobelieve that this is the ‘‘actual’’ color of the scene. Yet, inthis second photograph the auto-white balance setting

has simply reconciled the noumenon (subject’s coloring)and phenomenon (representation of ‘‘true white’’ inphotograph) in a manner that matches more closely tothe expectations of the viewer. The image coloring fitswhat we think we know about how the image contents‘‘act’’ in terms of color. The coloring does not tell usabout the color temperature of the setting, or the mannerin which a majority of the participants experiencedcolors in this setting.

Vilifying the color filter as an extreme form ofimage color manipulation is an even further distortionof actual visual ethnography practices when we considerthat many fieldworkers who cannot afford or do notwant to carry around extensive lighting equipmentemploy a simple reflector panel to fill in shadows in aninterviewee’s face or on artifacts. These reflector panelsare inexpensive, lightweight, easy to use, and surpris-ingly effective. Reflector panels are most commonlycovered with white, silver, or gold fabric that will reflectlight of different tones onto the photographic subject.White and silver reflectors lend a cooler tone to thehighlights in the picture, while gold reflectors contributewarmer tones.

The Colliers espouse the use of a rudimentary re-flector panel for low light situations in their classicvisual methods text, advising readers:

In the Andes at high altitudes, there is little or nolight to photograph with under the portals and in therooms of Indian homes. How can you record? Hereyou must work with reflected or artificial light. Thesimplest and most available supplementary light is

FIGURE 5. The photograph on the left is auto-white balance, with a combination of overhead fluorescent and direct sunlight for lighting. Thephotograph on the right is auto-white balance, using only sunlight for lighting. Photographs by Jacqueline H. Fewkes.


reflections. Take a five-foot square of white cloth,stretch it on two crossed sticks, and you have a re-flector that will flood an Indian’s portal withadequate light. [Collier and Collier 1986:227–228]

This advice reflects the Colliers’ concern for sys-tematic documentation of ethnographic scenes throughmethods such as the cultural inventory and mapping andsurvey photographs. Yet providing increased and evenlighting in scenes may not adequately portray materialand spatial relationships. To provide even lighting ina home, for example, one might highlight objects thatare purposefully kept in dark corners, or areas of theroom that are viewed as less significant to the owners.The lack of windows, electrical power, et cetera, aslighting sources in homes can be sociocultural indica-tors, as seen in Figure 6.

Therefore, in situ lighting is as revealing for researchpurposes as any other aspect of the image. Additionally,using the Colliers’ recommended white cloth would lenda cooler tone to the image produced, hence involvingcolor manipulation. Thus, even basic lighting practicescan ultimately manipulate image color, even without theuse of a filter.

The choices associated with other production mo-mentsFfor example, color information inclusion (blackand white vs. color films or recording modes) andpostproduction image editingFmake for diverse poten-tial sites of color and lighting manipulation. Wecannot simply ‘‘do away’’ with all forms of colormanipulation, as the technologies associated with imageproduction and the act of viewing an image require

conceptualization/representation of color. Visual ethnog-raphers therefore must develop a more proactive andcritical perspective on how to use color manipulation forvisual representation.

Metarepresentation as a Basis for Color FilterSuspicion

Understanding that most technologies used by ethno-graphic photographers and videographers manipulateimage color as much as and at times even more thancolor filters begs examination of that which sets colorfilters, such as the Gold Diffusion lens, apart from theseother technologies. Here we must return to the multi-plicity of forms of representation inherent in the visualanthropological task and add another form of represen-tation, as the common rejection of filter equipment suchas the Gold Diffusion filter is a product of anthropologi-cal interactions with metarepresentations of culture.

Metarepresentation is, as Deidre Wilson explains, ‘‘arepresentation of a representation’’ (Wilson 2000:411).While the processes involved in metarepresentationare sometimes referred to as linguistic and mental (e.g.,Francois Recanati 2000), terming these processes asmental and public (e.g., Dan Sperber 2000b) allows vi-sual anthropologists to include images as a possible partof metarepresentations as well. Sperber has outlined thefour forms of metarepresentations as follows:

Mental representation of mental representations(e.g., the thought ‘‘John believes that it will rain’’),mental representations of public representations(e.g., the thought ‘‘John said that it will rain’’), pub-lic representations of mental representations (e.g.,the utterance ‘‘John believes that it will rain’’), andpublic representations of public representations(e.g., the utterance ‘‘John said that it will rain’’).[Sperber 2000a:3]3

Interacting with metarepresentations of filters in-volves the type of activity in Sperber’s fourth category.Visual anthropologists who consider special effectsfilters react negatively to these objects because filteradvertising images (public representations) invoke com-mon and anthropologically rejected discourses andimages (public representations) concerning culture.4 Torephrase Sperber’s example above, the thought processin this case may sound something like ‘‘the filter adver-tisement image shows us that images using this filter willlook like this.’’

Advertisements for the Gold Diffusion filter use anotion of culture that is meant to inform photographersand videographers about the possibilities for their own

FIGURE 6. Scene in a primary school room in a village outside ofKargil (Jammu and Kashmir state, northern India). While not‘‘properly’’ illuminated, the low levels of in situ lighting indicate aneducational constraint on the children going to school in theserural areas. The camera used is consumer quality, Nikon N5005;image taken using auto-exposure mode with no flash. Photographby Jacqueline H. Fewkes.


work. Visual ethnographers therefore choose the equip-ment with which to craft their own representationsin response to and in dialogue with metarepresentationsof the Gold Diffusion filter use. If based on theequipment advertisement shown in Figure 1, thesemetarepresentations invoke some of the most critiquedcultural images in visual anthropology today, includingthe seductive gaze of a feminine subject, bright colors,and a veil-like cloth.

Such image elements are iconic in critical visualstudies today, and therefore need minimal analysis. Theseductive woman is a figure that represents the ways inwhich female forms are frequently used in advertising(e.g., Mitchell 1992), and as a source of objective ratherthan subjective knowledge about people. This photo-graph, like those of National Geographic that feature‘‘beautiful images of people construed as feminine’’(Lutz and Collins 1993:185), plays a role in the femini-zation of the ‘‘other’’ that expresses and reinforces powerdifferences.

Bright coloring, covered in my earlier discussion ofNational Geographic color manipulation, needs littlefurther explanation for its role in visual anthropology:skin tinting is equated with creating images of differencerather than of understanding. Color is also associatedwith consumption, and framed in opposition to infor-mation. As Lutz and Collins argue,

Advertising photos have, since the 1950s, almostalways been made in color, while news photographyhas until recently almost always been reproduced inblack and white. Through these practices, color hasbecome the language of consumption and plenty,black and white the conduit of facts, often spare andoppressive. Color is the vehicle of spectacle, blackand white of the depth of faces behind the screen.[Lutz and Collins 1993:94]

The final metarepresentational element of this image,‘‘the veil,’’ is symbolic shorthand for the exotic, with well-documented links to Orientalist and colonial constructionsof Asian and Middle Eastern identity. It is also a com-monly used token in political discourse today.5 As MeydaYegenoglu writes, the symbol of the veil acts as a visualbarrier between ‘‘the Oriental woman and the Westerngaze,’’ placing her body ‘‘out of the reach of the Westerngaze and desire’’ (1998:39). Thus, Yegenoglu observes,

It is no surprise that there are countless accountsand representations of the veil and veiled women inWestern discourses, all made in an effort to revealthe hidden secrets of the Orient. The very depictionof the Orient and its women, ‘‘like the unveiling ofan enigma, makes visible what is hidden’’ [Richon

1985:8]. The veil is one of those tropes throughwhich Western fantasies of penetration into themysteries of the Orient and access to the interi-ority of the other are fantasmatically achieved.[Yegenoglu 1998:39]

Thus, we can ‘‘read’’ this advertisement image asa metarepresentation of sexist, exoticized, consumer-driven, power-imbalanced, and ‘‘othering’’ views ofculture. Few, if any, visual anthropologists wouldwant to claim such goals for their own work. As visualanthropologists critical of representations of culture,particularly with respect to images of humans, we aresuspicious of special effects filters and resist the intendedseductive gaze through which they are presented toconsumers.

Developing a Methodology of Filter Use

In order to consider special effects and color filters aspossible tools for visual ethnography representation, wemust therefore distinguish between the metarepresenta-tions of these filters and representations crafted throughthe lenses of such filters. If we reject the seductive gazethrough a Gold Diffusion filter, but not the filter itself,we are left with a host of new possibilities in culturalimage production and the representation of culture.

The first step in developing a critical method thatinvolves the use of special effects filters is recognizingthe role of an image in visual research, and how filterscan enhance that research. As mentioned earlier, per-ceptions of image manipulation depend on a dichotomybetween aesthetics and accuracy in representations ofculture. An aesthetically centered approach to imageproduction has a great deal to offer in representing cul-ture. Particular aesthetic forms can act as symbolicvocabularies, to communicate complex and multivocalmessages to the viewing audience (e.g., Pardue 2005;Turner 1992; Vail 2004). Color and special effects filterscould certainly be used to this end, to re-create an eventwith visual cues of the ways in which it was experiencedor viewed, or with multiple versions of a scene to exploremultiple viewpoints within the one setting. Used in sucha manner, however, the question of whether or not to useimage-manipulating technology in ethnographic filmsand photographs may appear to reinforce this dichoto-my. If the visual anthropologist’s goal is to capture andreflect reality, to create a document of a moment intime in a particular place, then it may seem that imagemanipulation is counterproductive.

Where do we draw the line between an objective anda subjective reality? The quality of light at a particulartime can be part of the reality of a setting; to shoot a


clear and bright sequence at twilight is manipulation. Toclaim that image manipulation only has a place in sub-jective visual ethnography, as opposed to objective datarecording, creates a false division. Rejecting color filtersfor their ability to manipulate visual truths assumesthere is such a truth, while embracing the filters simplyas a way to create less authoritative versions of culturalimages also lends credence to the same assumption.

We do not have to accept such an absolute divisionof understandings and goals in the task of the visualanthropologist. The Colliers, who assert that ‘‘the mostbeautiful and technically superb photograph is uselessin visual research if it does not conform to the needsof systematized observation’’ (Collier and Collier 1986:163), emphasize the role of the photograph as a datarecorder. They also, however, remind visual anthropol-ogists that working toward systematic data collectiondoes not necessitate an assumption that the lens is anauthoritative image producer:

Photography also gathers selective information,but the information is specific, with qualifyingand contextual relationships that are usually miss-ing from codified written notes. Photographs areprecise records of material reality. . . . But what arethe camera’s limitations? They are fundamentallythe limitations of those who use them. Again we facethe problem of whole and accurate human observa-tions. [Collier and Collier 1986:10]

These limitations are similar to those faced bytextual ethnographers. In order to achieve ‘‘whole andaccurate’’ observations, it thus seems reasonable tofollow the recommendation that qualitative researchers‘‘make explicit what choices were available (withinreason) and reason for one particular choice overanother’’ (Prosser 1992:400).

As seen in the case of the auto-white balance, averageusers of image-producing technology may not evaluatetheir implicit color manipulation choices. Instead, thecamera mechanisms’ approximations of color balance areviewed as true representations if parts of the image matchour conceptual ‘‘true white.’’ Unlike auto-white balancesettings, filter usage requires an engagement with repre-sentation from the initial stage of preproduction planning.As Barry M. Goldstein, a photographer originally trainedas a physician and biophysicist, expresses in his essay ‘‘AllPhotographs Lie,’’

Even decisions about whether to photograph a sub-ject in direct sun or in shade, whether to use apolarizer filter to reduce reflections or a red filter tomake clouds appear more dramatic in black andwhite images (a favorite of some photojournalists),

represent quite conscious decisions about how toconvey the photographer’s own brand of reality.[Goldstein 2007:68]

The choices involved in filter use are even moreexplicit than those of auto-white balance as filterequipment is not a standard feature on most cameras.The purchase of individual filters necessarily involvescareful deliberation about their potential uses and theways in which they will interact with the goals ofthe visual ethnographer. When using color and specialeffects filters, preproduction planning is thus moredirectly engaged with representation choices.

Because of the deliberate nature of filter mechanics,filter use has the additional advantage over other formsof image manipulation (e.g., in-camera and postproduc-tion) of being a public and potentially participatorymethod. The visual anthropologist who places a filter onhis or her camera lens to change color balances withina particular scene states, through the action, that he orshe is changing something. The subjects who are beingphotographed or videotaped have the opportunity tonote that their images are being manipulated. With dis-cussion, and the use of digital technologies that allowthe viewing of recorded images on a small screen in situ,there is a potential for image subjects to choose theirown color schemes and to create their own versions oftheir cultural scene. Thus, the ‘‘limitations’’ of the camerauser, and the user’s ‘‘own brand of reality’’ can be openedup into a more culturally meaningful and context-specificrange of limitations and realities. Furthermore, an empir-ical study of such interactions could have the potential toyield interesting information about relationships betweencolor, representation, and culture.

Finally, color and special effects filters are morepermanent adjustments than postproduction changes inthe images. Their use creates an altered baseline on thefilm itself, for instance obliterating the differences be-tween certain tones or adding new patterns to the sky.While the permanence of these changes may be intimi-dating, it has powerful potential. The lasting imagebecomes a lasting document of intent in context, onethat is more difficult (albeit not impossible) to manipu-late in a postconceptual context.

In the article ‘‘Is an Ethnographic Film a FilmicEthnography?’’ visual anthropologist Jay Ruby decriesthe lack of a coherent theoretical outlook in visualethnography, stating that the field is without the use of a‘‘specialized lexicon’’ of ‘‘visual and auditory signs’’ sim-ilar to those that exist in textual form in ethnographicwriting (Ruby 1975:109). Thus, ethnographic films are

indistinguishable from other documentaries. Inother words, ethnographic filmmakers have not


developed a way of articulating or organizingimages in a manner that is related structurally toanthropological perceptions of the world, and pro-duced in a framework of anthropological visualsymbolic forms which are conventionalized into acode or argot. [Ruby 1975:109]

Technologies such as filters can be used as tools withwhich to make explicit choices about image manipula-tion, and as a means to reach beyond the descriptive andillustrative use of images that is common in anthropol-ogy today. They may help researchers take steps towardthe formation of a theory of visual ethnography as thechoices provide a methodological framework for visualanthropologists that helps us to navigate, and even ne-cessitates critical engagement with, the multiple formsof cultural representation inherent in this work.

Obviously, special effects and color filters are notthe only tools that could be used in such a way. There aremany pieces and features of video equipment that wecould, and should, examine to further discuss the role oftechnology in producing representations of cultures, forinstance the possibilities and pitfalls of particular soundtechnologies. In visual anthropology each technologicalchoice should be a site of critical analysis. Representa-tions of culture are produced in relation to a rangeof contexts, from equipment advertisements and toviewing audiences, and cannot be disengaged from theirre-representations, misrepresentations, and metarepre-sentations. Attention to these details will not makevisual anthropologists ‘‘less interested in producing‘pretty pictures’’’ (Ruby 1975:110), but rather it willmake them develop and communicate a deliberateethnographic aesthetic.

Notes

1 This is a general statement, with notable exceptions. BarryGoldstein (2007) classifies the use of these filters, as well aslighting, in the same category as the use of color filters, asnoted later in this article. Additionally, visual anthropologytexts may endorse the use of colored lenses by anothername. For example, the Colliers’ systemic documentary ap-proach to photography necessitated the use of K-2 filtersby their students ‘‘for screening out the white glare of dustytropical skies’’ (Collier and Collier 1986:209). The K-2 filteris actually a yellow-tinted filter that will increase contrastin some sky shots.

2 I use this term in opposition to that of ‘‘preconceptions,’’referring to nearly the same relationship between knowl-edge of a given scene formed outside of a particularcontext/experiences rather than within it/them, but refer-ring particularly to that formulated after the context/experiences, rather than before it/them.

3 Note that the first category Sperber mentions does not re-quire one to look outside oneself for metarepresentation,given Hanson’s theory-laden observation. As WilliamLycan explains:

If you are inclined to doubt whether awareness or intro-spection of a mental state really requires higher-orderquasi-perception or at least representation, consider:awareness is intentional; it is always awareness of some-thing. In particular, awareness of a mental state one is inhas that mental state as its intentional object. If you doubtthat such awareness consists in higher-order representa-tion, that is, in some representation of the first-order statein question, you are abandoning the thesis that intention-ality is representation. [Lycan 2003:390]

4 While this analysis of metarepresentations focuses primar-ily on a filter advertisement, other images pertaining tofilters and their usage could also be analyzed as metarepre-sentations to reach similar conclusions. Here I am notclaiming that all anthropologists see and interact with filteradvertisements. Rather, I am using the title advertisement asa concrete example of how we can expand our critical anal-ysis of representation issues in visual ethnography.

5 Veils and veiling (including women wearing facial and headcoverings) should not simply be conceptualized in theseterms, however, as there are a variety of other associatedcomplex personal, social, and cultural meanings (e.g., Badranand cooke 2004; Brenner 1996; El Guindi 1999; Majid 2000).

References

Abramson, Howard S.1987 National Geographic: Behind America’s Lens on the

World. New York: Crown.Badran, Margot, and miriam cooke, eds.

2004 Opening the Gates: An Anthropology of Arab Femi-nist Writing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Barbash, Ilisa, and Lucien Taylor1997 Cross-Cultural Filmmaking: A Handbook for Making

Documentary and Ethnographic Film and Videos.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brenner, Suzanne1996 Reconstructing Self and Society: Javanese Muslim

Women and ‘‘the Veil.’’ American Ethnologist 23(4):673–697.

Collier, John, Jr., and Malcolm Collier1986 Visual Anthropology. Photography as a Research

Method. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

El Guindi, Fadwa1999 Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance. Oxford, NY:

Berg.Geertz, Clifford

1988 Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Goldstein, Barry M.2007 All Photos Lie: Images as Data. In Visual Research

Methods. Image, Society, and Representation. G. C.Stanczak, ed. Pp. 61–82. Los Angeles: Sage Publica-tions.

Hanson, Norwood Russell1975 Patterns of Discovery. London: Cambridge University

Press.James, Allison, Jenny Hockey, and Andrew Dawson, eds.

1997 After Writing Culture: Epistemology and Praxisin Contemporary Anthropology. London: Rout-ledge.

Lutz, Catherine, and Jane Collins1993 Reading National Geographic. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Lycan, William

2003 Perspectival Representation and the KnowledgeArgument. In Consciousness: New PhilosophicalEssays. Q. Smith and A. Jokic, eds. Pp. 384–395. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press.

Majid, Anouar2000 Unveiling Traditions: Postcolonial Islam in a Poly-

centric World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Mitchell, Dolores

1992 Images of Exotic Women in Turn-of-the-CenturyTobacco Art. Feminist Studies 18(2):327–350.

Pardue, Derek2005 CD Cover Art as Cultural Literacy and Hip-Hop Design

in Brazil. Education, Communication, and Information5(1):61–81.

Pink, Sarah2001 Doing Visual Ethnography. London: Sage Publications.

Prosser, Jon1992 Personal Reflections on the Use of Photography in

an Ethnographic Case Study. British EducationalResearch Journal 18(4):397–411.

Recanati, Francois2000 Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepre-

sentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Richon, Olivier1985 Representation, the Despot and the Harem: Some

Questions Around an Academic Orientalist Paintingby Lecomte-Du-Nouy (1885). In Europe and ItsOthers, Proceedings of the Essex Conference onthe Sociology of Literature. F. Barker et al., eds.Pp. 34–41. Colchester: University of Essex Press.

Ruby, Jay1975 Is an Ethnographic Film a Filmic Ethnography?

Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communica-tion 2(2):104–111.

Sperber, Dan2000a Introduction. In Metarepresentations: A Multidisci-

plinary Perspective. Proceedings of the TenthVancouver Cognitive Science Conference. Vol. 10. D.Sperber, ed. Pp. 3–16. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

2000b Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspec-tive. Vol. 10. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanczak, Gregory C., ed.2007 Visual Research Methods. Image, Society, and Rep-

resentation. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Turner, Terence

1992 Defiant Images: The Kayapo Appropriation of Video.Anthropology Today 8(6):5–16.

Vail, Peter2004 Making the Mundane Sacred Through Tech-

nology: Mediating Identity, Ecology, and CommodityFetishism. Visual Communication 3(2):129–144.

Wilson, Deirdre2000 Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.

In Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Per-spective. Proceedings of the Tenth VancouverCognitive Science Conference. Vol. 10. D. Sperber,ed. Pp. 411–448. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yegenoglu, Meyda1998 Colonial Fantasies: Towards a Feminist Reading

of Orientalism. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.


the seductive gaze through the gold filter: representation, color manipulation, and technology...

Documents