Who said the Congolese party was meant to be a serious assessment of Congolese culture (whatever that is)? And taking place in London – in what ways could it accurately reflect Congolese custom anyway?

When is knowledge of a culture (- whatever that is), enough knowledge? Or not limited in some way?

Today’s historians correct earlier efforts, but it would be a mistake to patronize them. How much western documentation of the Arab and North African worlds actually influence the course of photography (-whatever that is) will of course depend upon one’s knowledge of photography. How many art historians actually know that much about lenses, film stocks, processing and printing options and whether or not developments (no pun intended) there were decisively influenced by ethnological documentation?

Frankly, the premise seems far-fetched.