Visual anthropology and sensory ethnography in contemporary Sardinia: A film of a different kind

Modern Italy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-324
Author(s):  
Silvio Carta

This article reads David MacDougall's Tempus de Baristas (1993) as an instance of the rejection of the didacticism of documentary films driven by the logic of the written text. This ethnographic film about the life of three goat-herders is one of the films that allows the Sardinian-speaking subjects a space and, therefore, a far more prominent role in the total cinematic construction than has usually been the case. Tempus marks the definitive departure from the transmission of written socio-anthropological knowledge that is typical of expository documentaries. The article concludes that the filmic approach of which Tempus is a landmark produces a corporeal and emplaced knowledge that counterbalances the abstract vision of many documentaries about the author's native island and questions traditional forms of scholarly communication, opening up new areas of ethnographic understanding.

Author(s):  
Marcus Banks

Visual anthropology can be broadly understood as the anthropological study of the visual and the visual study of the anthropological. However, for much of its history, the term has been associated almost exclusively with ethnographic film (see Ethnographic Film) and it is only recently that a broader consideration of other visual forms and visuality itself have come under the subdiscipline’s purview. In the last decade, the boundaries have expanded further, partly through changes in technology (expensive celluloid film technology giving way to cheap high-quality video and digital processes, the rise of the Internet) but more through changes in theory and the opening up of new lines of intellectual inquiry. As with many other subdisciplines within the field of anthropology, many visual anthropologists would claim that they are simply anthropologists—with the same interests in kinship, politics, the economy, aesthetics, materiality, religion, and so forth as their colleagues—but with special attention paid to the visual and visible manifestations of those areas of human activity and creativity. The subdiscipline overlaps strongly with the anthropology of art and with the anthropology of material culture as well as with other disciplines such as media studies, film studies, and photographic history; in recent years, the field has also overlapped with action anthropology and other applied work coming out of development studies, and the rise of the Internet has given a new forum for the storage, study, and dissemination of images. There is no equivalent subdiscipline in the fields of archaeology and biological anthropology and primatology, though scholars in these fields do of course use photography and film or video for purposes of documentation (archaeology, forensic anthropology) and recording observations (primatology); interpretative approaches in archaeology, for example in the study of rock art, may draw upon approaches from visual anthropology as well as from the anthropology of art and the anthropology of material culture.


Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Malek

Seeking to capture a “natural drama” of epic proportions, in 1924 three American explorers spurred by wanderlust—Merian C. Cooper, Ernest Schoedsack, and Marguerite Harrison—traveled to the Middle East and filmed the semiannual migration of the Bakhtiari tribes and their flocks from winter to summer pastures. Filmed over forty-six days and only two years after the release of Nanook of the North (1922), the result became Grass: A Nation’s Battle for Life (1925). Unlike Nanook, the majority of the captivating shots that formed Grass were neither set up nor reenacted, nor could they be: the film documents the movement of an estimated 50,000 people and 500,000 animals crossing treacherous icy rivers, climbing harrowing steep cliffs, and undertaking barefoot hikes up the snowy terrain of the Zagros mountains of southwestern Iran. Critically, the film garnished generally positive reviews, but reviewers at the time repeatedly described the film as incomplete, bemoaning the lack of a central family, a romance, or a complete classical narrative—criticisms also leveled by both Cooper and Schoedsack. Despite an intent to film the return migration several months later to fill in these gaps, a lack of resources forced the filmmakers to make do with what they had captured. Padded with travelogue footage and intertitles to reach feature-length by Paramount, the migration itself is represented in the second half of Grass, highlighted by Schoedsack’s graceful compositions of long shots depicting the zigzag lines of migrating families and herds along breathtaking cliffs and across raging rivers. The lowlights, however, include Orientalist, essentializing, overdramatic, and wisecracking titles that reveal a problematic racial ideology and a self-congratulatory depiction of the heroism of the filmmakers, leading the Bakhtiari to be viewed by Western audiences as noble savages and primitive ancestors. Despite these shortcomings, Grass is counted among the first documentary films, valued for its cinematic innovations and ethnographic contributions, and it has inspired numerous Iranian filmmakers to document tribal migrations in the 20th century. Historians of ethnographic film frequently cite Grass alongside Nanook as the earliest films to document indigenous groups’ practices; they also almost uniformly describe Grass as ethnographic by accident or in spite of itself. Meanwhile, film historians have routinely considered Cooper and Schoedsack’s “natural dramas” filmed in Iran, Thailand, Indonesia, and East Africa as forming a crucial trajectory from thrill-seeking explorers to innovators on Hollywood soundstages, culminating in their most famous film, King Kong (Atlanta: Turner Home Entetainment).


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fenner

Readability is the ease with which a reader can understand a written text. ??? WikipediaReadability is obviously important for any kind of scholarly communication, from writing papers to blog posts. I have written about scientific writing before (e.g. ...


Visualidades ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Da Silva Ribeiro

ResumoVárias associações científicas nacionais e internacionais e antropólogos cineastas abordaram questões relacionadascom a análise de filmes etnográficos, sua avaliação eintegração no trabalho acadêmico. Destes, destacamos aSociedade Francesa de Antropologia Visual, a AmericanAnthropological Association e os antropólogos Bob White,Colette Piault e David MacDougall, todos cineastas eprofessores de antropologia visual / filme etnográfico. Tendo feito durante algumas décadas pesquisa em antropologiavisual e tendo sido convidado a falar sobre a integração defilmes etnográficos em trabalhos acadêmicos e sobre a revisãoe avaliação de filmes em festivais de cinema e de filmesetnográficos, é meu dever contribuir para a sistematização deinformações e para o pensamento dessas questões. É este oobjetivo deste trabalho. AbstractSeveral international scientific associations and filmmakersanthropologists have addressed issues related tothe analysis of ethnographic films, their evaluation andintegration in academic work. Of these we highlight theFVAS-French Visual Anthropology Society, the AmericanAnthropological Association and anthropologistsBob White, Colette Piault and David MacDougall, allfilm-makers and professors of visual anthropologyand ethnographic film. Having done for a few decadesresearch in visual anthropology and having been askedto speak about the integration of ethnographic films inacademic work and about the review of films in film andethnographic film festivals, it is my duty to contribute forthe systematization of information and in the thinking ofthese issues. ResumenDiversas asociaciones científicas nacionales einternacionales y antropólogos cineastas se ocuparon de cuestiones relacionadas con el análisis de películasetnográficas, su evaluación e integración en el trabajoacadémico. De estos, destacamos la Sociedad Francesade Antropología Visual, la American AnthropologicalAssociation y los antropólogos Bob White, Colette Piaulty David MacDougall, todos cineastas y profesores deantropología visual/ película etnográfica. Como me hededicado durante algunas décadas a la investigación enantropología visual y, además de eso, he sido invitado parahablar sobre la integración de películas etnográficas entrabajos académicos y sobre la revisión y evaluación depelículas en festivales de cine y de películas etnográficas,es mi deber contribuir para la sistematización deinformaciones y el pensamiento de esas cuestiones. Es esteel objetivo de este trabajo.


Author(s):  
Gimena del Rio Riande ◽  
Erzsébet Tóth-Czifra ◽  
Ulrike Wuttke ◽  
Yoann Moranville

The digital transformation has initiated a paradigm shift in research and scholarly communication practices towards a more open scholarly culture. Although this transformation is slowly happening in the Digital Humanities field, open is not yet default. The article introduces the OpenMethods metablog, a community platform that highlights open research methods, tools, and practices within the context of the Digital Humanities by republishing open access content around methods and tools in various formats and languages. It also describes the platform’s technical infrastructure based on its requirements and main functionalities, and especially the collaborative content sourcing and editorial workflows. The article concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the OpenMethods metablog to overcome barriers towards open practices by focusing on inclusive, community sourced information based around opening up research processes and the challenges that need to be overcome to achieve its goals.


Author(s):  
Sasanka Perera

Photography has had a close association with anthropology from the beginning of the discipline. However, this proximity has not been as evident since the 1960s. Despite this seeming discomfort with photographs in contemporary social anthropology in particular, they can play a useful role in social research in general and social anthropology in particular as both sources of information and objects of research. This is not to about using photographs as a decorative element in a written text as is often done. What is useful is to see how photographs can become audible taking into account when and where they were taken and by whom. To do this however, methodological considerations of photography needs to travel from the sub-disciplinary domains of visual sociology and visual anthropology into the mainstreams of these disciplines as well as into the midst of the social science enterprise more generally.


Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harjant S. Gill

The term “documentary production” within anthropology characterizes the making and circulation of ethnographic research and scholarship which includes film and video as the primary medium of storytelling and communicating cultural knowledge. These categories evolve frequently and what constitutes a film as “ethnographic” cinema is a topic of lengthy ongoing debates. In his Oxford Bibliographies in Anthropology entry “Ethnographic Film,” Matthew Durington provides an overview of some of these debates in attempting to narrow down theoretical frameworks and parameters of filmic ethnography. Ginsburg’s 1998 essay “Institutionalizing the Unruly: Charting a Future for Visual Anthropology” (cited under Foundations) charts the lineage of visual anthropology on the development of the subfield as “born of a union between anthropology and documentary film” (p. 173). From its earliest application within ethnographic research, some scholars have approached filmmaking as a methodological and analytical tool that privileges scientific rigor while others regard it primarily as a medium for storytelling and scholarly output. Early adopters of using film within anthropological research, including Mead and Bateson in their 1977 article “On the Use of Camera in Anthropology” (cited under Foundations), have openly quibbled about the role of the camera and the filmmaker in capturing culture on film. These disagreements have been useful in broadening the boundaries of ethnographic cinema, inspiring filmmakers to experiment with different ways of making meaning, as it has been customary from the genre’s inception led by pioneering figures like Jean Rouch, Robert Gardner, and Trinh T. Minh-ha. For a threshold for what constitutes “ethnographic film and media productions,” we can turn to Jean Rouch, who in his essay “The Camera and Man” (cited under Foundations) insists that ethnographic filmmakers must apply the same anthropological rigor—“spend a long time in the field before beginning to shoot (at least a year),” and thereby possessing an intimate understanding of the communities among whom they work while mastering essential “film and sound recording skills” (p. 40). Building on insights offered by Rouch and by drawing on scholarship from documentary and media studies, the goal of this entry is to outline the fundamentals of non-fiction filmmaking geared toward anthropologists who are already trained in ethnographic research. This entry also insists upon a more inclusive definition of ethnographic cinema, one that does not rely on the filmmaker’s academic pedigree as the primary criteria for inclusion into what has historically been a rather insular enterprise. Instead, a section of this entry is devoted to highlighting voices and perspectives from historically marginalized communities—queer, feminist, people of color, immigrants, indigenous filmmakers, who have been sidelined within the discipline of anthropology with its vestiges of colonialism. Another section of this entry highlights the need to decenter the hegemony of North American and European gaze when telling cross-cultural stories by focusing on transnational ethnographic and documentary production, specifically from countries in the Global South.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document