10 NEW PRINCIPLES OF VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY e browse together numberof papers from the Ninth Congres of Anthropological and Enola Snes fed in Chicago ie 1973, find it bore the ambisous tide Pinpler of Visual Avvopologs. The took subsequenly Iecme 4 cornerstone ofthe sabiipine of | anchropolgy. It Sold wide and in 1995 is eto, Pal Hockings, brought out «heavily revised and expanded cond eon. The te hed been bilan choice 2 maser piece of wif hiking for tefered oa eld that fol practical porpoise dd os ye exit Despice its tile, che Book didnot atl se forth any principles of visual anthropology. The contents represent a scattered fae of ite {sand points of ew om the rudy of proxemics to he seo feat Fins scutaral acumen. The ays were ongaiaed in section, Dot ‘these were uly aban an thee was ile evidence ha the stots ‘bing shoulders in the book had ever read one another's work ot had ‘ren head of one another” weve fone nove eadsthe book clos sme conn principles oc pthaps it woul be ber say assumione can be dso in (Ones tha the nascent eld of wal athropoogy was atthe econ ceived almostexclasely in terms of edunographic Aim. Vis anthro logis were supposed eo be sing fll themsces o sci me that ‘ter people had made Tere ws nother today, an erp om the wider aspectsof visual ealtre’ Nor whew exceptions was ial anthropology conceived a a ciminciely visual for of anivopology, ‘bur more imply sth grafting of risa technology ont exseng a hropolgial practices Related to his was a conception of fm fundamentally elt and insrumental anthropologist wee co make fins they were aetsoed| tobe making records fo ater atl ving to each anthropology stdens who ad eto seme ito the eld mig was ep ed fs way of ther gathering data or podscing an accurate cory of ea. Inthe fsa the bulk ofthe anthzoplogesl work would be done later, when se fooage was subjected to analy nthe secon of bad I N 1975 & BOOK appeared that wat to prove highly infer NeW PRINCIFUES OF UAL ANTHROFOLOGY 265 slreay been done and ims were simply meant iste exiting od ‘es of knowledge. Among the writes articulating these approaches wer “Margare Mead Jean Deminique Ljous and Timothy Arch, One 40 certs ike Jem Rouch and Mark McCarty, who fad eter sme, were {ven space inthe book, but he dominso view was that filmmaking was 2 Kind of anteopologial note taking oes leno. ln keeping wth ‘he educational boom ofthe 1970eand the Funding geaeated the ood ‘was distin dda One ofthe largest sections ofthe book weenie “The Pesntason of Anthroplogtl Information” "do nr wish opusue the book ad ts ansumptions fre uch ese censure the. Inany ways Prints of Val Anthropology ithe best Summation we have ofthe sate of wsal anthropology atthe time, in both is diaray and its cents Ir sande at the ecsroads bee tm anthcoplogy al searching forthe precision af the natural ees fda new anteopology of socal experience shat wat stugig t2 tierge, through wrtingswellas through och novel metho poo "apy and cinema. The book provides apringhoard for examining se tra early aremps ro construct theory of vial anthropology. ‘One of te ft to appear te Kat Fleidr's Ethograph ln pub Ise in de following yea Ar the ttle makes ley concepion of ‘ual aneopology remain fry wthin the eam of fl, Homeve, Units predcessog st atemper opin down the "cthnogsaphnes™ of films and establish ome peincpe for bow ro make them Ie ot very socesfl m the st endeavor sine is argument i age ctl sual of teres commonsense approach Underlying hs isa bet In he vetoes of neural methodology Ia Fides view» succes tnograpicim shoud remain enconaminate by too speci tort fal interests Ia fc, 2 ls should apie to the purty ofthe thing pe ‘civ: From this comes his isinence on holi—theinlasion of at ‘auch of the surounding context as pomible, Heide’ metaphor i he thuman bod, which shouldbe kep tac eater than be own infra ments or minus is arms ot les rs a pesrpion tha carey echoes fay objections to lowe ups in fms, because they peodced an snp {ated view ofthe burma bj. “Throughout hs discussion, Heider implicly and explicily contest the panty ofthe ethnographer’ comment ro rth ith the atts presumed commitment above all ese to sehen pleasare—an de that petps har origins in crlyArmericaa Purana ut his ei of Artis built onan even more fundamental philosophical assmpion. To ‘he rasional observes rath, rom his perspec emanate word Any sytem that comes beeen he observer andthe obscred specs iy rained Therefore Heider says, “inorder to jue the enogrph ‘snes of afm we hae the sed to know ow mach snd what See7‘onstanl redefining wha is reevanto ie wading. Often what fas bee ie been thoghe to belong fo the province of snother chology of biologie iehar simply excped the “Antropol yes. Pere haps fortuitously fr visual anchropoogy, the indvidal socal aor ising rom a reexamine what we have tins f curl boundedness, locality, and history; colonial ane postcolo- sal sagas fr ienity andthe stay of sacl ewer a they a tmaeily and clsurally contracted. ‘The temporal lads the anthropology of ine the lie hoy mode ‘ofetinogaphy; specs of indigenous nara myth, a ritual “socal Arama suid by Vitor Tarer tacies of ee le selon. ‘ataralsprodocton, lad a cme ad works that sarap @ rein afew ingen, at hat 20 oe bec amped i willbe increasingly important to create long-term projectsFILMOGRAPHY tm mage owen fie conta