Rethinking Visual Anthropology Edited hy Marcus Banks and Howard Morphy: “This pathibreakcing honk brings together esiys hy lending anthropologists that cover aa entire range of visual representation, from Balinese television to compater software ‘manuals: Contributors discuss the anthropology of art, ritual, med of anthropology, fil art practice and prod uetion and commiieation, the sively of landscape, the history: “This book vill undoubtedly stand as a major landmark of the institutional direction in hich “etsucl anthropology” of the late 1990. is going... Tis isu beautifully prodiwed book? ~ Paul Henley, Pires Licerary Supplement Marcus Banks is University Lecturer in Social Anthropology, University of Oxford, Howard Morphy is Professor of Social Aatheopology, University Gollege, Landon, lenin ons Marcus Banks + Debbora Battaglia + Georgina Born Prangoise Dussart + Elizabeth Edwards + Gillian Gi Aer mee mera mOue Corer Ma ante aecce un Peter Loizos * David MacDougall + DP: Martinez, Toward Morphy + Nicholas Thomas ISBN 0-300-07356-4 ANILRethinking 5 =, Teer | Lo. Anthropology | | 1) Edited by | Cs CHIME TT cet ene eet Morphy | Dagua owes 2 ens pipeiorece wntRethinking Visual AnthropologyRethinking Visual Anthropology Edited by Marcus Banks and Howard Morphy versity Press in and LondenCypyright D LF by Vals University Firs published is paperback 1999 All righoseosersed. This hooker nor bis repishiced in whole be i pri it any for HHeserd that ceprings pemticd by Sections 17 atu! WS the US, Conti Lay sind except ly reviewers hr the public pues} without wrtten petmiesio feo she publishers Set in Garamond Sinwncni by SX Composing DTP, Righeigh, Lsses Pines ane! Bound it Gen Bete by Rech Prick, Wilts Library of Congress Cataloging in-Paublicatun Dita Rethinking visual anthioy lew lectized by Marts Brike and Liowatd Mouhy » bibliographical elerenexs alice, 3010-96 1-0 able) ISBN 0-5 0-07854 4 Iphley 1. Visual andrropology. Banks, Mansi, Ll. Mansy, Howard GAHT RS 1s ‘ygessane Silda cr wORTOS442 A stidagnierracord oe tts bes a availalbly maar abe: Betta LatContents Illasteation credits sil List of contributors ix Acknowledgements x Introduction: tethinking visual anthropology a) Howard Morphy and Marcus Banks - The eye in the door: anthropology, film and the exploration of interior space 36 Anna Grinshate Beyond the boundary: a consideration of the = expressive in photoxcaphy and anthropology 3 Elizabeth Edwards First exiss from observational realism: narrative experiments in recent cthnographie films 81 Peter Loizos Burlesquing knowledge: Japanese quiz shows and models of knowledge 105 DP. Martine: Balinese on television: representation and response 120 Felicia Tlughes-Freeland Computer software as a medium: rextuality, orality and sociality in an artificial intelligence research culture. 139 Georgina Bom ‘Yo sce or aot to see: looking as an object of exchange in the New Guinea Highlands 170 Gillian Gillison A body painting in translation 186 Franguise Dussart ;“) Displacing the visual: of Trobriand ave-blacles and ambiguicy in cultural practice Dodbora Raiteglis Representing the badies of the Jains Marcus Barrss Pine, ponds wid pebbles: gardens and visual culture Toy Hendry Collectivity and nationality in the anthropology of «+t Nickolas Thomas The visual in anthropology David MacDowegall Index 296lustration credits Allimages are copsriehs and, une atherwise acknowlsdged. belong themalre! the ‘essay in which ther appear 1 Howard Morphy: 12 Frangoise Dastact: 1.3 Nasir! Fity and Television Atchive, copyright Cambridge University Museum of Atchaevliny and Antirapalosy: La Pit Rivers Museutn, Oxfore: 15 Pitt Rivers Museum ston. photo: Baldsin Spencers 16 New York Academy of Seicnces/Catherine Bates 1.7 Napoleon Chagnon/atsy Asch: 18 Marcin Banks; 19 Toward Mosphy: 110 Oxtord University Press: LIL Kim MicKervie: 1.12 Hizach: Led, copyright © 1994, 1596, ll rights rosetweds 113 Lowe Howard Spink: 114 Unichreme (ath) Le 3.1 Nu Cuier-Voe Prodietions Pty Ltd: 5.2, 433, 3.4 and 3.5a and b Elkeabeth Willams: 36u ara b Jorma Puraneny 3.7 Clauletie Holmes; 44,42 and 4.3 Alan Lecisa, with thanks « SC. Bennett 4a and b Deus ORourke: 4.9,461md4.7 Kober Booazajer Furs, with hanks t9 S.C. Bennett 484.9 490, 4.11 aval 4.12 Christine Lloyd View Yorks Testi, with thanks to SC Beanot, 53 and 344 wih thanks 0 Isolde Stans: 2.3 Scasley Hinnes; 74 RCA, with hanks to Xavier Rove! and Pierse Coie: 7.5 IRCAM: 7.6 IRCAM wth thinks ta Xavier Ree ZTARCAM, with thanks fo Andrew Gereay: 9A photo: A. Kurewell 12.3 Tully Hone, Go. Kildare: 13.1 private collection. Nair, New Zealand, photo: Mark Adarns, 3.2 i collection, Wellington, New Zeal, vhovw Gootttey Short 13.3 lan Nest, phot Geoffrey Short, Bf Auckland City Art Galery; D3 and 16 Joka Bale; 13. Austalan ‘Mascum, Syuney: 13.8 Got Family Collection, Auckland: 141 photo: WN. Downey 142 Cambridge Universry Museums ol Archacoleay and Anthsopoligy; 4.3 Dept ‘ment of Library Services. Americar Museu of Natural ELstary. ep. to. N22, photo: J. Kisshers th photo: |. Adana: 1450 bray of South Australia: 14.3b State ibeary of South Australia, phoro- Rickarsh 147 Nacional lim and Televisian Archive, copyright Cambridge Universin Museums of Archascloas and Anthropology: 148 Geatro d= Trabalho ndigenise, Beal | Vico in the Vilage’ project, phoro, Vincent (Corel. 14.10 Nacional Film and Television Archive, with thanks ts Francaise Foucault M411 New York Acalemy of Sciences Catherine BatewonList of contributors Marcus Bantss is Lecturer in Social Amthropology at the University of Oxford Debbora Battaglia is Professor of Anthropwlogy at Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts Georgina Born is Lecturer in the Department of Media and Communications at Gokismiths College, University of London Francoise Dussart is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Connecticut beth Lidivards is Archives University of Oxford Gillian Gillison is Peolessor of Anthropology at the University of Toronto Anna Grimshaw is Lecturer in Visual Anthropology at the Granada ‘Centre for Visual Anthropology, University of Manchester Joy. Heady i Protesor of Social Anthropoloyy at Oxford Brookes Iniversity Felicia HaghesTreetand is Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of Wales Swansea Peter Loizos is Readet in Anthropology at th? London School ‘of Economics and Political Science, University of London David MacDougall is a filmmaker and Queen Elizabeth I Fellow and Convener of the Program in Visual Research at the Centre for Cross: Cohural Research at she Australian National University, Canberra DP. Martinezis Lecturerin Anthropology with reference to Fapan at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London ard Morphy is Professor of Social Anthropology a: University College London. University of London and Honorary Curator of the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxiord Nickolas Thomas ix Professor and Senior Research Fellow in Anthropology and Director of the Centre for Cross Cultural Research ut the Australian National University. Canberra Surator at the Pitt Rivers Museum,Acknowledgements Several of the papers in this volume were first presented at section meeting of the ASA TV Decennial Conference, "The Uses of Knowledge: global and local relations’, held in Oxford during July 1993. We are grateful to the conference convenor, Marilyn Strathern, and the lecal co-ordinator, Wendy James, for inviting is to orgenise a session on visual representation and visual knowledge, Since then many people have helped us bring this volume into being. Tn particular, we would like 10 thank lan Dunlop, Frances Mosphy and all the conteibutors for reading our inteoductio tive comments. We also wish to thank Patsy Asch, Gillian Crowther, Frungoise Dussart, Llizabeth Edwards, Malcolm Osman, Gwil Owen and Alison Perch for their practical help wich the illustrations for the introduction, and Catherine Bateson; Hitachi Lid, Kim MacKenzie, the New York Academy af Sciences, Oxford University Press, Unichrom: Ld) and Giles Walker of Lowe Howard Spink for proving» number cof the illustrations, Mone generally we are grateful tera number of friends and coll who provided advice, help and support along the way, particularly Prances Morphy and Barrie Thomas, Robert Baldock at Yale University Dress was encouraging from the outset, and Candida Brazil eeyped chcer fully with an increasingly complicated manuscript. Finally, our home instizutions at the time of preparing the book - the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology and the Pit: Rivers Museum ~ provided invalut able assistance and resources 1 associate and for their construeIntroduction: rethinking visual anthropology Howard Morphy and Marcus Banks By most of the usual criteria, visual anthropology has hecome in estab lished subdiscipline of sociocultural anthropology, It has its own section of the American Anthropological Association, it has two established journals, there ate regular conference sessions and symposia on visual anthropology and an ineressing number of students are being taught or are conducting research within she field. [lowever, visual anthropology has suffered as much as any other branch of anthropology feom what in ‘other contests is one ot the great virtues of the discipline: the breadth of its agenda and the reluctance to leave any aspect of the study of humans ‘ouiside its orbit. The interdisciplinary nature of anthropology means thot there is a constant tension between centripetal and cencilugal forces. This is manitest ina continual budding off process resulting in a plethora of subdisciplines which can always pose a threat to the eoher ence of the centre, Historically anthropology has heen riven by debates as to whether what someone else docs is reilly anthropology. Yet if the centre is an uncomiortable place to ba, i i precisely this reference back to the centre, 10 some more general concept of the discipline, that gives coherence to anthropology: itis this char makes social anchropalogy dil: ferent from sociology and biological anthropology, diflerent from human genetics or human physiology. Visual anthropology is itsell an example of such tendencies ~ itis 4 celatively recent olfshcot from the main body and, like other sub-branches, it also has suffered at times from an identity crisis __ Visual anthropology is broad both in the substantive topics which it investigates and through the fact that it lies at the interface berween anthropology and ics audiences; i is as much concemed with the pre semtation and consumption of anthropological knowledge as with the production of that knowledge, At the most general level there is a dual: ity of focust oa the one hand visual anthropology concems the use of Visual material in anthropological seseurch (well exemplified by the essays in Hockings 1975) and on the other itis the seudy of visual systems and visible culture (well exemplified by the essays in Taylor 1994) — itch produces visual texts and consumes them.’ These interests are now ccssatily opposed. It could be argued that visual anthropology is con cerned with the whole process of anthropology from the recording of Gata, through its analysis tothe dissemination af the results of research, Anthropology as discipline is igell a representational process, enzaged in an activity of cultural seanslatinn or interpretation. It involves the ep resentation of ane culture or segment of society to an anthropological aacience which itsdf includes people with cliferene culara) back grounds who uperate on satying premises. An understanding of the nature of representational processes acrous cultures is thus integral to the ‘overall objectives of anthropology. Visual anthropology has indeed been part of the discourse over objectivity and has heen invelved in anthro. pological metadiscourse which takes account of the positioned nature of sctors and interpreters. |. Some of the more recent clevelapments in anthropological theory ean be seen ce rellect an increased sensitivity the variety of human repre sentational systems, with inercased attention being directed towards th body, house forms, art andl material culture, and more generally to the objectification of social and cultural process in cultural form and perfor: ‘mance. At times such insights have been associated with particular theo retical positions: a rhetoric aguinat the concept of culture, a critique of semiotics, and the use of linguistic analogies in anthropology. It has been possible ac times co discern a kind of reverse Sunssurvanism, ts if the dis covery of the diversity and complexity of pauticular human representa tional processes and the role of agency invalidates the more general concept of the existence of structured communicative and representa processes in the reproduction of human sociocultural systems, Certainly anthropology itself is embedded ia representational proces chat may rellecr pai sand which ace an integral past of a par. ticular system of knowledge, affecting what is known and how itis inter prered and understood by others. One ayenekt oi visual anthropology is ‘oanalyse the properties of visual systems, to determine the prperties of visual systems and the conditions of their omerpretation and to telate the particular systems 10 the complexities of the social and political processes of which they ate a prt, sexond agencl i 1 analyse the visual meins of disseminating anthropological knowledge its reflexiviy becomes central component of am thropoloyie:!] method visual anthropulogy with its history of reflexivity, with its elemem of reportage and its potential to monitor action and process has become an increasingly central field (se2 Ruby 19801 In this book we wish to push back the boundaries of inclusivity of +isual anthropology, andia some eases our reuders may feel that we have pushed the bounclariés too far, However, boundaries are almost by def- inition somewhar problemutic, especially if the objective is to reintegrate 2 a subdiscipline within a vider whole, The visual is such an importantTab Ny heres 28901 ed altho ahs i ee ehdhcad. he shoorsp i i il prove viene the Roper ba land la component of human cultural, cognitive and perceptual processes, that it can be relevant to all areas of anthropology. Whether a particular paper belongs to the core of the subject must depend in part on subtle factors such as the way the author conceives of their work, the literature to which they refer, and the discourse of which they are a part. The f anthropological disciplines is that many contributions can be included within different subdisciplinary frames, indeed the logic of a holis skes such a potential inevitable, Cross fetilisation is art theangh multiple inclusion. Adam 's work on Warlpiri sign | for example, is equally rele- ‘ant to linguistic anthropology and che anthropology of ritual and, across the disciplinary boundary, to Sociolinguistics and ethology (see for exam ple Kendon 1988). Yer, although every work on (Weelpii) sign language 48 going to have some relevan anthropology, not every work i 2 10 be readily accepted as visual anthropology: Kendon’s work is visual anthropology because he is an anthropologist who has used visual media extensively in his research, because he has a background in ethology and ekistics in which the visual dimension of non-verbal behaviour hgures prominently, and because he has been part Of the discourse of che subject as it has developed. ferreduetionTn this book we e on the boundaries with many other subdisei: plines: with the anthropology of art (Banks, Thomas and Dussart}s with the study of landseape (Hendey); with the anthropology of ritual (Battaglia, Gillison); with the anthropology of media and communica- tion (Born, Martinez and Hughes-l'recland)y with the history of anthro: pology (Grinshaw) aad, acioss the disciplinary boundaries themselves, Wwe engape with art practice and production (Born, Edwards, Loizes and MacDougall). Buc in stretching the houndarivs our intention has been always redirected back towards the centre; zowards the relevance of the papers to an understanding of the place of the visual in human eulmare (see MacDougall, chapter 14). Filn, photography, and tbe bistory of visual anthropology Reappraising the work of Kroeber, Ira Jacknis notes: Tn many minds the term visual anthropology conjures up a specialised study invelving film and video, Actually its scope is much broader, including the production and analysis of still phoros, the study of artand matcrial culture. and the investigation of gesture, latial expression and spatial aspects of behav jourand interaction. In fact many anthropologists have been deing visaal anchropology without realizing it’ (1994: 35), - The current volume hus a dual agenda: to reihink the place of visual anthropology im the discipline as 2 whole, and to sethink the subdisei- pline itself In particular we aimn to disentangle the relationship between‘sual anthropology, fl and photography. Visual anthropology hus had an uncomfortable (or perhaps too comforvable!) relationship with pho tography and ethnographic film. Recently ethnographic film has tendecl to dominate the subdiscipline. not so much internally as in the percep tions of other anthropclosists about the focus of the project. Visual anthropology can be viewed as an easy subject to incorporate in anthro pology teaching - one simply develops an ethnographic film programme. Aran even more basic level, one simply screens an ethnosraphie film as away of providing an easily digestible chunk cf ethnography, The ethno- graphic lim programme approach can all too easily lead scudents away from anthropology into film production for its own sake. ‘The film screening approach encourages @ view of visual anthropology as an optional estra, as an entertaining introduction to the real business in hand, At very worst, ethnographic films are babysitting devices for busy teachers, ‘We seek to deflect she centre of the discipline away from ethnographic film and photography, allowing them to be re-incorporated in a more positive seay and in a way that is more cognizant of the broader smth ological pyroject. There are very good reasons why film has come to occupy such a central position in recent years. The long neglect by anthropologists of visual recording media as « methodological tool was so extraordinary that the initial agenda of visual anthropology became the filling of this lacuna, The emphasis was on the way film could be used in anthropological research (see in particular the essays by Richard Sorenson and Alison Jablonko, Asen Balikci, Stephanie Krebs, Alan Lomax, and J.H. Prost in Hockings 1975). Lilm is also the area of vistual anthropology which engages most reaily with a broader audience: it seems to provide anthropology with a space to advertise its public strengths and liberal values (am assumption that has recently been chal lenged by Wiltoa Martinez 1990). The use of film as a cesearch tool for tusc in anthropological fieldwork and later analysis has been greatly facil itated in recent years by the development of cheap, lightweight video technology. Finally, the sheer ‘sexiness’ of film and video, and their asso- lation with the glamorous worlds of cinema and television cannot be altogether discounted (Banks 1990), IF flm is to be more than a method in anthropology, mare than a medium of public relations, more than the stepping-stone to 2 career in the media, the focus must be on the contribution that film can make 10 anthropology as a theoretical discipline, as David MacDougall empha- sises in his chaprer. As soon as this perspective is adopced film takes its place with other visual phenomena. Visual anthropology as we define it becomes the anchtopology of visual systems or, more broadly, visible eul- tural forms. In adopting this definition we are not changing the agenda Of the subject but making explicit what has always been the case. The book includes precisely the range of topics that were covered intheissues of Larry Gross's and Jay Ruby's pioncering journal Studies fr Viseeal Cornmnni¢ation (originally founded in 1974 by Sol Worth) which set the framewark for the subdiscipline, We arate that by specifying the role of film in anthropology in theoretical ay well as methodologic terms its relevance to anthropology as a whole is likely to be enhance even if it occupies a smeliee space within the subdiscipline Certainly flim and photography form an important part of visual anthropology ber in its contemporary practice and its historical origins. ‘Visual anthropologists include a coalition of people who find film relevant to their work in anthropology (in contrast to the general neglect of film by other anthropologists) and who have in common an interest in film as a iecording medium. Anthropologists of art, dance, material culture, cthol- ogy, and non-verbal contmunieation have chatacteristicaly used film and photography as tools in their research. Historically the use of film in research isan important theme of visual anthropologe. Iistorically, too, film (and increasingly video) have been used in allied projects to anthre- pology = in proxemics and choreometties, for example (see essays by Prost and Lomay in Hockings 1995), and more recently asa development within conversation analysis (see Goodwin 1981; Heath 1986 Inthe lage nineteenth century photography was for a while an essen tial part of general anthropological method, Anthropologists such as Haddon, and Spencer ancl Gillen seized on each new recording tech: nigue ~ photography, wax cylinder recording, the movie camera ~as if offered the key to future research hy providing a means of bringing back data to the laboratory (see Anna Grimshaw, chapter 2), Reading the let ters written from Gillen in Central Auscralia to his co-researcher Spencer in Melbourne, itis impossible not fed their excirement at the success ‘of new recording technologies and the prospect of better ones 10 come, itis clear that anthropology was embedded at the time in the paradigm of a descriptive science in which the essence was the recordings of new facts and their interpretation by evolutionary theoryThe eonventional view has bech thet the photographic methods of carly anthropologists were constrained by che theoresical peradigms that they adhered to and by the power relations of nineteenth-century colo- aialism. Certainly there is much evidence to support the view that in par: ticular cases imazes were construcied to fit a particular scientific paradigm or interpretative agenda the anatomical portraits inspired by Huxley's biological anthropology that simultaneously objectiy the pow- erlessness and subject status of the people capeured by the camera, and provide biometric information (Edwards 1988, 1990}; the photographs by E.H. Man arranged to illustrate pages out of Notes and Queries, that fitted in with the culture trait concept (Edwards 1992); and the roman- images of Curtis, Kerry or Lindt dat were designed to record the last images of a dying race killed through contact with a higher dvilisetion (Lyman 1982). FFzure 14 Stadio picearanh of Clssnee Rive Necelgines ly JW Lina-oely 1870, However, these ideologically constructed images represent only part ‘of the story since from early an many pioneer ctlmographers were moti- vated by the desire ro document what they observed. Nineceznth-cen: tury anthropologists cen be accused of having a naively realist Perspective on film and photography, and of failing to see the con- structed nature of their imagery and the cultural hiases of their own ways of seeing, Bur that very naiivery may have had virtues in setrospect (even though in most cases, photography was viewed as an enhanced presen- tational method and aot merely as a mediuim of transcription: see, for example, Chris Pinney on Seligman [Pinney 199: 279-82]). Whileassuming that photogeaphy wes an objective recording practice they rook phosographs chat fundamentally contradicted the theoretical propositions thet they endorsed and revealed a world of far greater com plexity chaa their evolutionary framework allowed. Theic photosrap! purport co exemplify evclutionary perspectives, but simultane reveal a fascination with the cultural richness of living societies (an ambi guity of intent recognised in modern theoretical perspectives on photog- raphy such as these developed by Sontaz 1978 and Barthes 1995 For example, while Spencer and Gillen always adhered to « frame work that positioned Australian Aborigines in evolutionary terms, their published data, in particular the data on Aboriginal ritual and social ‘otganisation, was lrom the beginning interpreted by others to show the complexity and richness of Aboriginal society (Morphy 1988). Spencer and Gillen were motivated to take photographs not by their evolution. ary paradigm but by the documentary ethos of participant observation Spencer and Gillen's excitement was over the potential of the camera te record what they had seen and felt otherwise inadequate to conwey (see Cantrll and Cantril 1982), They locused on recording ritual eventsand toa lesser extent, daily life; they used the camera because they could see oother way of recording whit oceurred, Despite the constraints of an immobile camera exposure times, and pranted the artificiality of ceremonial performances organised in daylight hours so ind the need for lonthat the photographs could be taken at all, the surprising thing abou their photographs is how natural and unconstrucced they appear. They break with the earlier paradigms of biometrical photography and roman- ic reconstruction, and fit well within the later tradition represented by those such as Malinowski and Fenness. Anna Grimshaw shows in chapter 2 that in Briish anthropology this of engagement between photography and film as recording tech niques and theory construction continued through the transition from evolutionary theory to functionalism: Malinowski was an active photog: rapher in the mould of Spencer whereas theres liale record uf Radclifie- Brown's photozraphic achievements. However. in neither case did photography play a significant role in analysis. In Malinowski’s case pho- tographs were used extensively as illustrations, whereas in Radcliffe Brown's they are entirely absent alter The Andaman Islanders, The documentary excitement that is evident in the work of Hadden's 1898 Torres Strait expedition and in the work of Spencer and Gillen was absorbed, almost deadened, by the intellectual movement that suc ceeded them (see ney 1992b), In the postevolutionist ext photography and film, as tools for the anthropological method, suffered the same fate as did art and material clture as subjccts of anhropological research, Tarred by the evolution ists’ brush they were left out of the fckhwork revolution that hecame asso: Giated with structural-funcrionalism. With hindsight there appears no rational reason for the association of new recording technologies with the discredited thcorctical perspective, especially if, xs we have argued, pho» tography was potentially a liberating inflvence which undermined the evolutionary paradigm, Faherty’s achievements in Nasioat of the Nonth (1922) provide an interesting contrast to the situation within ‘profes: sional’ anthropology. It can be argued! that Maherty used functionalist and cultural relativist promises in his films, emphasising the ingenuity of Inuit technology, the ways in which their life was adapted to the environ. ‘ment end the uniqueness and relative autonomy of their cultural system. Film, photography and sound recording should have heen ideal com: Plements to participant observation. Yer ironically in British anthropol ay the camera only occasionally provided company in the field and it ‘was hardly incorporated into field methodology ar all. As MacDougall Argues (this volume), this was rellected in the decline in the use of pho- Sography ever as illustrative material in ethnographic monographs. The focus t0 social organisation, the importance of the genealogical method, the emphasis on oral tradition, may all have been conwriburory factors in the neglect of new recording technology, since researchers in these areas may have found the notchaok an adequate tool, The neglect Start, material culture, and cirual form, all areas where the camera comes fnto its own (and all inheren:ly visual forass of interest to evolutionary -authropologists), may have been complementary factors. Certainly pha- Intwoductiontography became associated with earlier phases of anthropology and ‘with the study of art and materiel culture, Photogrephy continued to find a place in ethnographic muscums and continued to he part of che methodology of museum anthropology, but inonically this was precisely the area of anshropoleyy that missed cut on the fieldwork revolution, Photography, a medium that is designed to capture the actuality of an event and to establish the presence of the anthropologist. became associated with anchropalogy et a distance.’ In Amencan anthropology similar developments occurred, though anthropology maincained its breadth much move than it did in Brivain. Indeed in America, ‘anthropology at a distance’ ean be seen in the case of Ruth Benedict and others to have involved a highly innovative use of photographs as cultural information, It was in America that visual anthropology began to take shape as a separate subdiscipline atound the time of the Second World War, Margaret Mead, a student of Benedict's, in her own work and it itticulir iy her collaboration in Bali with Gregory Bateson (1956-37), made a strong case for the use of technolo: ries of recording in the field, Mead anc! Bateson oth had strong roots in the tradition of Western science and their use of film and photography ean be seen as following directly uty from the observational science model of antiopology espoused by those such as Spencer, Haddon and to an extent Boas (Jacknis 9891, For Mead the value of film lay in part in dhe fact that it was infinitely re-analysable by others. Despite its selec- tivity and biases it could nor but reveal more than it cnncealed of th: events that it recorded: Photographs taken by one observer can be subs jected to continual re-analysis by others’ (cited in Scherer 1990: 134), And, we might add with relerence ra Hughes-lireeland’s paper, to con Acting analysis and re-analysis In Balinese Character (1942) Bateson and Mead combined the methodological with the theoretical by arguing thit it was only through photography that certain aspects of the reality of Balinese culture could be revealed and communicated cress-culturally (See Wood 1989) Bateson and Mead (1942: sii) wore thar ‘we are attempting «new method of stating the intangible relationship among diflerent types of culturally sanclarcised behaviour hy placing side by side mumually cele- vant photographs, Pieces of behaviour spatially and contextually se rated may all be relevant to a single discussion, the same emetional thread may run through them,” Iris interesting to sce the foreshadowing of more recent concepts such as Bourdieu’ ‘habitus’ with its emphasis on embodiment, affect, and on the sole of dispositions aad habitval behaviour in the reproduction ol social systems. The assumption behind Hateson and Masd’s smucy was that che Balinese represented a way of being that was reflected in the vis ible world that they created through their bchaviour in a lived environ: ment. and that aspects of that world could be sensed throughadh ence tech ni ul Meath ove St uit bale cand copia sh bit Photography ina way possible 10 convey through the writ ten word alone (MacDotsgll’s theoretical weitings can be respects as attempts to take that agenda forward (eg, MacDougall 1975 and 1992]). There was also a strong clement of reflexivity built into the method thar they developed, since they contextualised their more sub: jective statements by associating them in their documentation with pho: tographs and other recordings which helped locate their thoughts in time and place. In effect they provided the evidence for the deconstruc- tion of their representations of Balinese society. Unforcunately, perhaps because they generated so much data, th J the analyses that would have convineingly demonstrated the theoretical power of the method they were advocating (see also Hagaman 1995), Perhaps ay MacDougall argues (this volume) there was a fundamental difference in Meads and Boteson's conceptions of what photography could con ttibute to anthropology: Bateson used the mediums of photography and sa means of explorstioa, through which process an understanding of Balinese euleuze might develop, anc! Mead vacd them in a more post Uvistic sense as a means of recording daca for subsequent analysis 4 Un the short term what should have been an inspiring step in the use cf visual methods in anthropology instead consirmed their more conser- ative colleagues in their negative attitudes to the use of photography in fesearch, Mead’s long-term influence on American visual anthropology. Bowever, should aot be underestimated and can be seen in the develop- uphic film as an exploratory as well as a documentary ‘works of practitioners such as Timerhy Asch (especially inthis pioneering and innovative Yanomumi films and also in his later col- Bborative work in Bali- see Connor et al. 1986). 1 never completrf repolog Mohini beh wa cous Hep, Thien Siepng machete He arises, jun a Kebews manszes ret 1 Moher ‘ igus 1.7 Tim Asch sisi sttesed the impertaree ofthe antrepologial che nage sully or etheiccnepostion, W ol enavatiges which faitareifmerptsrin hy the viewee stn dd te ined inher. Thesejeence af dhe gh wrung hd rough suber hp dh py remand rele The ‘Ie ence she ae bo corsains rece iteagrnty ed to be terued. Tic ade pewthe arn areused and surdevcops oer dine‘Bateson and Mead failed to move from using photography as a means of recording a world that was the product of 4 particular way al’ being and which involved « distinctive wav of seeing, feeling and relating to the world, toan analysis thar convincingly demonstrated how that world. seen, felt and understood by the Balinese. They failed to achieve the move from visual anthropology as a mode of representation by the anthropologist 1o visual anthropology as a study of people's own visual worlds, including the role of representations within cukkural process. ‘Their insight was cher che latter would be bewer achieved by using a full range of representational systems ~ sound, film, objects themsclves, as well as writing ~ bur they failed to carry the project through. In chap- ter 6 Hughes-Frecland demonstrates how, in a sense, the project has been taken up in contemporary Bali by the Indonesian state, AAs she convincingly shows. even on this one small island regiomal identities and experience can easily subvert any attempt to represent ‘the Balinese’. Visnal anthropology: method or theory? The separation of method irom theory is never straightforward ond this is particularly so in a discipline shat at times defines itself in terms of its methods: fieldwork and participant observation. A methodological toal cannot ice be theoretically neutral since it should always be chosen with reference to the objectives of the research andl in the light of the knowledge of the biases and assumptions which underlie it and its history. Part of the pestmedem critique of anthropology has heen that its methodology has been based on the double illasion of the neutral observer and the observable social phenomenon, In order 10 counter such eriticisis, method in anthropology has to be recognised as inher: cently theoretical in its implications and itis today 2 requirement to make explicit these theoretical underpinnings, Nonetheless, itis possible and Dethaps even essential w make a pragmatic distinction between theery and method that separates out the aims of the research and the interpre- tative framework or paradigm used in the analysis of data, from the w in which the data are obtained Tn anthropology the separation of data collection from analysis and interpretation has a parcicular significance, since traditionally there has a bias towards collection of data as a separate exercise in advance Of the development of « particular problematic, even though overarch- ing theoretical paradigms have exerted their influence. The idea of ethnography originally presupposed the existence of a relatively unknown reality that was to be recorded and subsequenily analysed, the Problematic emérging through the research process (the Colliers’ 1986 Visual methodological work is a good example of this approach). ‘You asrestuetéon B“4 ‘won't know what you wil find until you get there’ is still an informal die tum of fick! research, and one chat infuriates equally the advocates of methodological tormalism and the radical critics of the ethnographic ‘method, In reality what is discovered reflects what is soupht and the accumulation of anthropological knowledge has Jed to the development of more steuctured and problem-oriemted fieldwork projects. But the olism of anthropology still requires of its practitioners « broad-hrash approach, and neutrality in data collection, if acknowledged to be impossible in absolute terms, is nonetheless a desirable reference poin In methodological terms visual anthropology is concerned with the recording of visual or visible phenomens, with obtaining visual data, The angers of detining the subject in this way is that on the one hand it is liable to become too broad and lack coherence, ancl on the other hand ie is liable 10 deileet attention from other properties and qualities of the media involved ~ sound, for example, in the case of film, Ax method, sisital anthropology is in the first instance a flag, a reminder that much that is observable, much that can be learned about a culture «an be recorded most effectively and comprehensively through film, photo: graphy or by drawing, This view is linked te the inductive comprehensive tendency in anthropology. The justification is no that the cording ‘of everything is possible, but rather that in neglecting visual data we may be reflecting « Western bias (the elevation of the intelleciual over the experiential o phenomenoleygical?” or neglecting the importance of visual phenomena across cultures, Increasingly flm and photography are not simply means of recording data by arxl for the anthropologist, bur data in themselves — in the form of television, cinema, tourist promotional litera: mu \d art (see in particular the chapters by Hughes-Freeland, Martinez, Loizos and Edwards) — and, of increasing prominence in recent years, in the form of so-called ‘indigenous media’ (sec Ginsburg 1991; Michaels 1986, 1991; Tuner 1992). The position defended here docs not require thar visual methods be usea in all concexs bur that they should be used ‘where appropriate, with the cider that appropriateness will net always be obvious in advance The two main bodies of data in visnal anthropology — visual record. ings and material products of vulture - have diferent ontological st2- uses, By the use ol film, photography, drawing and se oa, the anthropologist is able to make a permanent record oi events and objects observed, to retain them lor subsequent analysis, of use them in the fur- ther elicitation of information. ‘Ihus one major advantage of visual recording methods is that they enable che ethnographer to scan and record for later inspection and re-analysis. Visual recording methods have properties such that they are able to record more information thi memory alone, or norebook and pencil, and thar certain of them 2 indexically related to the reality they encode. The indewical propersies of photography. film and video ally them to sound recording, whichoften occurs simultancously with mechanical visual recording, and can daly be separated from visual anthropology on an arbitrary basis. Indeed ‘Mead and Bateson’s Balinese project was really an exercise in material dota gathering. As well as using photography and film, they made sound secotiings, collected objects, and commissioned a large set of indige- jnovs paintings. We do not mean to imply that vial orsound recordings ae in any sense ‘transparent’. The anthropologise must still perform an interpretative task when faced with such data, even if recorded by other anthropologists, and especially so when the recordings were made by anthropologists distant in time or space from the observing anthropele gist, ss is the case with Mead and Bateson’s material today. ‘Hlowever, sound and vision may and pethaps should still be kept sep- arate on theoretical grounds, as Gillian Gillison makes clear in chapter 8, Similarly, Georgina Born’s analysis of computer music shows the complex nature of the interrelationship hetween different representa tional systems and che role tha: pragmatic factors have in production and performance. She shows the practical difficulties of integrating visual, technological and sound systems in the production of conyputes music at IRCAM, the computer music centre in Paris. To an extent Bor 1s con cemed with the genesis of new media, computer media, which share some of the characteristics of visual systems (particularly in telation to art and acstheties) and oral/linguistie systems hut which are conceptualised as neither, At IRCAM some understanding of computer programming insteuctions i a prerequisite for the produetion and composition of musical sound, She analyses the problematic status of the visual codes and texts that are produced 0 communicate the computer programs, and shows how they necessitate recourse 10 oral communication, Clearly the oral tradition requires the continual presence of the translator yet this in some respects contradicts the ideology of che use af computer technology which is based on computers being the mest advanced form of communication system, one that obviates human intervention and one apparently free of human social and culzural bias, Computer music in ‘effect becomes dependent on an oral tradition for its users, in a way analagous to the oral exegesis on waich anthropologists of art have often ‘elied in their attempts 10 ‘decode’ paintings and ether images in the field, The materiality of the vista Although in some cases the anthropologists may be recording visible ‘enomena of long duration — a rock engraving, a village sie, a house 1 or a wooden sculgruze — oa other oceasions they are making a por ‘Banen: record of temporary phenomena — a pristine sand sculprare oF dy paincing, 2 sequence of dence movernent or even @ fleeting glance. IntrnatuctionFigine 8 Woehipneraa Jam temple Dano Gast is 1988 a Jame roheseetsh apt the slaw el eration ‘mpl as he vat preuent ma carvings and other In such cises, something that is quite differenc from what is experienoed in the ‘real’ world may be created by freezing an iinage for contemplation. Ta the cascof material culture, the forms under analysis are the dieect produce of members of the culture, and are visible forms transported from one context to another, In the new context they are translormed because che conditions in which they re viewed are different, They are separaed from the world of action in which they were meaningful and placed in a world in which they will he intectogated ond interpreted from a multiplicity of different perspectives, as Frangoise Dussart demon- strates in her ehapeer There are both methodological and theoretical reasons why it Gan be argued thar these cwo types of data — visual recordings and material cul- ure ~ have much i common, The methodelogical justification is chat bot are permanent accords that are produced in their different ways by the behaviour of members of the respective cultures, Material culture is the direct product of intentional action, and film and sound recording is indexically linked to thet which ic records. Ineresiingly Ucke justifiesshe study of material culture objects in essetly she same terms that Mead justifies the we of visual recording methods: ‘the essential quality of material culture objects is that reanelysis is possible at all times’ (1970: 29). In both cases the date allow more to be scen or amalysed than was ible at the time ‘of collection’, and in both cases the date can be used jalater dialogue with the producers. Nor isthis# process confined to the is Pinney has very ably demonstrated the importance of the materiality of Tadian visual forms, where che tansfor- mations of form and the crossing ef media boundaries have local signi- ficance and interpretation (Pinney 19924). “The theoretical justification for inducing material products of culture and recordings of visible culture within the same discourse is arguably the main subject of chis book. Visual anthropology is the exploration of the visual in the process of cultural and soctal reproduction. On the one hhand this involves the dematerialisation of artelacts by recasting them as concepts eanbedded in systems of knowledge and action. Tealvo involves the reverse: the fixing, through film and photography, of the ongoing flow of everyday action in « more concrete form, Thus visual anthropol ‘ogy explores whether in some senses itis possible to caprure in stich a way the position of the informed actor socialised into observable behav: jour patterns, and shuring the presuppositions of the participants. Morphy has argued (1994b) thar action in the context of unfumiliat cul: fires can take on an extemporsty quality since tothe observer everything fs new and it is all too easy to underestimate the extent to which behav- ipuris structured, routinised, and integrated in conceptual and cognitive processes. Ritual presents a special case where behaviour is consciously Intec Figure L9The yellow tchnedince, ral ay i, Newent Ine en feo tie imcsrd pa hess ey semmed ior the Tw Drenecinestored inva repeatable form, abstracted as a particular kind of perfor mance Irom the more individuslistically directed flow of everyday Ife. ‘But in the case of both ritual and everyday behaviour, filmic and photo- graphic records may give access 10 a dimension of reality that fs other- ‘wise unrecoverable Coming from a more phenomenological perspective Banks |1994b) has pointed ourthe reverse danger: the structuring of ethnographic film, especially those films produced for television, can impose a false fixity and narrative coherence on the fluidity of quotidian social interaction As well as having the potential to reveal and evoke the experience of the habitual or routinised nature of much social behaviour from an emic perspective, film car also in other-contents sbift the emphasis away from the concrete nature of material forms towards properties that emerge in context, or to processual aspects of their production that may be more salient than the final form that is produced. The Western concept of art objects and the Western tendeney jo appropriate ritual products as per manently preserved abjecis may pive them a falye concreteness (see also Witherspoon on Navaho sand jpintings [1977]), Film, by recording the production of the object or the eitual in whieh the object appeat be recording the object closer ta the ways in which itis conce actors. It also may facilitate che analysis of the variable relations b object and process, benveen materiality and socialty The oppositions that we have highlighted between object and process, and between something being visihly present or visibly absent, may in themselves be profoundly misleactinyy as in their dif ut ways both may by the Finer Mdrescadds \waleing wage pis Teh Esnebrtchands \ier Felgio. \e Brenda Fan snsie cue Te ph Fapalopes!Borns and Battaglia’s chaprers suggest. To Boon the weitten inscriptions that are thought to be integral to computer software programs gi false indication of the nature of the process of which they ate a part. She _gencralises her argument to refer to the tendency of visual inscriptions in ‘Westcm scientific practice to be a sien of the autonomy or even reality of the thing to which they teler: ‘inscriptions ~ visual/zextual translations and extensions of scientific practice — play an essential role in separating the scientific from the social so as to establish the autonomy of the sci- entific object’ (p. 142), However, Born argues that itis the very materi ality of the graphic representations of soltware that resists such a separation, and hence the separation of object from process. Battaglia's chapter is concemed in some respects with the false concreteness of what jspresent and visible, and with the fact thatthe absence of something lits invisibility) can be as crucial 1o processes of interpretation as the pres ence of something. To Battaclia ‘ambiguation’ occurs. the borders con- joining the domains of the stated and the unstated. The absence of an object oF representation conventionally associated with a particular con. text or performance, in Battzalia's example the absence of a polished stone axe, problematises she event: ‘the detachabilityand deliberate slip- page of authority from the face of social action xives expression to the 's hidden life of negotiation” (p. 211) 1's invisible foregrounding is the teciprocal of Born's inscrip. tion. It is productive to relate Bor’s discussion of graphic representa: tion or inscription and the role har it has in ereating an illusion of autonomy and certainty in Western science, with the complementary tole that Battaglia gives co invisible toregrounding (and to absence of inscriptions) in ‘Trobriand practice. Invisible foregrounding creates the space for negotiation, which Born argues is the reality of scientific prne fice In Western science the space for negotiation is masked by a partic ular kind of presence, the visible portable inscriptions; in the Trobriand fase it is revealed by a particular kind of absence. Born notes that Michael Fischer, in his recent book on computing in. anthropology (1994), concludes by being unable to recommend or name specific soft- ‘ware packages and invites readers instead to negotiate directly oF ini- tectly with him, This she interprets as reflecting the reality of che social Aid negotiated naire of computing in practice, necessitated both by the ence of effective graphic representations, and by the instability and Be cclsion of the rechnoloziss " and Battaglia are using concepts which can be applied exoss-cul- EIGN, t0 show the diferent significance of inserprinn anelinvisible fore. “Bounding in different cultural and historical contexts, Kim McKenzies lm Waitisg for Harry (1980) provides 2 aultiply reflexive example of ificance of absence both from the perspective of the Aboriginal pants in the ritual, and the flmmaker’s construction of the event. film is of an Aborisinal morusry ritual in Central Amhem Land in Introductionwhich thebones of decoased relatives are being ‘reburied in a hollowlog cofin’. The film gives a prominent role to the anthropologist Les Hiatt who has worked wish the Cidiingali over many years and who provides 4 partial explanation for the presence of the cameras. Harty is one of the senior right holders ia the bones and in the ritual, although the prime mover behind the ritwal isa close friend and long-time collaborator of ‘Hiact, The wo main themes of che film, apart from the ritual, are the absence of Harry and the reiationship of the anthropologist to the com: munity, Hacry's absence from the preparazion of the mortuary ritual reflects the negotiated nattre of the ritual and the Iseleof consensus. The fact thatthe filmmaker takes this up asa theme can partly be explained in relation to conventions of European drama, Larry's absence creates « | sense of suspense, a space for uncertainty. However, Harty’s absence also problematises the place of the anthropolegist in the proceecins partly because i emphasises Hiau’s relationship with those who are pre- sent and partly because it makes him an agent a5 well es an observer of the proceedings. Hint is called upon as u broker and is asked to neyot ate with Harry and! perhaps even to bring him to the ceremony. [ts pos sible that Lliat the anthropologist will bring about the presence of Harry, yet the viewer is able to think that below the sucface itis precisely the presence of Hiatt that bas been responsible for Harry's absence in the first place ~ Hiat’s presence has somehow’ problematised the ritual by becoming a factor in che perdormance. Aboriginal ritual is shown t0 be more negeniable thavr the audience might have thought, nd simulta 2 gure 12 ng the hao Kip Ma Ms: River in Ctl Are | TMS aie ey wt oe Haeneously the audience is made aware of the possible effect of the anthro polosist, The foregrounding of Harry through his invisibility eveates pre Eoely “that destabilising of relasions in space and time’ that Battaglia 4s occurs in her Trobriand Island example, Visual anthropology qnust be concerned with problematising the visual in relation to cultural