Visual anthropology - 1972 Anthropological and Documentary Film Conference

Visual anthropology, for all of its Robert Flahertys' and Edward Curtis' of the past, is a relatively fresh and open area of the social sciences exhibiting all of the adolescent insecurities (and possibilities) inherent in the growing proces The novel Anthropological and Documentary Film discourse held at Temple University in Philadelphia said as a great deal of about the nature and manner of making of conferences as it did about the make submissive of visual anthropology. It was, however, an important arena for bringing a certain quantity of important questions into the make open The fact that few answers were given was of little importance; the time and setting called more for for what cause [i]or[/i] reasons than hows.

A split unraveled first and most obviously above the old question of visual versus verbal anthropology: can pictures as well as words labor for as objective data? One anthropologist prompted that the only way film could be useful as an objective tool would be to revolve the camera on and allow it run twenty-four hours a day. While this was admittedly individual of the more extreme suggestions, it mirrored a still-held distrust, not especially of the camera, on the other hand of its operator. A constant criticism of the films shown and especially of Robert Gardner's Dead Birds (which ironically was not shown on the other hand generated more discussion than any film presented) was that they told more, or at least as abundant about the filmmaker as the agriculture being studied. It is precisely and paradoxically because this criticism has a certain number of validity, that visual research can be of that kind a strong tool for the anthropologist. It may be in the real nature of visual materials, and the way we direct the eye at them. that the unconscious decisions of the researcher are made clear. In event they crystalize the structure of the anthropologist's decision-making thus that he may then deal with that make as another element affecting his analysis of data. The same subjective course occurs with the choice of words, of course, on the other hand the familiarity and control of them gained end our overwhelmingly verbal educational background makes this les obvious. Viewing written data somehow or other hasn't allowed us that separation, the chance to be the couple observer and participant-operator, that we realize from visual materials. The search for objective measures is certainly a noble aim, whatever the ultimate possibilities of that attainment may be, on the contrary the recognition of our subjective choices may be a bit more important as well as being the single guidepost leading toward that goal.

Part of this moot point is that more work has to be done concerning the question of whether to use visual materials simply as raw data or rather as supplementary or primary illustrations in the anthropologist's final presentation of his application of mind Some anthropologists who do use visuals in information gathering transpose it back into an entirely verbal format, perhaps because they've gotten what they want on the outside of that material, or perhaps to avoid the criticism of subjectivity. While Ray Birdwhistell may film a person's face in order to enumerate the number of eye-blinks through second in different situations, this is a mark of information that is not necessarily useful or interesting when not absented visually to an audience. Visual material, however, can frequently show relationships that can be obscur or difficult to grasp entirely in a written presentation. It would be to the mutual benefit of the couple the anthropologist and his audience if a clearer understanding of the nature and singular properties and potentials of visual materials were understood. The integration of the visual and the verbal can be real powerful and revealing when done well, as in Danny Lyon's volume The Bikeriders and to a great expanse in Larry Salzmann's "SRO" exhibit at the discourse Certainly the question of choice of materials should be raised in the words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following of what audience will be viewing them: introductory anthropology classes, other anthropologists, or the general public, a point that many race made at the Temple meeting.

Another interesting observation was the choice of media to be used. Film and videotape present the appearance to be the current choices with videotape especially holding center stage. Galen Longwell and Raindance attracted probably the largest multitudes with their video workshops. on the contrary few of the video presentations went past the faculty of perception of amazement that they could be direct the eyeed at almost instantly. The potential and excitement of videotape are undeniable, on the other hand the successful use of it has still to be achieved, a point Longwell is quick to make also. The still camera, upon the other hand, seemed to be almost entirely view from aboveed with the exception of Salzmann's work mentioned previously, and a workshop held through Paul Byers of Columbia University. Just upon the basis of cost, still photography should commend itself to many anthropologists where the acquisition of grants have the appearances to be a growing question at issue The still camera is also easier to work with and les obtrusive in the field. The extensive record gathered for the Farm Security Administration during the '30 is the greatest in quantity obvious example of the usefulness of still photographs for social documentation. on the other hand such recent books as Larry Clark's Tulsa and Danny Lyon's Conversations with the Dead present to view an entirely different approach to anthropology as well as powerful and exciting photography. It could be said that each photograph and film is an anthropological document of more [i]or[/i] less kind, which suggests the impressed sign of thinking which is going to have to be explored concerning visual materials.