Observation and Context

Résumé Fr En

Certains anthropologues critiquent le travail d’artistes contemporains qui œuvrent en dehors de tout contexte, élément qu’ils considèrent essentiel à leur discipline. Mais inversement, l’excès de contextualisation de certains films des anthropologues donne un manque de vitalité. En revanche, des critiques d’art ont qualifié la façon qu’à l’artiste Cameron Jamie de documenter des éléments de la culture populaire de « jardin anthropologique ». Utilisant un extrait d’un de ses derniers films, l’auteur montre que, contre toute attente, la compréhension des événements peut découler du manque de contexte. Cet argument est développé en utilisant des extraits des films dits d’« observation » de John Marshall et de Ron Lapid.

Anthropologists often criticize contemporary art as failing to provide the kinds of contextualization they consider essential to their discipline. This misperception allows them to dismiss works of art easily. In addition, the concern for contextualization, when taken by anthropologists as a rationale for producing visual work, often results in films utterly lacking vital elements of the events they supposedly set out to portray. Art critics often refer to the work of artist Cameron Jamie as “backyard anthropology" because it documents elements of popular culture. Using a clip from one of Jamie’s recent films, Chris Wright will argue that often it is precisely this lack of context that is key to experiencing film and to understanding events. This argument will be further developed using clips from observational films by anthropologist John Marshall and another contemporary artist, Ron Lapid.