Can the Anthropology of Art Be the Same Thing as the Anthropology of Aesthetics - Term Paper Example

Introduction Defining the various concepts and beliefs of the arts in anthropology is one which is debated because of the determinations of aesthetics which relate to this. When looking at different art forms, there are questions which arise first with the history, society and culture. However, the aesthetics also create a different determination with the meaning and understanding of the piece. Even though the anthropology of art is one which is defined by examining various pieces, it is not the same as the anthropology of aesthetics. The differences between the two arise with the defining and interpretation of the artwork as well as the expectations which come from various ethnographic samples and understanding. The field of anthropology also determines the inability to get the aesthetics as a basis for Western philosophy. Defining the Anthropology of Art The first question which arises when examining art from an anthropological point of view is based on what the meaning and definition of the art is. When looking at the definitions, there are specific associations with what should be studied, how the artwork is to be examined and what the meaning is of various pieces. If the anthropological study is based on cultural and societal aspects, then this will determine the interpretation of the art. This will show beliefs, techniques, traditions and systems which were used to develop a specific piece of art. The ideal of social anthropology will further delve into the reason why artwork was created in a specific way and the relationship it has to society. For instance, if a type of material was used over another, there may be an inference to what this means socially and the ability to make the material with ease of use for the artistic expressions. These various elements make a difference in the art and the perception from anthropology. The interpretations don’t consider the aesthetics, but instead looks at the social relationship which these hold (Gell, 40). The definition of art from the anthropological point of view is not only examined with the social and cultural aspects by most. There is also an understanding that the artistic work is able to raise questions and reflect on a specific culture and what the meaning is behind the works that are displayed. The basic discipline is one which is first examined by the ideology of a human activity which is constructed by various societies. This is followed by the social sciences which are able to define the experience, which is specific to the study of anthropology. While art is one which is constructed of an experience, this is based on interpretations, relationships to the pieces, knowledge of the piece and the defining elements. This is also dependent on the spectator and what acting agents are parts of the piece. The approach of anthropology is one which is only dependent on defining the material culture of the art. This doesn’t provide room for interpretation of the aesthetics, specifically because this is defined by experience, cultural awareness and various levels of knowledge. Anthropology then becomes limited only to the cultural ideologies, as opposed to the aesthetics of other levels which may reflect the philosophies of art (Pinney, Thomas, 118). Re-Defining Aesthetics The interpretation of anthropology through art as a limitation is one which also questions the use of aesthetics and how this is left out of the viewpoint of anthropologists. A question which arises when looking at aesthetics is based on the cultural value which is applied and whether this provides a thorough examination of an artwork. The definition of aesthetics is one which is not defined by the examination of a piece. Instead, it is from the viewpoint of the human sensory capacity and the ability to respond to a specific art form. More important, aesthetic definitions are dependent on the judgment which one has about this piece, which could mean it is aesthetically pleasing or not. This is based on the sensory reactions, definition and understanding of art and is based on the appeal of the aesthetics which are in society. Many cultures will examine aesthetics as cross – cultural and will also show how the judgment and definition of beauty and other concepts is one which is associated and linked to overall understandings of what art forms should mean so they are pleasing (Weiner, 202). The concept of aesthetics as one which crosses cultures because of the ideologies of beauty is furthered by the idea of cognition. When one understands a specific piece of work, there is recognition of the artwork as one which is aesthetically pleasing. When this is captivated by the artist through a sense of recognition, then it furthers the idea of aesthetics. Aesthetics is then not only limited to the sensory perception but also becomes a judgment based on the aesthetics which are defined by cognitive responses. For example, the Hawaiian and Polynesian cultures use kaona, which is an aspect of symbolism used in all art forms. These metaphors are defined by religious concepts as well as social relationships which are created in society. However, the same metaphors have little to no meaning within Western culture and don’t carry the same beauty. For instance, in a Tahitian poem, there are the lines “Clap the hands on the thighs, / Rush head first as a hog enraged! I do not flinch at a fly” (D’Alleva, 81). For the culture, this has symbolism, metaphor and a sense of kaona. The cognitive response because of the understanding is one which then would state that the poem is beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. However, the aesthetics to one who is not connected to the meanings and sensory reactions from the beliefs, religion and understanding of the culture wouldn’t have the same response and understanding to the poem. These elements show that the aesthetics transfer according to the culture, making it impossible to be a part of anthropological understanding (D’Alleva, 81). The emotional, cognitive and sensory responses of aesthetics are only one type of limitations in anthropologists defining aesthetics. This is further divided by the ideal of what it means to have an aesthetic work of art. While anthropologists have the ability to define the materials used, cultural and societal understanding of a piece of art and the relationship through religion, this is limited to information. The aesthetics can’t be defined or determined by the anthropologists. This changes the definitions of the piece of work and doesn’t provide interpretation according to the belief of the individual. For instance, if an anthropologist studies a piece of art and judges it as aesthetically pleasing, then it is only from the viewpoint, cognition and understanding of the anthropologist. Others may not have this same reference and will question the aesthetics that are judged by anthropologists. The work of anthropologists is then limited to defining the cultural and social beliefs, as opposed to defining how a piece of art may be aesthetically pleasing or not. Changing Ideas of Aesthetics The limitations with the anthropology of aesthetics are further defined by the concept of experience. When one is living in a specific society or culture, there is a reflection of the art work which is based on the present experiences which one has. The common example which can be seen with this is based on the religious and ritualistic experiences which are held in a culture. When a culture experiences religion, it is done with the concept of morality, upholding specific laws in culture and participating in the act of belief. The artwork which reflects this is a part of the act and is used to trigger metaphorical responses or beliefs for the religious ideologies. If one is not in the culture or society, there isn’t an association with the religious or moral beliefs as well as how the rituals are performed or understood. There can then not be a relationship to the aesthetics, metaphors or the meaning of the art work. Instead of the art being aesthetically pleasing, it is only a reflection on the experience of another society and what was believed within a specific time frame (Fernandez, 53). The relationship which is taken in terms of experience and how it relates to the aesthetics which a society has is defined only by what the society and culture considers as sacred. There are many which believe that the aesthetics is valued by the type of vision which one has. However, this is dependent on what is considered aesthetically pleasing at an alternative time and whether this is acceptable or not. For instance, the Nilotes of Southern Sudan are known for not having a visual representation of art. There is an absence of sculpture, painting or any other form of expression for the visual elements. Many would consider this as one which disregards aesthetics and the ability to look into the visions and aesthetic pleasures. However, if one were in the society and culture, the experience would be different. There is an understanding that the visual aesthetics came from the everyday life, surrounding nature and elements based on religion and ritual. The inability to experience or be in the specific position of the Nilotes then limits the capacity of understanding the visual aesthetics and how this relates to the experience which one has. The interpretations of anthropologists are further limited by facts that are found as opposed to analyzing how one would think, interpret and cognitively respond within a society (Coote, 281). The development of meaning is further limited by anthropologists according to what is seen and interpreted. Anthropologists are designated to analyze different materials based on their own cognitive understanding, belief systems and interpretations of society and culture. However, without experiencing this, it becomes limited by what is expected and what one has to find within a given society. If this alters and another material is found or more information is perceived, then it immediately changes the perception of the given materials. The dimensional understanding of experience and the several ways in which this can alter according to knowledge, experience and perception, then doesn’t provide anthropologists with the capacity of interpreting aesthetics. The only role which anthropologists can provide is to look into the social and cultural meanings while providing information on the art which is associated with the anthropological pieces that are found. Interpretation of Art The limits of perception by anthropologists can further be defined by the interpretations which are expected to be made with the art. The main approach which many anthropologists take is to critically observe the technicalities of society and culture. However, to truly investigate and understand art, there is the need to move into strategies of information which uncovers various dimensions and levels of the art. The term of aesthetics, which is based on experience, responses and understanding, then becomes limited because the anthropologists mission is to observe the social and cultural relationship to the artwork. This differs from the experience of those who have made the art, specifically because it is used for a type of interpretation, performance, ritual or other aesthetically pleasing concept which is associated with society at the time. There are a certain number of concepts which are associated with this and which create a difference in how one responds to the given reflections of a culture. These are based on experience, environmental changes, aspects of society and several dimensions which are reflective of this. Anthropologists would have to reflect and move into these several aspects to interpret the art and aesthetics; however, without the experience, there is the inability to provide anything outside of aesthetical value as information (Freeland, 226). There are several examples which show the limitations of anthropologists and the inability to interpret aesthetics. One is based on the concept of the Sepik Gaze, which comes from the Abelam form known in Sydney. This gaze can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1: Sepik Gaze If one were to look at this gaze today, there would be a sense of misunderstanding and misinterpretation which were a part of the art work, specifically because of the simplicity, the awkwardness of the gaze and the inability to create a relationship to the ideal of the gaze. However, the Abelam men of Sydney considered this gaze as aesthetically pleasing and had strong associations with this in terms of beauty, society and overall functions in traditional rituals upheld throughout society. Even when an anthropologist moves into this understanding of beauty which was upheld as society, there are mis-constructed ideals and judgments which may come from what this means in terms of experience and aesthetically. The form then has limitations in terms of definition, understanding of aesthetics and experiences which represent the overall interpretation of the art form (Losche, 47). Understanding the Dimensions of Aesthetics If moving into the aesthetics of any type of art form, there is a specific limitation of anthropologists. There may be the ability for many anthropologists to define why a piece is considered aesthetically pleasing to a culture and social order. There may also be relationships to the political and religious order which caused the aesthetics to move into a sense of pleasure. However, these are only constructs of information which can relate to the art form. The limitation is based first on the inability to experience being in the society and developing a concept of aesthetics from within the culture. The limitation is furthered by other meanings which may be from the society but which are unknown to anthropologists. As the work with specific societies continues, there is an unraveling of what something may mean as well as how this is associated with society. This changes the idea of aesthetics and whether it can be interpreted as one which is a part of society or based on other formations within the social order (Weiner, 38). The concept of too many meanings is one which is furthered by the idea of agency. Whenever a piece of art is constructed, there are several elements which work together. This begins with the idea of the agent, or the artist, which is responsible for conveying a specific message about an artistic work or design. The idea of aesthetics, philosophies which are created and the responses to the culture are defined by the artist and the interpretations which are made. This is combined with the social and cultural development, specifically which relates to individual preferences within a society, cultural beliefs, religious representations, political associations and other formations which may change the aesthetics of the artwork. The art then becomes a social agent which reflects an aspect of the culture or identity which is held within society. The artist, recipient and the prototype of society then all change the aesthetics and the interpretation. The anthropologist would have to understand all elements of these three agents to interpret the aesthetics of the work of art and to build and develop a relationship to the art which creates an understanding of the expression. From these interpretations, there can never be a complete understanding because of the dimensions which relate to aesthetics within art work and anthropology (Gell, 28). Another example of this particular concept can be seen in the nail fetish figures, as seen in figure 2. Figure 2: Nail Fetish Figures These particular sculptures come from the Congo region of Africa and incorporate the natural elements with the recycled nails to create the overall image. The relationship which is created with these figures is one which was expressed and depicted as a part of the culture, specifically because of the conflicts of the region which were occurring politically and culturally. Many used these to represent the idea of victimization which was occurring in the region and were used within judicial orders to show the idea of victimization. This moved into the moral obligations of the judgment of the court, promises and oaths which were presented and the idea of punishment which might occur within the society (Gell, 60). While there is a strong correlation between the nail fetish figures and the court, there is still not the ability to understand the aesthetic pleasure or meaning which arises with these figures. Those using these in the culture believed they were aesthetically pleasing because of what they represented as well as the expressions and displays which were within society. The individuals could relate to this and had an aesthetic concept which incorporated individual, social, political and ritualistic beliefs to the statue. While the meaning of the statues can be understood, there isn’t the ability to interpret the deeper levels of aesthetics with the statue. Conclusion The concept of aesthetics is one which is defined by anthropologists because of the level of knowledge which is given from artistic works. However, this is based specifically on the understanding of the artistic works from a social and cultural viewpoint. The limitations to this make the study of anthropology limited to the definition of artistic works within a given region. This is not a study of the art, specifically because this requires experiencing the society and the relationship which is held to the works of art. The inability to experience the individual philosophies, communication levels, sensory perceptions, definitions and the ability to associate with the political and cultural ideas of a given time also means that the anthropological studies is not a study of aesthetics. Instead, it is a reflection of a culture and what a specific society believes at a given moment. Works Cited Campbell, Shirley. F. "The Captivating Agency of Art: many Ways of Seeing". Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment Christopher Pinney & Nicholas Thomas (ed). Oxford & New York: Berg: 1996. Coote, Jeremy. “The Anthropology of Aesthetics and the Cattle Keeping Nilotes.” The Anthropology of Art: A Reader Wiley Blackwell: UK, 2006. DAlleva, Anne. “Captivation, Representation, and the Limits of Cognition: Interpreting Metaphor and Metonymy in Tahitian Tamau”. Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technology of Enchantment.Christopher Pinney and Nicholas Thomas (ed). Oxford & New York: Berg: 2001. Fernandez, James. “Principles of Opposition and Vitality in Fang Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 25 (1), 1966. Freeland, Felicia. Ritual, Performance and Media. Routledge: New York, 1998. Gell, Alfred. “Introduction: The Problem Defined”. Art and Agency. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1998. Gell, Alfred. “The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology.” Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Coote, J, A Shelton (ed), Oxford: Claredon, 1992. Losche, Diane. “The Sepik Gaze: Iconographic Interpretation of Abelam Form”. Too Many Meanings: A Critique of the Anthropology of Aesthetics. James F. Weiner (ed). University of Adelaide: Australia: 1995. Weiner, James. “Aesthetics is a Cross-Cultural Category” Key Debates in Anthropology, Tim Inglod (ed). London & New York: Routledge:1996. Weiner, James F. (ed). 1995a. Too Many Meanings: A Critique of the Anthropology of Aesthetics. Social Analysis, n° 38. Adelaide: University of Adelaide, Department of Anthropology. Read More