This article was downloaded by: [Emory University]

On: 14 February 2015, At: 05:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Anthropology: Published in

cooperation with the Commission on
Visual Anthropology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gvan20

Where Indeed Is the Theory in Visual

Anthropology?
a b b
Marc Henri Piault , Sydney M. Silverstein & Aubrey P. Graham
a
Paris, France
b
Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Published online: 09 Feb 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Marc Henri Piault, Sydney M. Silverstein & Aubrey P. Graham (2015) Where
Indeed Is the Theory in Visual Anthropology?, Visual Anthropology: Published in cooperation with the
Commission on Visual Anthropology, 28:2, 170-180, DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2015.997091

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2015.997091

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015
 Visual Anthropology, 28: 170–180, 2015
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online
DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2015.997091

DISCUSSION
Where Indeed Is the Theory in Visual
Anthropology?
This continues the discussion that was launched in 2014 in Visual Anthropology,
27(5): 436–456.
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

Marc Henri Piault

Questioning reality and proposing a theory about it are not the topic here. On the
contrary, it is about the transmission of the image-sound and its origins. It is not
(it is no more, and it should not be anymore) an instrument of transportation
used to move objects from one place to another. It is neither a simple support
of analysis nor a microscope where a clever observer might understand
the meanings of the situations and the social interactions in their intimate and
ultimate truth.
Initially considered as a descriptive tool slowly recognized to be of some use, if
not indispensable, cinema was offering ethnology a complement of information
but also another way of registering data, more elaborate and more complex.
The combination of the field experience and the incorporation of the contempor-
ary have created what could become then a shared anthropology (Rouch’s term).
Then one could preview the questioning of the superiority of a discursive
anthropology with overwhelming comments, illustrative music, designation
and identification . . ., to the benefit of recognition of the other’s words and the
need for their contextualization, if not a conversational negotiation.
In anthropology the cinematographic language has allowed us to explore some
fields that were beyond academic research for a long time: duration and relation
of space=time, emotions and feelings, relativity of behaviors and values, com-
parative treatments of bodies, cultural forms of the expression of the person,
fictionalization of the world, and a constant making-up of the real, tangible
modalities of all representations, ‘‘subjectivations’’ of the environment . . . It has
become a way of thinking about the relativity of cultures that cannot be ignored
and a way to take into consideration the essential reciprocity of appearances.
Audiovisual anthropology is a mode of exploration and recognition of differentiated
behaviors, but also the expression in itself of knowledge to be exchanged and

MARC HENRI PIAULT, a French anthropologist, has filmed extensively in France and West Africa
but now divides his time between Paris and Rio de Janeiro. His well-regarded book, Anthropologie
et Cinéma, was republished in 2008. E-mail: marc.piault@orange.fr

170
 Where Indeed is the Theory? 171

compared. Thus it has become a field of research and experimentation widely

shared in the world since the late 19th century. At the same time, the
cinematograph was invented and stumbled across nascent ethnography, leading
to ethnographic cinema with its encounters, compared appearances and shared
situations. All this leads us today toward what we have called an ‘‘audiovisual
anthropology,’’ emerging from a more or less achieved confrontation between
the text and the image=sound. In the space of a general anthropology, a field of
research has been developed into what we nowadays need to consider as an
anthropology beyond-the-text.
In the order=priority of thematic concerns, the renewal of the relationships
between societies and cultures, the questions about the definitions of the person
and of the individual and collective identities, the questions of the belonging and
their modalities, the denaturalization of feelings and emotions, all have to be con-
sidered as a sum of crucial interrogations situated in the space of a generalized
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

circulation of patterns. A paradox of our times comes from the possible simulta-
neity of communication and information, taken into consideration by the
defenders of a ‘‘massifying’’ globalization, using this same instant visibility,
and then demonstrating the diversity, the resistance and without any doubt
the relativity of the logics of appreciation and understanding of the world.
The question becomes then to report a thinkable reality as the product
of transactions, negotiations, a ‘‘dialog’’ between the one and the other that
we alternatively, if not simultaneously, represent. The transition to syncretism
and the recognition of inner contradictions allow and legitimate a transition
to the ‘‘constituted-constituting’’ image of meetings, conversations and
dialogic relations.
It is necessary to question the transformation of the instruments at our disposal
as well as the modality of expression of these encounters: they are also experimen-
tations in the field of communication and transmission of knowledge and their
adaptations to the different cultural logics. The passage from the analogical to
the various modalities of digital, the modifications of space-time relationships
by the networks of communication on the ‘‘net,’’ interrogations about the transi-
tivity of the real and the construction of the imaginary, the consequences of the
‘‘virtualization’’ concerning the constitution of groups and the conception of
belonging or the ways of knowledge transmission and of a possible abstraction
through the use of image and sound . . . It is here a matter of appreciation for
a language in constant gestation, borrowing from the logics of several existing
but opposing discourses toward a necessary and urgent (in)determination: the
rejection of a unique speech, of a measurable universal.
The idea is to refer to the point of view of the ‘‘subjects’’ and to approach what I
call the creation of spaces of understanding to establish dialogic relationships. We are not
here anymore going to seize the images of the world and pack them back home
with us in our luggage, like the operators-cameramen of the brothers Lumière
or Albert Kahn used to do. We have to understand what we perceive about
a situation during the period that we share with a given social group. These films
are made because something happens during the period of shooting but also
within the shooting situation itself. There are exchanges and some reciprocities
between the filmmaker and the filmed person. These conditions create the
 172 M. H. Piault et al.

cinematographic narration, fed through its own development and then giving
significance to the film.
Thus time remains an essential factor for the understanding, the thought, the
report of an encounter. It is not only a matter of a duration but, almost paradoxi-
cally, of an essential immediacy offering the image during the proper time of
filming with a digital camera: its small lateral screen allowing us to follow the
shooting directly. All this is part of the event during which the persons we shoot
appropriate to themselves the instrument and their own image. Then there comes
a new shared adventure. The players of the running action, even the most spon-
taneous, always know they are actors for themselves and their close relations.
They also perceive the foreign eyes who came to meet them and which they
are never indifferent to, given that the camera is not hidden from them. Their
profilmy1 is subjected to a possible reflexion because this representation of one-
self for others belongs to a specific culture: it is perhaps an accentuation, a devi-
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

ation or a mask, leading the observer to understand the effects of his own
presence. It is not only a one-way relationship between the observer and the
observed but also the possibility for a certain way of communication, of
exchange, a common space to develop a real conversation during which different
points of view can eventually be confronted. A ‘‘survey device,’’ allocating func-
tions to the person who asks questions and to the other who answers, is not any-
more the way: there now appears a new possibility to partake in and even to
exchange roles.
It is of course a ‘‘possibility,’’ but if the instrument allows a fundamental shift
in behavior it doesn’t create it ‘‘naturally.’’ One could also conduct a screened
observation if not an investigation of the police with the same instrument, but
in the opposite direction: the actual use of miniaturized devices is today leading
to a worrying perspective! I’m insisting on the idea of a dialog, an exchange,
because they can only exist if the necessity, the desire and the will exist at the
same time.
Appearing with our instruments and backed up with a technology and an ideol-
ogy, we announce, ‘‘That is an image.’’ We don’t realize that we are armed with an
instrumental manufacture and a significant construction that we consider intan-
gible data. But we couldn’t a priori imagine how the Others could and would
use these instruments in a very different way with different purposes. The inten-
tional construction of images, the relationships between its constituting factors,
the editing, the appreciation of the space, the moods and the sound levels are
the products of new experiences that we don’t control. Then another image is
constructed with differentiated conceptions and specific usages. We have to shine
a new light on the differences by paying attention to their intentionalities. Motion
picture is a cognitive process, a language of apprehension, analysis and under-
standing. Differentiating itself from writing and speaking, it reveals different
perspectives on reality.

Paris, France
 Where Indeed is the Theory? 173

NOTE
1. Profilmy: The actor takes into consideration the fact that he is in representation—what-
ever the forms are—in front of a camera and during the time of the shoot. The actor
always has an intention, except if he is filmed without knowing it. Even in that case,
if he agrees on his image during the editing, we could suggest that there would be a
kind of retroactive profilmy.

Sydney M. Silverstein

The title of the cluster of short essays to which this one responds is ‘‘Where Is the
Theory in Visual Anthropology?’’ The interrogative ‘‘where’’ implies that we
should be looking for something; in this case, that something is theory. Most of
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

the respondents, though, have trouble locating the theory in visual anthropology.
Some, like Ruby and Tomaselli, argue that visual anthropology is more a method-
ology, a set of tools and technologies that provide an alternative approach to the
traditional anthropological project, the ‘‘use of pictorial media to communicate
anthropological knowledge’’ [Ruby 1989: 9–10, cited in Hockings et al. 2014:
443]. Once we have acknowledged that cameras can be helpful in conducting
research, we can draw our theory from cultural anthropology writ large. Theory
comes from an analysis of data and generalizing statements drawn from emerging
patterns and relationships, remaining in a dualistic sort of opposition with
method. In this line of reasoning, it is hard to locate how and where visual anthro-
pology might make a contribution to theory. But perhaps we are asking the wrong
sorts of question.
David MacDougall’s concept of ‘‘corporeality’’ [2006], that is, an embodied
understanding of places, spaces, and relationships produced through visual or
multisensory praxis, is identified by Hockings [2014] as the closest visual anthro-
pology has come to offering theory in the broader discipline. While MacDougall
contributes to this collection of essays, his response is disappointingly brief
(though all were restricted to 1500 words), particularly given his crucial theoreti-
cal contributions to notions of aesthetics, embodiment, sensory anthropology and
ethnographic film. To what might we attribute the brevity of MacDougall’s essay?
Would we expect a similarly terse response from someone like Arthur Kleinman
when asked where we might find the theory in medical anthropology? Perhaps
MacDougall’s reluctance to elaborate in his response is due to a frustration with
the manner of asking: by asking ‘‘where’’ the theory is, what forms of knowing
are we privileging?

SYDNEY M. SILVERSTEIN is a filmmaker and Ph.D. student in Emory University’s

Department of Anthropology. She holds a B.A. in visual arts and an M.A. in anthro-
pology. Her research interests broadly involve the relationships between people and
things. She has done field research in the Peruvian Amazon since 2010, and is now
working on a doctoral project about the social worlds of goods in and around the city
of Iquitos, Peru. E-mail: smsilve@emory.edu
 174 M. H. Piault et al.

To look for something implies that that something will become evident to
us through some sort of marker: linguistic, semiotic, visual, olfactory, tactile,
auditory, etc. How, then, is theory marked? Catherine Lutz [1995] has argued
provocatively that theory has a tendency to make itself self-evident through
the use of abstract language, academic jargon or, most literally, the insertion of
the word ‘‘theory’’ into a piece of writing (she cites Bourdieu’s Outline as a classic
example of this). These practices, Lutz argued, are gendered, drawing a distinc-
tion between the sophisticated, intellectual work of theoretical generalization,
dominated and reproduced by men, and the emotive, responsive and documen-
tary nature of the work relegated, through this intellectual division of labor, to
women. To ask where the theory is in visual anthropology may be inciting a
search for abstract language and broad generalizing claims, a practice of identify-
ing that confirms an old and limiting hierarchy of knowledge and a needless
reproduction of visual anthropology’s own Cartesian handicap dividing method
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

from theory.
Visual anthropology, a subfield of cultural anthropology, is often understood
through a basic dichotomy: those who work with the visual as an object of inquiry
and those who work with the visual as a medium of inquiry. Those who fall into
the latter category offer something different from generative approaches to knowl-
edge. This is done, as MacDougall has noted [Hockings et al., 2014: 444–445], in
three parts: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Through MacDougall’s
urgings for us to consider not only knowledge practices, but also epistemologies
and ontologies, he discretely reminds us that the generative potential of visual
anthropology must be recognized through form. If what we have uncovered is a
new way of knowing, perhaps that way does not lend itself to easy articulation
in text. In order to illuminate the potentials of visual anthropology in the gener-
ation of knowledges, I look towards a recent turn in theoretical and philosophical
anthropology to explore how the work done by careful and dedicated practi-
tioners of visual anthropology has made parallel advances with the vanguard
of theoretical currents in anthropology writ large.
The approach heralded by leading visual anthropological scholars such as
MacDougall is the practice of observational cinema. This approach, first described
by Young [2003] as a research practice committed to phenomenological under-
standings of everyday life, gained currency among ethnographic filmmakers in
the 1970s. The observational ‘‘turn,’’ as Grimshaw has noted, ‘‘signaled a signifi-
cant epistemological, philosophical and aesthetic shift. It was founded in a new
approach to the world that respected its materiality, its continuity, and fundamen-
tal ambiguity. And it hinged on a different conception of knowledge, one that was
fundamentally relational’’ [2011: 255]. The observational turn in ethnographic
filmmaking signaled the production of new forms of knowing, understanding
and relating. As a generative research practice, these ways of knowing emerge
from a transformation of perspective that brings about new forms of dialogue
and engagement with subjects, whose relationships with space, beings and
objects convey forms of information not translatable in words. Audiences are
re-positioned too, coming to understand in forms more dialogic than depository.
Films by Castaing-Taylor and Barbash [2009], Dineen [1993], Grimshaw [2014]
and MacDougall [1973, 1980, 2007] demonstrate that the observational turn in
 Where Indeed is the Theory? 175

ethnographic cinema is one that has focused on explorations of relationship. But

a closer attention to relationships is not characteristic of ethnographic film’s
observational turn alone. This notion of ‘‘turns’’ should call to mind, for anyone
following the currents of anthropological theory, the recent attention given to
questions of ontology. This movement, dubbed anthropology’s ‘‘ontological
turn’’ [Kelly 2014], has given increased attention to means of conceptualizing
objects, actors and relationships that tickle fundamental comfort zones in
Western means of grasping and apprehending the world. A heavily cited
example of an ethnography emerging from the ‘‘ontological turn’’ is Eduardo
Kohn’s How Forests Think [2013], a provocative book that has inspired responses
by giants in the field of philosophical anthropology such as Phillipe Descola
[2014] and Bruno Latour [2014]. In this ethnography of the Amazonian rainforest
read through the interactions of a group of Kichwas with their environs, Kohn
builds a case for what he calls an ‘‘anthropology beyond the human,’’ by asking
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

the reader to consider ‘‘what kinds of insights about the nature of the world
become apparent when we attend to certain engagements with parts of the world
that reveal some of its different entities, dynamics, and properties?’’ [Kohn 2013:
10]. If indeed we gain a richer understanding of the world and our place in it by
attending to the relationships between human and beyond-human entities, then
the project will have succeeded. Kohn’s argument is supported with thick
ethnographic evidence from over a decade of fieldwork that impressed upon
him the importance of considering systems of thought, communication and
semiotics beyond the human.
Is Kohn’s ethnography, with its rich examples of the dream life of dogs and the
language of the forest, an ethnographic innovator for telling us how we might
come to understand how forests think? How might we position Kohn in relation
to projects of visual anthropology that not only attend to different engagements
with objects and agents, but do so in a space that speaks through multiple senses,
not text alone? There is considerable evidence that works produced in the wake
of the observational turn in ethnographic filmmaking have been able to attend to
different sorts of relation, engagement, friction and entanglement, particularly
those between humans and non-human animals, and humans and their environ-
ments [Fijn 2012; Grimshaw 2011]. Few examples are more striking than David
and Judith MacDougall’s To Live with Herds [1974]. What it means for the Jie of
Uganda to live with their herds is a meaning that surrounds us and reveals itself
to us through the immersive experience of this film. Further, we might also argue
that the MacDougalls’ film allows us a rare window into what it might mean for
the herds to live with the Jie. In comparing Kohn’s book with works of observa-
tional cinema, it is not my intention to call his ethnography unoriginal, for I think
it is a thoughtful and innovative work. But Kohn has words behind him: he nar-
rates to us how we might come to new understandings with unconventional
engagements. But as readers of ethnography in monograph format we are given
little space for that exploration on our own terms.
If we are looking too hard for theory then we have clearly missed the point
about looking at all. New means of understanding the nature of relationships,
or new means by which to consider the dimensions of relations between things,
is the sort of interaction from which we generate knowing. But theory may not
 176 M. H. Piault et al.

even be our goal here, for perhaps by preoccupying ourselves with a vague and
distant thing we can label as theory we miss out on the richest contributions of
visual anthropology. That, as David MacDougall has famously noted, is a way
of knowing [MacDougall and Taylor 1998], a means by which we come to know
ourselves through relations with things mediated through the dialogic camera;
a way of coming to know a subject of inquiry through a different means, and
on different terms.

Department of Anthropology
Emory University
Atlanta, GA
USA
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

Aubrey P. Graham

As I read ‘‘Where Is the Theory in Visual Anthropology?’’ from the perspective of

a practitioner (photojournalist = photographer) and anthropologist, I was struck
by the antiquated, stodgy, and sometimes denigrated position of still photogra-
phy. These responses, when they bothered to mention photography at all, marked
it as relevant only as a means of detailed data collection, as an addition to text or as
an interview aid. Linkages between theory and photography referenced visual
anthropology’s functional ‘‘how to’’ past, and overwhelmingly overlooked both
the creative work of the last decade and the potential directions of the future.
Despite being perhaps the most democratized and globally accessible visual prac-
tice today, rife with potential through which to know and sense, photography
appears trapped academically in its well-worn role as an indexical reproduction
of ‘‘what was.’’ Still photography within these responses (and more broadly
within visual and cultural anthropology) has been relegated to unimportant,
auxiliary and a-theoretical positions. More precisely, according to Piette, it is to
be found in the ‘‘dustbin’’ [Hockings et al. 2014: 450], where upon recovery such
images may act as a ‘‘a bonus, a plus, which allow us to see better, to see more, but
they are not an epistemological necessity—contrary to the doctor’s radiography
which is needed in order to look after the patient’’ [ibid.: 448].
I could not disagree more. These responses overlook important theoretical work
both in addressing the image as ‘‘object’’ and as a way of knowing. For instance,
they often fail to see the still image as a moment of cultural intersection, where it

AUBREY P. GRAHAM is a Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology at Emory University. She

holds an M.A. in Anthropology from Emory and an M.A. in the Social Anthropology
of Development from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Graham is also
an active photographer and has freelanced for IRIN news, World Picture News, Belga and
SIPA press. Her research in the Democratic Republic of the Congo combines photography
and anthropology in order to examine the region’s humanitarian politics. E-mail:
AubreyGraham@gmail.com
 Where Indeed is the Theory? 177

carries meaning through its coding and re-coding [Pinney and Peterson 2003],
social biography [Edwards 2012], affective qualities [Pink 2006; Edwards 2012],
variant value systems [Poole 1997] and even agency [Edwards 2001, 2012]. More-
over, these responses ignore the theoretical potential for intersectional, intersub-
jective and relational ways of understanding, knowing and sensing through still
images. While researchers conducting pioneering work in photography may be
few, they nonetheless remind us crucially of the process-based role of photogra-
phy as a mode of inquiry, not just a medium of representation. For instance, Sarah
Pink’s photographic research and analysis has shown how interactively creating
images and engaging with informants through photographs can provide gen-
dered, spatial, intersubjective and highly reflexive ways of knowing [Alfonso,
Kürti, and Pink 2004; Pink 2013]. Such photographic practice, much like ethno-
graphic film [Grimshaw 2001; MacDougall 2006; MacDougall and Taylor 1998],
shows theory to be a generative process rather than just a retrospective move,
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

hence locating it in the leading edges of the discipline as much as in its time-tested
analytical frameworks.
Employing both material and processual approaches to still photography as
a springboard, my own work engages photographs as a means of constructing
knowledge, which may or may not dovetail with text but is certainly not a ‘‘bonus’’
to it; indeed the images can often be seen as a challenge or subversion of it.
My parallel career track in photography, which has included photojournalism,
marketing and advertising, humanitarian and development photography,
weddings, and so on, has grounded my academic work in a perhaps not-so-standard
practitioner–researcher combination. This combination proved to be critical
during recent year-long fieldwork in the eastern Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC), researching the implications of the humanitarian aid photography
upon the identities and politics of the local Congolese population. Drawing from
my photographic experience, I developed still photography methods that would
allow me to acknowledge my own ‘‘eye’’ and to learn to ‘‘see’’ differently—from
the perspective of a Congolese studio photographer, or contrarily from that of an
international humanitarian aid photographer. To know through the photograph in
this setting, and to be able to understand the politics around the images in the east-
ern DRC, it was critical (a) to view photographs as relational, social objects after
their creation, and (b) to understand what photographers and subjects desired
out of the images, and how through subtle negotiations they would subjectively
construct and embody these politics in an image’s production. The photographic
methods that I designed in the field included co-creative portraits, shadowing
photography (where I learned by mimicking photographic compositions and
actions), and direct photography (where I ‘‘worked’’ as another local photographer
or humanitarian photographer, and tested my visual aptitude in each situation).
For the sake of space, I’ll only expand on the co-creative portraits. Over eight
months I co-composed the majority of these photographs in Mugunga III
Internally Displaced Peoples camp, near the humanitarian hub of Goma, DRC.
Individual subjects chose the location, directed the lens, prepared for their
portrait, and determined directly what would be indexed in the resulting
photograph. To the space I brought my sense of composition and my reflexive self,
a white 30-year-old woman from the United States who spoke Swahili, carried
 178 M. H. Piault et al.

a small but professional camera (Fuji  100), conducted interviews about pho-
tography, and returned the photos free of charge. Like Cristina Grasseni [2004],
who used a video camera to retrain her sight so that she could ‘‘see’’ cows from
her subjects’ knowledgeable position, I worked through the still photographic lens
to build a form of visual intuition. I learned to see, to look, to search for meaning
differently, and thereby enabled myself to recognize the subtle shifts that encom-
passed the politics embodied in the image. The resulting portraits and the
real-time interactions around the camera showed a chronological change in the
perception of the politics that I represented and that which the subjects imagined
and engaged with. Initially the population of Mugunga III employed the space
created by the camera to create reproductions of visual humanitarian trends,
signaling hunger, disease or individual suffering. However, through repeated
visits my subjects came to associate my camera and myself more within the realm
of local photography. As such, their visual desires moved into the field of
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

vernacular portraiture, emphasizing their personal style, family and means of

employment in front of the camera, as opposed to aid-related ‘‘need.’’
This method, like Pink’s work, shows that still photography is useful for more
than just detailed data collection or as aids to interviewing. Rather, it brings
a sense of embodied learning to the research experience. It also raises the
question as to how still photographs can be compiled in a meaningful way, so
to constitute ‘‘another way of telling’’ [Berger 1995]. Can we edit and curate
photos, similar to ethnographic film or museum exhibitions, to provide a sensory
means of knowing and a process of making meaning not from the textual
description that tethers them but from the translation of the visual experience?
The co-creative portraits from Mugunga III will be presented both in print and
as an exhibition in the form of 20 diptychs. Each diptych pairs two images of the
same individual, one showing an up-close portrait (photo mnene), and the other
presenting a wider-angle, more encompassing shot often showing the indivi-
dual’s full body (photo mrefu), the people and the material objects important to
them. The repetition of the poses, and the haptic and subtle visual changes within
the sequence of these photographs helps to construct an embodiment of knowl-
edge, and a relational, sensory experience. The still photograph here both stands
alone and creates meaning in combination with the other photographs. Alone,
each one gives the viewer the opportunity to focus on the particularity of the
image, the intentional inclusions and the image’s excesses. The photograph’s
single-moment capture facilitates the capacity to linger on a representation of
an individual space, arrangement and composition, and to focus on the particular
over the general. Yet, in sequence and in diptych combination, these images play
off one another, and construct a rhythm and meaning that exists both within and
in-between the singular moments depicted. As with ethnographic film such
photographic practice and compilation are intended to elicit an experience in
the viewer. It provides ‘‘another way of telling’’ that produces knowledge and
perhaps even theory through the photograph(s). Shifts of the body and the scene,
some overt (postures changed, material goods shown, family members brought
into the frame), some understated (expressions altered, motions paused, gazes
repeated), construct a sense of interaction through the photos and an ability to
know visually without being told through a supervising text.
 Where Indeed is the Theory? 179

Returning to the question of the location of visual anthropology’s theory, it

becomes clear that using photographs as data or interview techniques is not the
only way that we, as visual anthropologists, can engage theoretically or employ
still images. Certainly the photo should be pulled out of the proverbial ‘‘dustbin.’’
However, instead of simply putting that photo to work as a helpful tool, a
‘‘bonus’’ or a ‘‘plus’’ to the text, I propose a bolder and more imaginative engage-
ment with the interactive and intersubjective potential of still photography. Per-
haps then visual anthropology’s photography-based theory might be found as
much in the risk-taking, creative future of the discipline as in its time-tested past.

Department of Anthropology
Emory University
Atlanta, GA
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

USA

REFERENCES
Alfonso, Ana Isabel, Laszlo Kürti, and Sarah Pink
2004 Working Images: Visual Research and Representation in Ethnography. London: Routledge.
Berger, John
1995 Another Way of Telling. New York: Vintage Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre
(1972) 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Descola, Philippe
2014 All too Human (still): A Comment on Eduardo Kohn’s How Forests Think. HAU: Journal of
Ethnographic Theory, 14(2): 267–273.
Edwards, Edwards
2001 Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums. Oxford: Berg.
2012 Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41(1):
221–234.
Fijn, Natasha
2012 A Multi-Species Etho-Ethnographic Approach to Filmmaking. Humanities Research, 18(1):
71–88.
Grasseni, Cristina
2004 Video and Ethnographic Knowledge: Skilled Vision in the Practice of Breeding. In Working
Images: Visual Research and Representation in Ethnography. Ana Isabel Alfonso, Laszlo Kürti
and Sarah Pink, eds. Pp. 71–88. London: Routledge.
Grimshaw, Anna
2001 The Ethnographer’s Eye: Ways of Seeing in Modern Anthropology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
2011 The Bellwether Ewe: Recent Developments in Ethnographic Filmmaking and the Aesthetics
of Anthropological Inquiry. Cultural Anthropology, 26(2): 247–262.
Hockings, Paul et al.
2014 Where Is the Theory in Visual Anthropology? Visual Anthropology, 27(5): 436–456.
Kelly, John D.
2014 Introduction: The Ontological Turn in French Philosophical Anthropology. HAU: Journal of
Ethnographic Theory. 4(1): 259–269.
Kohn, Eduardo
2013 How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
 180 M. H. Piault et al.

Latour, Bruno
2014 On Selves, Forms, and Forces. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 14(2): 261–266.
Lutz, Catherine
1995 The Gender of Theory. In Women Writing Culture. Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, eds.
Pp. 249–266. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
MacDougall, David
2006 The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
MacDougall, David, and Lucien Taylor
1998 Transcultural Cinema. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Pink, Sarah
2006 The Future of Visual Anthropology: Engaging the Senses. New York: Taylor & Francis.
2013 Doing Visual Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pinney, Christopher, and Nicholas Peterson
2003 Photography’s Other Histories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Poole, Deborah
Downloaded by [Emory University] at 05:01 14 February 2015

1997 Vision, Race, and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the Andean Image World. Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Ruby, Jay
1989 The Teaching of Visual Anthropology. In Teaching Visual Anthropology. Paolo Chiozzi, ed.
Pp. 9–18. Florence: Editrice ‘‘Sedicesimo.’’
Young, Colin
2003 Observational Cinema. In Principles of Visual Anthropology. 3rd edn. Paul Hockings, ed.
Pp. 99–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

FILMOGRAPHY
Castaing-Taylor, Lucian, and Ilsa Barbash
2009 Sweetgrass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Sensory Ethnography Laboratory.
Dineen, Molly
1993 The Ark. London: RTO Pictures for BBC.
Grimshaw, Anna
2014 Mr. Coperthwaite: A Life in the Maine Woods. Berkeley: Berkeley Media LLC.
MacDougall, David
1973 To Live with Herds. Berkeley Media LLC
1980 Familiar Places. Canberra: Ronin Films.
2007 Schoolscapes. Canberra: Ronin Films.