The anthropology of aesthetics

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Writing this review of the recent work done on the anthropology of aesthetics, I have found myself doubly surprised. On the one hand, when I sat down to review all that I had read or heard about in the last ten years or so [ 1 ], I was surprised at how much has actual? ly been written, what great theoretical ad? vances have been made, what a wealth of use? ful ethnography is now available, and how subtle the thought has become. If the anthro? pology of aesthetics was once relegated to the last chapter of anthropology textbooks and there treated as an afterthought, it is quite clear that a substantial number of respected scholars no longer think of it as a kind of frivolity and that some even think of it as ab? solutely central to our enterprise. On the other hand, when I stood up from my review and looked beyond the piles of books and journals heaped around my desk, I was also surprised (perhaps foolishly so) at what has not yet been done, at the gaps in the ethno? graphic data, at the theoretical blinders, at the cultural biases. Here, then, is a record of my mingled pleasure and distress, and of the vari? able body of work which has provoked these reactions. While I am begging the question of what I understand by "aesthetic," since that and re? lated terms such as "art" or "literature" are part of the matter under discussion, neverthe? less I should at the outset state that the main subjects of this essay are the verbal and visual arts, mainly narrative, poetry, sculpture, and painting and drawing. This is hardly because I think that other expressions such as music or dance are less important or their study less likely to contribute to theoretical knowledge, but because most of the work by anthropolo? gists has been done on verbal and visual ex? pressions, narrowly defined. Indeed, the ne? glect (which will be discussed later in this es? say) of other loci of the aesthetic is one of the deep problems in current anthropology. Let us start, then, at the most general level, that of definition and universal theory. Since anthropology's forte has been ethnography, induction, and the embedding of middle-range theory in a body of descriptive detail, it is interesting but hardly surprising that there are relatively few attempts at extensive theorizing about aesthetics. Within the period under con? sideration, Macquet's Introduction to Aesthe? tic Anthropology [2] remains one of the best general introductions. While Macquet is limit? ed by his desire to establish a subject matter and find a way of looking at that subject mat? ter within the constraints both of anthropol? ogy's traditional way of working and of tradi? tional Western notions of "art," he does the valuable and necessary service of firmly distin? guishing "the aesthetic quality" (which he finds to be universal to humanity) from "art" (which is specific to certain kinds of culture and certain historically specific societies) and of further distinguishing between "art by in? tention" and "art by metamorphosis." Macquet's work is brief, general, sensible; it doesn't break new ground, but it gives one a Toni Flores is an Associate Professor of Women's Studies and American Studies at William Smith & Hobart Colleges, New York.