Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process

This article addresses a profound anthropological issue: how do representation and the represented relate? What motivates or warrants the inevitable disconnection? It is a mistake to dismiss representation as misguided, oppressive, or misleading. Representation is part of cognition generally and nat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Zeitlyn, D
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: School of Social and Political Sciences 2014
Subjects:
_version_ 1826273556878589952
author Zeitlyn, D
author_facet Zeitlyn, D
author_sort Zeitlyn, D
collection OXFORD
description This article addresses a profound anthropological issue: how do representation and the represented relate? What motivates or warrants the inevitable disconnection? It is a mistake to dismiss representation as misguided, oppressive, or misleading. Representation is part of cognition generally and natural language in particular. As such it is inescapable and part of how we think and talk about the world. Moving between visual and linguistic anthropology I suggest that photographs and portraits provide a rich basis for thinking about the particular sorts of warrants for anthropological representations. The general conclusion is that anthropological representation may be conceived of as a form of ekphrasis (a verbal account or evocation of a typically non-present image or object) providing the indexical or deictic bridge between representation and the object represented. As “similarity implies difference” so “representation implies ekphrasis.”
first_indexed 2024-03-06T22:30:00Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:57f73f3b-09ac-47c9-955f-4bc411e9e77e
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-06T22:30:00Z
publishDate 2014
publisher School of Social and Political Sciences
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:57f73f3b-09ac-47c9-955f-4bc411e9e77e2022-03-26T17:00:01ZAntinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic processJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:57f73f3b-09ac-47c9-955f-4bc411e9e77eSocial anthropologyVisual anthropologyEnglishOxford University Research Archive - ValetSchool of Social and Political Sciences2014Zeitlyn, DThis article addresses a profound anthropological issue: how do representation and the represented relate? What motivates or warrants the inevitable disconnection? It is a mistake to dismiss representation as misguided, oppressive, or misleading. Representation is part of cognition generally and natural language in particular. As such it is inescapable and part of how we think and talk about the world. Moving between visual and linguistic anthropology I suggest that photographs and portraits provide a rich basis for thinking about the particular sorts of warrants for anthropological representations. The general conclusion is that anthropological representation may be conceived of as a form of ekphrasis (a verbal account or evocation of a typically non-present image or object) providing the indexical or deictic bridge between representation and the object represented. As “similarity implies difference” so “representation implies ekphrasis.”
spellingShingle Social anthropology
Visual anthropology
Zeitlyn, D
Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process
title Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process
title_full Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process
title_fullStr Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process
title_full_unstemmed Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process
title_short Antinomies of representation: Anthropology as an ekphrastic process
title_sort antinomies of representation anthropology as an ekphrastic process
topic Social anthropology
Visual anthropology
work_keys_str_mv AT zeitlynd antinomiesofrepresentationanthropologyasanekphrasticprocess