The growth of material culture research has occurred simultaneously with a mounting interest in the physical and represented aspect of social life within the field of anthropology. Material culture perspective is founded on the clear, apparent reality that the presence of human-made objects or artefacts is actual proof of the existence of human intelligence (Prown 1982: 1). The fundamental principle is that objects created or changed by humans reveal the beliefs of people who created, bought, used, or consumed them, and thereby the value and belief system of the society at large. Visual anthropology and landscape are vivid representations of such material culture. Therefore, this essay discusses how material culture enriches one's understanding of social life, with a particular focus on visual anthropology and landscape.
Visual Anthropology and Landscape
The inclusion of material culture into the discipline of visual anthropology helps explain how visual materials (e.g. museum, film, photograph, landscape) influence culture and social life. Indeed, ethnographies in visual anthropology focus on the material and visual aspects of objects and their influence in a given setting. Visual anthropological studies of films and photographs shed light on the material aspects of the image and what role/s these materials played in the social life of a particular time and place. For numerous decades, ethnographic researchers have made use of photography to document the visible and concrete aspects of cultural and social life. These works have produced an abundant collection of videos, films, and photographs that are presently among the most popular types of visual, social scientific evidence that provide a vivid image of social life in various spatial and temporal stages (Banks & Vokes 2010: 338-339). The most popular of this material culture are ethnographic photographs and films.
Films and photographs are 'visible' evidence-- specifically speaking, they are material artefacts. They also provide visibility to certain components of cultural and social life that audiences may not otherwise be capable of seeing. In addition, these materials document the visual interpretations or worldviews of the individuals and/or groups who produced them, and they can encourage further visual interpretations among their audiences (Ruby 2005: 159-60). As extracts of actual observation and other methods of social research, films and photographs can also act as a representation of ideas, and thus offer valuable instruments for the visualization and representation of social theory.
The academic research on ethnographic photography has been monopolized by the art historians' pursuit of important creations by leading artists and the uncovering of the ingenuous works of ordinary professionals. In recent years a social theory of the historical development of photography has surfaced wherein photographs are viewed as material artefacts that are socially constructed and thus encapsulate the cultural and social life of those involved, as well as that of the photographer (Banks & Vokes 2010: 339-340). These scholars focus more on the cultural and social background of producing and applying images as textual representations. Visual anthropology has pushed this process forward with their explorations of the historical tradition of photography as cultural and social life and ethnographic research on commonplace traditions, like snapshots (Ruby 2005: 162-163). These scholars strive to formulate ideas about the circumstances of production and consumption, with the intention of making the images' meaning or message an aspect that is negotiated or can evolve over time.
For instance, Edward Curtis's ethnographic photographs can be seen as a representation of the cultural and social life of 19th-century Native Americans. Furthermore, Curtis's photos can be analysed for their importance to present-day Native Americans who need them for the reconstruction of their cultural identity and social life (Hebel & Wagner 2011: 243). Considered as recorded evidence, photographs are viewed as a reproduction of social life and reality, providing an unedited and objective visual document. The ethnographic study of Musello (1980) also showed that family photographs are viewed as actual recordings or documents of actual events. As further explained by Musello, 'photographs presented to others are typically embedded in a verbal context providing contextual data necessary for understanding them' (Musello 1980: 39). Basically, these ethnographic studies show that photographs, as a material culture, are records of cultural beliefs and social interactions.
The same is true with ethnographic film, which is the key focus and major interest in visual anthropology. There is no widely held description of ethnographic film, and the widespread belief is that it is a visual account of unfamiliar, unexplored cultures. Ethnographic film is a highly valuable instrument for both the embodiment of sense stimulating features of anthropological knowledge and the mechanism of exploring and understanding ethnographic research. It can embody numerous aspects of social life. In recent years, visual anthropologists have started making use of the camera but not as an impersonal tool, but as a device of study, analysis, and interpretation within the field of ethnography (Ruby 1976: 437-8). Cameras can be used to encourage interactions and discourses, facilitate meaningful, purposeful actions (Ruby 1976: 438) and to unravel what Mead called the abstract components of social life. These abstract elements could be more accurately and visually depicted through the ethnographic study of speech patterns, meaningful glances, facial expressions, and body language (Evans-Pritchard 2013: 58), which normally elude traditional ethnographic research.
Visual anthropologists also use 'landscapes' as a way of understanding the diffusion of human culture and social experiences. Material culture, according to visual anthropology, involves artefacts and landscape. The difference between the two is helpful in underlining various core aspects of social life-- the longstanding, durable aspect of landscape has a greater tendency to evolve gradually than other artefacts, such as films and photography (Hockings et al. 2014: 436-7). The enduring aspect of material culture, particularly the landscape, further raises the importance of history. The socialization of individuals occurs within material contexts; hence landscape is a vital component of the historical account of social life (Tilley 1994: 12-13) across various spatial-temporal stages.
As explained by Hirsch, 'There is a relationship here between an ordinary, workaday life and an ideal, imagined existence, vaguely connected to, but still separate from, that of the everyday' (Gray 2000: 33). A 'place' is a living environment where actual behaviour and acts in people's daily social life occur. On the other hand, 'space' is the shared cultural and natural resources individuals draw upon to identify place (Gray 2000: 33-34).The portrayal of the landscape, therefore, pertains to the forefront and the backdrop of social life and is depicted as a western notion which, nevertheless, is a manifestation of this prevalent connection between the forefront and the backdrop. As a consequence, every individual relates this daily social life with prospects and capabilities of the unknown, everyday life or of utmost circumstances.
Urban public space is generally viewed as a space of invisibility or anonymity and freedom where people can reaffirm themselves, take part in new forms of interactions and experiences and create new kinds of sociability (Tilley 9-10). Nevertheless, proponents of urban anthropology have explained that cities are usually marked by a continuous struggle to accomplish these possibilities. Numerous public spaces do enable and offer favourable interactions and experiences, and thus they allow individuals to enjoy life in the city. This assumption is validated by Richardson (1982: 432) in his ethnographic study of social construction and material culture in Spanish America. His findings show that the urban landscape of Spanish America, which he focuses on two geographical places-- the 'market' and the 'plaza'-- has a different meaning for different people depending on how they perceive and experience it. More specifically, they see the 'market' as a common place while they view the 'plaza' as a cultural centre.
People's placement or position in the urban landscape is rooted in overlapping, interconnected social features that are carried out and interpreted through the body. These features involve different identity attributes, from colour of the skin to way of life. Due to the fact that these different positions affect or shape urban interactions and experiences, individuals perceive and experience the urban landscape and its public spaces differently (Schachter 2008: 37-38). Social life within the urban landscape is organized through an array of roughly implicit, established social standards and norms concerning correct behaviour and attitudes in different public spaces. These standards and norms do not merely vary across the urban landscape, they relate as well to different individuals in different ways.
Conclusions
Material culture has been a major interest among anthropologists because of its stability and durability. It does not easily change over time, particularly the landscape. Such characteristics provide social scientists a way to reconstruct history and discover social life across various historical periods. Visual anthropology, particularly ethnographic film and photography, has helped scholars in the field understand the cultural values/practices and social life of different social groups in different periods of time. The same is true with landscape, but it is more enduring or solid than ethnographic film and photography. Landscape is not a mere reservoir of rich historical experiences, it is also a site of evolving social interactions and encounters.
References
Banks, M. & Vokes, R. 2010. Introduction: anthropology photography and the archive. History and Anthropology, 21, 337-349.
Evans-Pritchard, E. 2013. Social anthropology. London: Routledge.
Gray, J. 2000. At home in the hills: sense of place in the Scottish borders. UK: Berghahn Books.
Hebel, U. & Wagner, C. 2011. Pictorical cultures and political iconographies: approaches, perspectives, case studies from Europe and America. UK: Walter de Gruyter.
Hockings, P. et al. 2014. Where is the theory in visual anthropology? Visual Anthropology, 27, 436-456.
Musello, C. 1980. Studying the home mode: an exploration of family photography and visual communication. Studies in Visual Communication, 6, 23-42.
Richardson, M. 1982. Being-in-the-market versus being-in-the-plaza: material culture and the construction of social reality in Spanish America. American Ethnologist 9, 421-436.
Ruby, J. 1976. Anthropology and film: The social science implications of regarding film as communication. Quarterly Review of Film Studies, 1, 436-445.
Ruby, J. 2005. The last 20 years of visual anthropology-- a critical review. Visual Studies, 20, 159-168.
Schachter, R. 2008. An ethnography of iconoclash. Journal of Material Culture, 13, 35-61.
Tilley, C.Y. 1994. Space, place, landscape and perception: phenomenological perspectives. C.Y. Tilley, 7-34. Oxford: Berg.
