Friday, September 30, 2011
Blog 6
According to Annette Laming-Emperaire I would currently place myself in the first method of study. While the second method seems to be more fun, something I would be more interested in, and what most people would consider to be what anthropology is I don't have the background to understand what other cultures did or how to analyse what artifacts mean. My outlook on anthropology is very categorical, dividing things into neat little piles letting someone else interpret what they mean. This class is teaching me how to transition into the other category. Hopefully I will be able to learn how to cross the boundary between the categorical and analysis methods of study and be confident doing both. I feel that is what a true anthropologist is. One who does not simply fit into a defined category but understands how to whatever is needed to further understand about a society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had the same thoughts, I was drawn to the second method, but decided on the first. Dividing things categorically is much more logical and makes interpretation easier and sounder.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that there is a balance between the two. I think that the confusion comes in because we're talking about art. Art is some big abstract fairly elusive topic...so when we try to apply science to it (like in anthropology) everyone gets confused and starts extrapolating way beyond any factual evidence. It's important to start with the facts before getting caught up in the fiction.
ReplyDelete