INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Van Damme, Wilfried
Afrika Museum, Berg en Dal,
6571 CS, The Netherlands
Email:
w.vandamme@afrikamuseum, nl
Keywords: anthropology, visual arts
Vol. 18 - n. 4 ( 2 3 1 - 2 4 4 ) - 2 0 0 3
Anthropologies of Art
This paper discusses how different conceptions of the idea of
'anthropology' entail different views of the 'anthropology of
art'. The prevailing notion of anthropology as the Western
study of small-scale non-Western societies leads to a conception of the anthropology of art as dealing with the visual arts
of these societies or cultures. Anthropology is sometimes
also interpreted as referring to a particular approach that is
applicable in examining sociocultural phenomena in whatever culture, including its art forms. Both conceptions of anthropology may be considered subsidiary to a more encompassing view of anthropology as the multidisciplinary study of
humankind. Following this view, the anthropology of art
becomes the comprehensive examination of art in human
existence. As such it would coincide with World Art Studies,
conceived as the global and multidisciplinary study of the
visual arts.
Spurred on by developments in the incipient field o f World Art Studies, future studies o f the arts will see an increase in investigations carried out from a global and multidisciplinary perspective. What would be the place and role o f anthropology herein?
When envisioning the future o f the anthropological study o f art, consideration o f this
question seems legitimate, if only since the idea o f anthropology suggests both a worldwide point o f view and a particular disciplinary approach. Ever since its beginnings
some one and a half centuries ago, 'modem' anthropology has been variously concerned with what Westerners and others today would broadly refer to as the visual arts. Yet
the label 'anthropology o f art' has been around for only a few decades (the same goes
for its cousin the 'anthropology of aesthetics').' This already suggests that, historically,
the anthropological study o f art has scarcely been conceptualized and operationalized in
any methodic sense. Even today, with the label around, the anthropology o f art could
only with difficulty be interpreted as implying a systematic view on research into the
visual arts) Rather, the label loosely signifies what scholars known as anthropologists
variously do and have done in studying visual artistic phenomena. The unassuming title
o f one o f the more recent edited volumes on this topic in effect reflects the state o f
affairs rather well: Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics (Coote and Shelton 1992). This
collection o f essays, moreover, relates an impression that quite accurately corresponds
to what the anthropological study o f art has in fact been mostly about in the decades following the Second World War, the period in which the anthropological interest in artistic phenomena came to blossom. For this volume contains richly contextualized case-
232
VANDAUME
studies written by Western 'field researchers' who deal with visual art forms in a particular indigenous culture in Africa, Oceania or the Americas. Yet such studies do not
exhaust the possibilities suggested by the idea of examining art in an anthropological
framework.
So what does it in effect mean to wed the term anthropology to the study of the
visual arts? In this paper I suggest that there are at least three different ways of typifying the idea of an anthropology of art, depending on one's interpretation of the label
anthropology. It is thereby hoped that this analytical rough guide to 'anthropologies of
art' will provide some clarification both for intemal use, where it might lead to further
discussion, and for use by students of the arts from outside anthropology, who might
turn to anthropology in exploring multidisciplinary and global approaches to visual artistic phenomena. I am having in mind particularly art historians, but as we will see
briefly, one may also think here of various other types of scholars?
Humanity and the Visual Arts
In its broadest and etymologically appropriate interpretation anthropology refers to
the study of human beings. Since this appears not the only reading of the term, I suggest we provisionally dub this interpretation anthropology A. Such a comprehensive
conception of the idea of anthropology one finds regularly advocated in the opening
chapters of introductory textbooks in anthropology, albeit with an emphasis on the
sociocultural dimensions of being human. In actual anthropological theory and practice, however, this encompassing, humanity-centered conception would not seem very
popular today. It does have a long, even if somewhat patchy, intellectual tradition in the
West, a tradition that nominally goes back to the German humanist scholar Magnus
Hundt, who in 1501 introduced the term anthropologia in counterpart to theologia.
Central to the endeavors of Hundt and other German humanists was the elucidation of
'human nature', as one of them, Otto Casmann, wrote in 1594: "Anthropologia est doctrina humanae na~rae" (of. Stagl 2000: 27). As already in early and classical Greek
thought, this implied asking questions concerning, among other things, the ways in
which human beings both resemble and, more significantly, differ from (other) animals.
Scholars following in this tradition in the next few centuries therefore often incorporated into their analyses what contemporary scientific knowledge would teach them about
the biological dimensions of being human - in addition to whatever data were available
on 'the ways of man' in cultures other than one's own, both past and present (cf.
Roughley 2000: 2-4; Stagl 2000: 28). Although often referred to as philosophical anthropology, this tradition thus has a considerable interest in various types of empirical
data. Global in orientation and multidisciplinary in character, it seeks to establish and
explain both commonalities and differences in the various forms of life developed by
A N T H R O P O L O G I E S OF ART
233
human beings. In Bradd Shore's definition, anthropology may then be characterized as
"the study of human nature in light of human variation" (2000:81).
If one conceives of anthropology as the study of humanity, then the anthropology
of art would refer to the examination of artistic phenomena in human existence.
However etymologically correct, such an encompassing view of the 'anthropology of
art' is only seldom, if ever, come across. Even among anthropologists adopting an intercultural comparative perspective on the visual arts (in itself quite a rarity), only few
have ventured into analyses that go beyond - twentieth century - cultures of Africa,
Oceania and the Americas. 4 In conjunction with taking into consideration as varied a
sample of human cultures as possible, the extensive conception of the anthropology of
art implies systematically addressing, in panhuman and pancultural terms, fimdamental
issues in the arts - issues of origins and development, style and reference, production,
reception, and reflection, patterns of use and function, innovation and diffusion, and
more.
Interestingly, and ironically, it is in fact mostly non-anthropologists (or at least
scholars from outside the academic field of anthropology) who in recent years have
started to tackle issues that belong to this most basic and most broadly conceived idea
of an anthropology of art. Thus Ellen Dissanayake, combining training in biology and
art history with prolonged stays in various cultures, has dealt with the fundamental question of why humans display artistic behavior in the first place (1988; 1992). While elaborating a biosocial approach to artistic and aesthetic phenomena, she has explicitly
addressed the issue of the origins of the arts (2000) (see also Dissanayake's paper, this
issue). The latter topic is also discussed in books by the cognitive archaeologist Steven
Mithen (1996), the evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller (2000), and the anthropologist Kathryn Coe (2003). All four authors draw, each in their own way, on current
neo,Darwinian insights into the - mental - behavior of human beings, thus bringing
evolutionary research and thinking to bear on the existence of the arts in human life? In
addition, the philosopher Ben-Ami Scharfstein (1988; forthcoming) analyzes art and
artists in a variety of human cultures past and present, and discusses art-like activities
in non-human animals. His examinations take into account recent ethological, evolutionary, and neuroscientific findings. A similar interest in the 'biology of art' is shared
by the art historian John Onians (1996). Under the banner of World Art Studies, a label
he introduced in 1992, Onians has launched a global and multidisciplinary approach to
the visual arts, based on a neuropsychological understanding of visual perception and
art-making (see also Onians's paper, this issue). 6 By taking a worldwide perspective on
a particular dimension of being human, and by referring explicitly to humans' biological makeup, all these scholars may in fact be associated with the humanity-centered,
multidisciplinary tradition in anthropology briefly considered above.
234
VANDAMME
Studying Non-Western Art
None of this scholarly work has (yet?) entered mainstream anthropological discussions of art, from which it is indeed considerably removed. For one, just as anthropology is usually associated with the Westem study of other societies, especially those
long referred to in the West as 'primitive', so the anthropology of art conventionally
deals with the visual arts of these 'non-Western cultures'. The common conception of
anthropology involved may then be referred to as anthropology B. Moreover, within the
geocultural confines at issue, anthropologists typically deal with present-day cultures or
those of the recent past. When concerned with art, they usually focus their attention on
a given range of visual forms in one particular location or culture, art forms which are
preferably studied in situ (with supplementary reference to the relevant ethnographic
literature, and sometimes with additional research in archives and museum collections).
This is the field of study conveyed in a series of 'classic' edited volumes and anthologies. 7 Anthropologists discuss the use of paintings and sculptures in initiation houses
along the Sepik River in New Guinea, examine the production of blankets or pottery in
Native American villages, study the staging of masked dances in a West African locality, and so on. Examinations of this type are usually carried out within a broadly cultural relativist or particularist paradigm and, as such, tend to manifest a contextual perspective. Although sometimes explicitly referring to a more specific anthropological
-ism or theory, these studies are for the most part descriptive in nature, fLrmly situating
the art forms in their - synchronic - sociocultural settings. The results of some of this
work have been summarized and thematized in several single-authored introductory
textbooks. +
This field of investigation into non-Western art forms is still vital, providing valuable data on a wide range of artistic activities and products within a variety of local frameworks. Yet anthropologists increasingly suggest to extend research in various ways.
Some now turn to studying non-Western objects as they figure in contexts of intercultural encounter and exchange, both regionally and globally (including present-day international 'art worlds'). They thereby emphasize such topics as the role of art works in
the Western presentation of non-Western cultures (and sometimes vice versa), as commodities in transnational networks, or as instruments in creating and promoting cultural identities in national or worldwide <contexts (e.g. Marcus and Myers 1995;
MacClancy 1997; Phillips and Steiner 1999; Thomas and Losche 1999), In another
extension of traditional research, anthropologists have started to address various types
of visual art forms and their creation and consumption in Western societies (e.g. Platmer
1996; Anderson 2000). 9
The cultures traditionally considered in anthropological research present but a limited portion of human cultures in time and space. However vast and varied the field in
question, this is a legitimate observation when looking at anthropology B from the
ANTHROPOLOGIES OF ART
235
standpoint of anthropology A. That having been said, studies which investigate the arts
of these cultures are obviously important for a variety of reasons. One way in which the
significance of these studies stands out is by looking at them from the perspective of the
Western discipline of art history and its traditional subject matter. Indeed, the opportunity to take the arts of these cul~res into consideration as proper topics of research
means 'pushing back the boundaries' of conventional art history to a considerable and
even unprecedented extent (see Kitty Zijlmans' paper, this issue). Room is thus created
for the study of a multitude of art traditions, in addition to those of the West and, at least
in some Western academic art history, those of the East and pre-Columbian America.
With this extension now under way in art history, it should be observed that a substantial number of art historians have actually been and still are involved in the study of
the non-Westem arts concemed, especially those of African cultures. The majority of
them share with 'anthropologists of art' (B type) not only an interest in non-Western
artistic phenomena, but a key methodological procedure, namely 'fieldwork', as well as
an overall holistic perspective. 1~ Often comprised of detailed contextual analyses of
non-Westem art forms, the studies of these art historians have indeed been said to have
become almost indistinguishable from those of anthropologists (Willet 1971: 42; Coote
and Shelton 1992: 6). Although this assessment may be disputed, with the discussion
potentially leading to a clarification of the two disciplinary approaches involved (see
also Sidney Kasftr's paper, this issue), it would at least seem fair to say that many of
these scholars have developed into Africanists, Oceanianists, and Americanists. As a
result, these art historians have frequently become far removed from the center of their
home discipline. The growing interest in art history for the study of non-Western arts
may then be instrumental in creating a gateway through which valuable theoretical
insights gained by non-Western-art historians might pass from the periphery to the center of academic art history, as has been advocated by such scholars as Africanist art
historian Suzanne Blier (e.g. 1992: 10). 11
Art and the Anthropological Lens
But what is it in fact that art history might leam from anthropology in terms of perspective, method, and interpretation? The existence of a specific anthropological
approach to the arts is often assumed, but the question of what it might actually consist
of is only seldom explicitly raised and discussed. Elsewhere, with respect to the study
of aesthetic preference, I have suggested that an anthropological approach might be
typified by means of three hallmarks: the empirical-inductive stance, the contextual
emphasis, and the intercultural comparative perspective (Van Damme 1996: 1-12). The
first two of these refer first of all to local research (although obviously not restricted to
non-Westem settings), whereas the third transcends the 'idiographic' level of most of
236
VANDAMME
this research and relates to the idea of taking a worldwide perspective, which may include a 'nomothetic' ambition. Overlapping with and differing from both anthropology A
and B, the idea of a particular anthropological approach to sociocultural phenomena
may then be called anthropology C.
The emphasis on sociocultural contextualization is probably the most salient characteristic of the approach that anthropologists have developed. It could be argued that
this contextual emphasis, in addition to various intellectual incentives, derives in part
from the long-established anthropological practice of 'fieldwork'. By means of this
procedure outsiders become merged into a foreign culture as a whole, trying to understand analytically singled out phenomena, such as art, in relation to the larger sociocultural matrix in which they are embedded. When it comes to studying the visual arts,
anthropologists thereby tend to construe their subject matter broadly, paying attention
to a wide range of 'visual culture'.
Anthropological examinations of art thus create or enhance an awareness of the
myriad ways in which a variety of visual artistic phenomena are related to the rest of
culture. This relatedness not only concerns an art object's subject matter, motifs,
symbols, colors, and elements of style, the interpretation of which will require reference to cultural ideas, institutions, and practices. In addition and in conjunction with such
broadly conceived iconographic and iconological analyses, examinations also center on
the actual uses of art forms (what, when, where, how, by whom, for whom) and the
function that may be ascribed to such uses. A contextual focus may then also lead to a
whole series of questions regarding the place and role of art in the fabric and dynamics
of culture. For example, in which contexts does art tend to figure prominently, and why
is this so? What part does it play in non-verbal communication? Do art forms reflect and
strengthen the status quo or are they instrumental in effecting sociocultural change?
Moreover, because of their first-hand studies of art in its context, anthropologists also
tend to be attentive to such questions as concerning art patronage (who commissions art
works and for what purposes), the producers of art (their psychology, training, personal
style, social position), the process of creating art (including the tools and materials used,
and their economic and symbolic values), and the indigenous evaluative reception of
artistic objects and events.
By emphasizing the various ways in which a wide range of artistic objects, including their creation, use, and effect, relate to a variety of dimensions of local sociocultural life - religious, political, social, economic, educational, etc. - contextual anthropological studies thus sharpen the sensitivity of what it means to comprehensively study
the art forms of a given culture, which in anthropological practice usually means a culture other than one's own. Conversely, contextual studies of the arts of other cultures
are likely to throw into relief the art forms and practices of one's own culture. It should
indeed be clear that a contextual approach to the arts as developed in anthropology may
also be fruitfully applied in cultures other than those traditionally studied by anthropologists (and affiliated art historians). Contextualized empirical data on art worldwide
ANTHROPOLOGIES OF ART
237
may then become the subject of intercultural comparative analyses that inductively aim
at generalizations on various dimensions of art in its socioculmral environment. Such
data may also become the subject of hypothesis-testing by scholars who derive predictions concerning the arts from existing theories, including present-day ethological and
evolutionary theories.
As far as Western-art studies are concerned, it could be argued that context-oriented approaches have already been in use for quite some time. One may thus point to
what is known as the 'cultural historical' approach in Western art history, influential
from the 19~hcentury onward. This approach, however, would seem by and large to be
confined to 'semantic contextualism' (particularly providing iconic analyses), being far
less concerned with 'functional contextualism' or other contextual issues, such as the
production, actual use, and contemporary reception of art forms. Also, the second half
of the 20 ~ century saw the development of a 'social history of art?, and such topics as
art patronage and artists' workshops and commercial dealings are receiving increased
attention in various 'new art histories' (cf. Fernie 1995: 12-15, 18q9). Still, broadly
contextual studies of the arts are a fairly recent phenomenon in the Western discipline
of art history. Thus, in promoting the OxfordHistory of Art series, launched in 1997, it
is claimed that its volumes offer "a fresh approach", meaning, among other things, that
its authors "set art within the social and cultm'al context of the time and place in which
it was produced". I2 This innovative contextual approach in art history may well have
developed in large part through the influence - perhaps indirect, and frequently unacknowledged, it would seem - of anthropological studies into non-Western art and culture. 13
The emphasis on sociocultural context that an anthropological approach provides
should be considered complementary to other perspectives on artistic phenomena. In
this regard Sidney Kasfir, in her paper for this issue, observes that whereas art historians
usually remain close to the object in their analyses, anthropologists "tend instead to use
objects as evidence for 'something else' ...." This statement would not only seem to
capture a prevailing view on a main difference in disciplinary approach, but is also
intended as a warning not to de-emphasize the artistic objects or events that form the
startingpoint of our analyses. As one critic has observed in commenting on a study of a
famous Western painter's entrepreneurship, we should be careful not to end up with an
"art history with the art left out". For all their rightful attention to context, this is a warning that anthropologists of art may take to heart as well.
238
VANO~v~rE
Concluding Remarks
All three types of 'anthropology of art' outlined above may contribute to the development of global and multidisciplinary research in the arts. When conceived of as conceming the comprehensive study of the visual arts in human life, the 'anthropology of
art' could in fact serve as an overarching label and integrative framework for this incipient line of research. However, given the association that in the 20 'h century has developed between the idea of anthropology and the study of particular non-Western cultures, it is doubtful that the qualifier 'anthropology of art' will come to fulfill this function. World Art Studies, interpreted as the global and multidisciplinary examination of
the visual arts, may well turn out to serve as an overall label and develop into an
umbrella discipline instead. TM In any event, given its worldwide focus this type of study
is in need of data on artistic phenomena in the many and various cultures long held to
lie outside the province of mainstream academic art studies. Anthropologists, with their
traditional focus on non-Western cultures, do indeed provide such data. Moreover, in
examining these cultures and their arts anthropologists apply a particular perspective
that is quite distinct when compared to conventional historical, philosophical, and
psychological approaches in the study of art. Conceptualizing artistic phenomena as
integrated in sociocultural settings, anthropologists center on gathering and contextually interpreting data on the production, use, meaning, function, and reception of
visual art forms in a variety of frameworks. Contextualized empirical data on art in
various cultures may then be interculturally compared in order to establish, and ideally
explain, similarities and differences in artistic phenomena worldwide. In order to be
fully operational, especially on an explanatory level, such an anthropological approach
needs to incorporate data and insights from other disciplines that attempt to shed light
on the arts as phenomena in human existence. To the list of relevant disciplines may
now also be added human ethology, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience, disciplines that are instrumental in re-establishing the focus on the human being that gave
anthropology its name in the first place.
Notes
1. Although several authors had previously combined 'anthropology' and 'art' in the titles of their
publications, it would seem that the label 'anthropology of art' was first prominently used by Layton
in 1981. In the German-speaking world, to be sure, Haselberger had used the term 'Kunstethnologie'
already in 1969. The label 'anthropology of aesthetics' first appeared in the title of a 1978 article by
Flores, while Maquet had introduced the term 'aesthetic anthropology' in 1971. Flores's conception of
aesthetics is, however, such as to make the 'anthropology of aesthetics' almost indistinguishable from
the 'anthropology of art' (the latter also applies in large measure to Maquet's 'aesthetic anthropology',
and to a lesser degree to Schomburg-Scherff's label 'Ethnologie der A.sthetik', introduced in 1986).
The marker 'anthropology of aesthetics' as referring to the anthropological study of qualitative senso-
ANTHROPOLOGIESOFART
239
rial perceptions was first used in the title of a publication by Coote in 1992 (for references, see bibliography). A more thorough consideration of this terminological issue would also have to take into
account the label 'ethnoaesthetics', which has been used to refer to the anthropological study of art as
well as aesthetics.
2. To be sure, in the late 19~ and early 20 ~ centuries the question of how two-dimensional visual
designs might have originated and evolved (from naturalistic to abstract or vice versa) constituted a
unifying theme in the speculations on art of the so-called evolutionists in anthropology (cf. Gerbrands
1957: 25ff). An exception may also be made for the initiatives of Boas, who in the first three decades
of the 208 century had his students examine artistic designs and later on especially visual artists in
Native American cultures (cf. Berlo 1992 as well as Boas 1927 and Jonaitis 1995). Via his students
Herskovits and Olbrechts, the anthropological interest in artists was continued in an African context
(see also note 10 and d'Azevedo 1973). Gerbrands, an acquaintance of both Olbrechts and his student
Vandenhoute, was later instrumental in promoting the study of visual artists in an Oceanic, especially
Melanesian context (e.g. Gerbrands 1967). As to the more recent period, the one exception is Gell's
proposal in Art and Agency (1998), where the author resolutely adopts an 'anti-semantic' and 'antiaesthetic' perspective and identifies anthropology with social anthropology. For assessments of Gell's
rather radical approach, see the papers in Pinney and Thomas (2001) and the review essays by Arnout
(2001) and Layton (2003). Some of Gell's central themes, such as distrust of the idea that art communicates 'meaning' and the emphasis on the 'captivating impact' effectuated by art forms, have in anthropology already been foregrounded in the work of Armstrong, who characterized art forms with reference to their 'affecting presence' (e.g. Armstrong 1971).
3. This paper was originally written for the session "World Art Worlds: Sighting Future Horizons in
Visual Anthropology" (101" Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New
Orleans, November 2002), a session which, among other things, dealt with the contemporary rapproachement of anthropologists and art historians. Incidentally, this rapproachement might be better
conceived of as a re-approachement (the history of the interactions between anthropology and art
history, however, still needs to be written; see also note 13).
4. Maquet's (1971; 1986) books on the anthropology of art and aesthetics additionally take into
account examples of Westeru and Oriental art, as do Anderson's (1990) comparative study of philosophies of art and Gell's (1998) anthropological theory of art. See also Napier's (1986) cross-cultural
study of masking, and the work of art historians Rubin (1988), who edited a volume on body art worldwide, and Borgatti and Brilliant (1990), who examine the idea of portrait from a global perspective.
5. See also the volumes edited by Cooke and Turner (1999) and Bedaux and Cooke (1999).
6. For bioevolutionary perspectives on issues in visual aesthetics, see Aiken (1998), Etcoff (1999), and
Van Damme (2000): A general discussion and assessment of the study of art and aesthetics from an
evolutionary point of view is provided by Dutton (2003).
7. See Smith (1961), Fraser (1966), Biebuyck (1969), Jopling (1971), Otten (1971), Forge (1973),
Graburn (1976), Greenhalgh and Megaw (1978), Cordwell (1979), Coote and Shelton (1992), Berlo
and Wilson (1993), and Anderson and Field (1993).
8. See Anderson (1979; second ed. 1989), Layton (1981; second ed. 1991), Hatcher (1985; second ed.
1999), and Kreide-Damani (1992). Compare also the survey articles of Silver (1979) and Morphy
(1994), as well as the introductory chapters of earlier overviews by art historians Wingert (1962) and
Fraser (1962).
9. Compare the work of Rubin (1989) and, as far as aesthetics is concerned, that of Forrest (1988).
10. In the case of African art, this type of involvement of art historians goes back to the late 1930s,
when Vandenhoute and Maesen conducted research into visual art and artists in present-day Crte
d'Ivoire. These two scholars were introduced to 'primitive art' studies and ethnology at Ghent
240
VANDAMME
University, Belgium, by Olbrechts, a student of Boas's (see Petridis 2001). For more on the involvement of especially North American art historians in the study of African art forms, see Adams (1989).
11. See also Chalmers (1978), and compare Phillips (1995). Similar pleas, albeit with less emphasis
on the enrichment of the art historical paradigm, have already been made by several anthropologists
(see Flores, 1985:34 and Anderson 1989:200).
12. Promotional flyer [1997]. Compare also the Internet site of this series (www.oup-usa.org/oha)
where it is said that "The last twenty years have witnessed profound changes in art history, the greatest of which stem from the social and cultural perspectives now attached to art scholarship".
13. This is one area in which we need more intellectual-historical analyses: Which anthropologists
have actually influenced historians of Western art? And as a corollary, which art historians have looked at anthropology for heuristic and hermeneutic guidance? Conversely, which art historians have
been influential in the anthropological study of non-Western arts? And as a corollary, which anthropologists of art have turned to art history for analytical tools and interpretative inspiration?
14. Similarly, in the case of aesthetics one may propose that World Aesthetics serve as a label for the
global and multidisciplinary study of aesthetic phenomena in human existence, a type of study that
would also quite appropriately, but in the present circumstances also rather misleadingly, go by the
name the 'anthropology of aesthetics' (Van Damme 2001; forthcoming).
References cited
Adams M., 1989. African Visual Arts from an Art Historical Perspective. African Studies Review
32(2): 55-103.
Aiken N.E., 1998. The Biological Origins of Art. Westport, CT, London: Praeger.
Anderson R.L., 1979. Art in Primitive Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (second ed. Art
in Small-Scale Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989).
---,
1990. Calliope's Sisters. A Comparative Study of Philosophies of Art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall. (second ed. Calliope's Sisters. The Role of Art in Httmnan Thought. Upper Saddle
River, N J: Prentice Hall, 2003).
--,
2000. American Muse. Anthropological Excursions into Art and Aesthetics. Upper Saddle
River, N J: Prentice Hall.
Anderson R.L. and Field K.L. (eds), 1993. Art in Small-Scale Societies. Contemporary Readings.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Armstrong R.E, 1971. The Affecting Presence. An Essay in Humanistic Anthropology. Urbana,
Chicago, London: University of Illinois Press.
Arnaut K., 2001. A pragmatic impulse in the anthropology of art? Alfred Gell and the semiotics of
social objects. Journal des Africanistes 71(2): 191-208.
Bedaux J.B. and Cooke B. (eds), 1999. Sociobiology and the Arts. Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA: Editions
Rodopi.
Berlo J.C. (ed.), 1992. The Early Years of Native American Art History. The Politics of Scholarship
and Collecting. Seattle, London: University of Washington Press.
Berlo J.C. and Wilson L.A. (eds), 1993. Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Selected Readings.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Biebuyck D. (ed.), 1969. Tradition and Creativity in Tribal Art. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Blier S.P., 1992. First Word. African Arts 25(3): 1, 8, 10.
ANTHROPOLOGIESOFART
241
Boas E, 1927. Primitive Art. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning (reprint New York:
Dover, 1955).
Borgatti J. and Brilliant R., 1990. Likeness and Beyond. Portraits from Africa and the World. New
York: The Museum for African Art.
Chalmers EG., 1978. Teaching and Studying Art History. Some Anthropological and Sociological
Considerations. Studies in Art Education 20(l): 18-25.
Coe K., 2003. The Ancestress Hypothesis. Visual Art as Adaptation. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rntgers
University Press.
Cooke B. and Turner E (eds), 1999. Biopoetics. Evolutionary Explorations in the Arts. Lexington, KT:
International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences.
Coote J, 1992. 'Marvels of Everyday Vision': The Anthropology of Aesthetics and the Cattle-Keeping
Nilotes. In: Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics, ed. J. Coote and A. Shelton, pp. 245-73. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Coote J. and Shelton A. (eds), 1992. Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cordwell J.M. (ed.), 1979. The Visual Arts. Plastic and Graphic. The Hague: Mouton.
d 'Azevedo W.L. (ed.), 1973. The Traditional Artist in African Societies. Bloomington, London:
Indiana University Press.
Dissanayake E., 1988. What is Art For? Seattle: University of Washington Press.
, 1992. Homo Aestheticus. Where Art Comes From and Why. New York: The Free Press.
- - - - , 2000. Art and Intimacy. How the Arts Began. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Dutton D., 2003. Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology. In: Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, ed. J.
Levinson, pp. 693-705. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Etcoff N., 1999. Survival of the Prettiest. The Science of Beauty. New York: Doubleday.
Fernie E. (ed.), 1995. Art History and its Methods. A Critical Anthology. London: Phaidon.
Flores T., 1978. Undefining Art: Irrelevant Categorization in the Anthropology of Aesthetics.
Dialectical Anthropology 3(2): 129-38.
, 1985. The Anthropology of Aesthetics. Dialectical Anthropology 10(1/2): 27-41.
Forge A. (ed.), 1973. Primitive Art and Society. London, New York: Oxford University Press.
Forrest J., 1988. Lord I'm Coming Home. Everyday Aesthetics in Tidewater North Carolina. Ithaca,
London: Comell University Press.
Fraser D., 1962. Primitive Art. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
- - - , (ed.), 1966. The Many Faces of Primitive Art. A Critical Anthology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Gel1 A., 1998. Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gerbrands A.A., 1957. Art as an Element of Culture, Especially in Negro-Africa. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- - - , 1967. Wow Ipits. Eight Asmat Woodcarvers of New Guinea. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Graburn N.H. (ed.), 1976. Ethnic and Tourist Arts. Cultural Expressions of the Fourth World. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Greenhalgh M. and Megaw V. (eds), 1978. Art in Society. Studies in Style, Culture and Aesthetics.
London: Duckworth.
Haselberger H., 1969. Kunstethnologie. Grtmdbegriffe, Methoden, Darstellung. Wien, M/inchen:
Verlag Anton Schroll.
Hatcher E.E, 1985. Art as Culture. An Introduction to the Anthropology of Art. Lanham, New York,
London: University Press of America (second ed. Westport, CT, London: Bergin and Garvey,
1999).
Jonaitis A, (ed.), 1995. A Wealth of Thought. Franz Boas on Native American Art. Seattle, London:
University of Washington Press.
242
WN DAMME
Jopling C.F. (ed.), 1971. Art and Aesthetics in Primitive Societies. New York: E. E Dutton.
Kreide-Damani I., 1992. KunstEthnologie. Zum Verst~ndnis fremder Kunst. K61n: DuMont.
Layton, R,, 1981. The Anthropology of Art. London: Granada (second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991).
,2003. Art and Agency: A Reassement Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.)
9(3): 447-64.
Maquet J., 1971. Introduction to Aesthetic Anthropology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (second ed.
Malibu: Undena, 1979).
, 1986. The Aesthetic Experience. An Anthropologist Looks at the Visual Arts. New Haven,
London: Yale University Press.
Marcus G. E. and Myers F. R. (eds), 1995. The Traffic in Culture. Refiguring Art and Anthropology.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
MacClancy J. (ed.), 1997. Contesting Art. Art, Politics and Identity in the Modem World. Oxford, New
York: Berg.
Miller G., 2000. The Mating Mind. How Sexual Selection Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature.
London: Heinemann.
Mithen S., 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Morphy H., 1994. The Anthropology of Art. In: Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, ed. T.
Ingold, pp. 648-85. London: Routledge.
Napier A.D., 1986. Masks, Transformation, and Paradox. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University
of California Press.
Onians J., 1996. World Art Studies and the Need for a New Natural History of Art. Art Bulletin 78(2):
206-09.
Otten C.M. (ed.), 1971. Anthropology and Art. Readings in Cross-Cultural Aesthetics. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Petridis C. (ed.), 2001. Frans M. Olbrechts 1899-1958. In Search of Art in Africa. Antwerp:
Ethnographic Museum.
Phillips R.B., 1995. Fielding Culture: Dialogues between Art History and Anthropology. Museum
Anthropology 18(1): 39-46.
Phillips R.B. and Steiner C.B. (eds), 1999. Unpacking Culture. Art and Commodity in Colonial and
Postcolonial Worlds. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Pinney C. and Thomas N. (eds), 2001. Beyond Aesthetics. Art and the Technologies of Enchantment.
Oxford, New York: Berg.
Plattuer S., 1996. High Art Down Home. An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Roughley N., 2000. On Being Humans. An Introduction. In: Being Humans. Anthropological
Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. N. Roughley, pp. 1-21.
Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Rubin A. (ed.), 1988. The Mark of Civilization. Artistic Transformations of the Human Body. Los
Angeles: Museum of Cultural History, University of California.
Rubin A., 1989. Art as Technology. The Arts of Africa, Oceania, Native America, and Southern
California (completed and edited by Zena Pearlstone). Beverly Hills, CA: Hillcrest Press.
Scharfstein B.-A., 1988. Of Birds, Beasts, and Other Artists. An Essay on the Universality of Art. New
York: New York University Press.
, forthcoming. A Prelude to World Art.
Schomburg-Scherff S., 1986. Grundzfige einer Ethnologic der Asthetik. Frankfin't am Main, New
York: Campus Verlag.
ANTHROPOLOGIESOFART
243
Shore B., 2000. Human Diversity and Human Nature. The Life and Times of a False Dichotomy. In:
Being Humans. Anthropological Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary Perspectives,
ed. N. Roughley, pp. 81-103. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Silver H., 1979. Ethnoart. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 267-307.
Smith M.W. (ed.), 1961. The Artist in Tribal Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Stagl J., 2000. Anthropological Universality. On the Validity of Generalisations about Human Nature.
In: Being Humans. Anthropological Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary
Perspectives, ed. N. Roughley, pp. 25-36. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Thomas N. and Losche D. (eds), 1999. Double Vision. Art Histories and Colonial Histories in the
Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Damme W., 1996. Beauty in Context. Towards an Anthropological Approach to Aesthetics.
Leiden, New York, Krln: E.J. Brill.
, 2000. Universality and Cultural Particularity in Visual Aesthetics. In: Being Humans.
Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. N. Roughley, pp. 258-83.
Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
- - - , 2001. World Art Studies and World Aesthetics: Partners in Crime? In: Raising the Eyebrow.
John Onians and World Art Studies, ed. L. Golden, pp. 309-19. Ox~brd: Archaeopress.
--,
forthcoming. World Aesthetics: Biology, Culture, and Reflection. In: Compression vs.
Expression. Containing and Explaining the World's Art, ed. J. Onians. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Willet F., 1971. African Art. An Introduction. London: Thames and Hudson.
Wingert P.S., 1962. Primitive Art. Its Traditions and Styles. New York: Oxford University Press.