
Thomas Fillitz
Related Authors
Mónica Lucía Espinosa Arango
Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)
David Seamon
Kansas State University
Carlos Del Cairo
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
Claire Farago
University of Colorado, Boulder
Mechtild Widrich
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Juliet Bellow
American University
Anthony Gardner
University of Oxford
Gianpaolo Angelini
University of Pavia
Pablo Wright
School of Philosophy and Letters - University of Buenos Aires
Viacheslav Kuleshov
Stockholm University
Uploads
Papers by Thomas Fillitz
Two main objectives structure this volume: (a) to place researches in the anthropology of art within the wider context of other disciplinary art discourses, and (b) to position particular ethnographic studies within several major fields of research in the anthropology of art. Considering the plethora of art practices – in time and space perspectives –, and the multiple approaches to the subject, we are convinced that multidisciplinary dialogues are more than ever mandatory. Regarding the anthropology of art, it appears, for instance, of utmost importance to clearly articulate which images are being dealt with. This is apparent with Descola`s anthropology of figuration, as much as with Belkaïd-Neri’s chapter within the framework of world art studies. Favero’s examination of new digital technologies in the production of images leads into a field that is yet quite under-researched (in many disciplines), but is likely to become most prominent in the near future.
The various ethnographies related to art biennials (Mayer and Fillitz), to art markets of contemporary art and collectors (Plattner, de Cordova, Tinius, and Van der Grijp) are valuable insofar as they inform about the specific nature of such institutions and actors, and largely refrain from general considerations. Drawing these lines of reflections further, themes like art fairs, the interactions between gallerists-artists-collectors, the present-day heterogeneity of collectors, or the concept of ‘awkward art’ would require more anthropological attention. In the context of dialogues between contemporary art and anthropology, experiences like those made by Khatchikian are valuable, as they also show concrete examples about difficulties in the realm of collaboration. Flynn’s and Sansi’s chapters further problematize the category of collaboration in different ways, the former on the basis of concrete artistic practices, the latter in discussing another shift which is occurring in art discourses, the calls for a new non-relational art. Finally, we would like to stress a thematic that has not specifically been highlighted in this book, but is emphasized in Flynn’s chapter, contemporary South-South networks and circulations – of ideas, techniques, artworks, artists, or curators.
If the anthropology of art was for some time marginal within mainstream anthropology, the impetus it received in the 1990s diversified its topics of research, and together with following works, they all contributed in transferring it into another central sub-discipline of anthropology. Within the anthropology of the contemporary, the anthropology of art provides from its perspectives valuable ethnographic insights into local, regional, transcultural and global interconnections of the present worlds.