1 Anthropology of art Stuart plattner How do anthropologists study art differently from other social scientists? The differences lie in both form(the reliance on ethnographic method) and content(the focus on marginalized and exotic societies). Anthropologists almost invariably use ethnography as a research methodology. This means they generate much of their primary data through direct, personal, in- depth observations of normal life and interaction with respondents who inform them about the mundane details of their everyday life. When the dis- cipline developed in the first part of the twentieth century, anthropologists studied poor, exotic, non-Western cultures, often as the result of a coloni- alist encounter. Much of the discipline's current identity derives from the archetypical experience of being the first Westerner to study in these distant places. The anthropologist was necessarily a generalist, recording informa tion about language, environmen nt, economy, religion, family life, govern ance and so on, since this information was simply non-existent in the Western literature(in contrast to studies based in Europe and America where an economist, for example, could rely on easily available background and contextual information on non-economic variables) This experience produced the anthropological research paradigm of holism, that the life of an individual must be understood through study of the person's entire life situation and activity. Art, religion, politics, agricul ture, commerce and so on cannot be assumed to be separate institutions in an exotic culture just because we understand them as separate in our owr culture. This open-minded approach to exotic ways of life has been produc tive of valuable understanding. For example, only an anthropologist could have solved the problem of understanding Balinese irrigated rice produc- tion by seeking answers in Balinese religious temples(Lansing, 1991) Anthropologists' think that artistic production, even in the West, should be looked upon, not simply as applied aesthetics, but as an activity embed ded in an art world, a complex set of social relationships(Becker, 1982, is the seminal statement of this position). It is wrong to focus on the unique art object, and ignore the complex set of human relationships which contributed to its creation. Thus the typical middle-aged artist in the USA needs to live in a household where someone -not necessarily the artist- has access to health insurance(Plattner, 1996). The comparable artist in Italy needs access to housing, and normally obtains it through family relations(Plattner, n d This focus on a persons whole life experience means that the people observed1 Anthropology of art Stuart Plattner How do anthropologists study art differently from other social scientists? The differences lie in both form (the reliance on ethnographic method) and content (the focus on marginalized and exotic societies). Anthropologists almost invariably use ethnography as a research methodology. This means they generate much of their primary data through direct, personal, in￾depth observations of normal life and interaction with respondents who inform them about the mundane details of their everyday life. When the dis￾cipline developed in the first part of the twentieth century, anthropologists studied poor, exotic, non-Western cultures, often as the result of a coloni￾alist encounter. Much of the discipline’s current identity derives from the archetypical experience of being the first Westerner to study in these distant places. The anthropologist was necessarily a generalist, recording informa￾tion about language, environment, economy, religion, family life, govern￾ance and so on, since this information was simply non-existent in the Western literature (in contrast to studies based in Europe and America where an economist, for example, could rely on easily available background and contextual information on non-economic variables). This experience produced the anthropological research paradigm of holism, that the life of an individual must be understood through study of the person’s entire life situation and activity. Art, religion, politics, agricul￾ture, commerce and so on cannot be assumed to be separate institutions in an exotic culture just because we understand them as separate in our own culture. This open-minded approach to exotic ways of life has been produc￾tive of valuable understanding. For example, only an anthropologist could have solved the problem of understanding Balinese irrigated rice produc￾tion by seeking answers in Balinese religious temples (Lansing, 1991). Anthropologists1 think that artistic production, even in the West, should be looked upon, not simply as applied aesthetics, but as an activity embed￾ded in an art world, a complex set of social relationships (Becker, 1982, is the seminal statement of this position). It is wrong to focus on the unique art object, and ignore the complex set of human relationships which contributed to its creation. Thus the typical middle-aged artist in the USA needs to live in a household where someone – not necessarily the artist – has access to health insurance (Plattner, 1996). The comparable artist in Italy needs access to housing, and normally obtains it through family relations (Plattner, n.d.). This focus on a person’s whole life experience means that the people observed 15