Worth the Consideration?: Alfred Gell's Anthropology of Art

Worth the Consideration?: Alfred Gell’s Anthropology of Art

By Marguerite L. De Loney

Alfred Gell’s work on creating an anthropology of art is very polarizing. Some scholars tend to praise his theories while others give them a cold shoulder. But, it would be best to not dismiss Gell so quickly. His theories (which must be remembered were a work in progress before his death) offer new and insightful way to analyze art with an anthropological lens, moving away from archaic oriental views in defining and understanding art. Much of what Gell writes is misunderstood, and it requires a close reading to truly grasp what he is trying to accomplish. One of Gell’s theories that has come under intense criticism is his pursuit of methodological philistinism and his displeasure with the study of aesthetics.

Gell defines methodological philistinism as “taking an attitude of resolute indifference towards the aesthetic value of works of art—the aesthetic value that they have, either indigenously, or from the standpoint of universal aestheticism” (1992: 42). These words do seem a bit harsh, but there is reasoning behind Gell’s desire to analyze art with an indifference to aesthetics, and it primarily comes from the fact that so much cultural baggage is attached to the view of aesthetics. Homi Bhaba (2004) outlines and criticizes the traditional methods of analyzing/describing indigenous cultures through the use of colonial discourse. This type of discourse has plagued many of the social sciences into “Orientalizing” studies of non-Western peoples. Aesthetics falls into the same kind of colonial discourse rabbit-hole. Even when an indigenous aesthetics approach is considered, it is still based on a Western definition of aesthetics. Gell recognizes this inherent danger in relying on aesthetics. In his view, the desire to see the art of the other cultures aesthetically tells us more about our own ideology and its quasi-religious veneration of art objects as aesthetic talismans, than it does about these other cultures” (1997: 3). Therefore, approaching art indifferent to aesthetics helps lessen the risk of biased Western interpretation of other cultures’ works of art.

In explaining methodological philistinism, Gell draws on the analogy of methodological atheism in the study of religion. In this method, it is believed that in order to scholarly study religion without bias, one would have to forgo the theology of religion. In other words, he or she would have to be indifferent to faith. Many have argued that ignoring the faith component of religion renders its study meaningless because such a major part of what defines religion would be lost. The same criticism has been given to Gell’s methodological philistinism. If one were to read Gell more closely, he/she would notice that Gell does not say aesthetics is not an integral part of art or that it has no significance. Although he criticizes the sociologism of Bourdieu (1968) and iconographic approach of Panofsky (1962), he also commends them for thinking of new ways to see art, saying, “I do not deny for an instant the discoveries of which these alternative approaches are capable; what I deny is only that they constitute the sought for alternative to the aesthetic approach to the art object” (1992: 43). This suggest that Gell is not in favor of completely disregarding aesthetics, for they do have value in art, just simply that there needs to be a way to approach aesthetics as a component of art without falling back on the same type of Western use of aesthetics.

Gell further states that “We have, somehow, to retain the capacity of the aesthetic approach to illuminate the specific objective characteristics of the art object as an object, rather than as a vehicle for extraneous social and symbolic messages, without succumbing to the fascination which all well-made art objects exert on the mind attuned to their aesthetic properties” (1992: 43). Here, Gell blatantly states that aesthetics are necessary, especially because it has the capacity to illuminate art as an object. It is all a matter of how to approach aesthetics. The bottom line in Gell’s argument (1992: 5), and the foundation of his theory of anthropology of art, is that art needs to be seen as an entity in itself, as a social being, and not merely as a symbol.

Italic Added March 12, 9:30 pm

To have true meaning and efficacy, aesthetics must be coupled with another aspect of art. Gell remarks that a “work of art is inherently social in a way in which the merely beautiful or mysterious object is not,” in that it is a physical entity that mediates and creates social relations between the artist and the spectator (1992: 52). Any object can be aesthetically pleasing. The location of a tree in a yard against a blue sky and light breeze can be considered aesthetically pleasing, but it would not have the same social significance as a work of art. The reason being that art possesses both aesthetics and technology, thus socially empowering it. Gell’s (1992) example of the Trobriand Kula canoe-boards is a perfect illustration of this point. The colors, shading, and patterned designs are all aspects of the art that are biologically and aesthetically pleasing to the eye. But what makes the canoe-boards more special, more significant, is the amount of skill that has to go into producing such technically difficult carvings. As Gell points out: “the technical activity which goes into the production of a canoe-board is not the only source of its prestige as an object, but also the source of its efficacy in the domain of social relations” (1992: 56). In other words, both aesthetics and technology creates “a fundamental scheme transfer, applicable, as Gell suggests, in all domains of art production, between technical processes involved in the creation of a work of art and the production of social relations via art” (1992: 56).

So to recap, here are the main points that Gell stresses. Yes, aesthetics is important, but when it comes to analyzing art through an aesthetic approach, it is necessary to do so through methodological philistinism. In this manner the aesthetics of art becomes less of a human agency and more of an inherent quality that art as a social object in and of itself posseses. Lastly, to get a more holistic view of art object’s social agency and its social relationship, it is most beneficial to consider aesthetics in conjunction with some other quality of art, such as the technology of art. These ideas are not that very out of left field. They are attainable and pertinent to anthropological studies. So to all the disbelievers, have patience, and give Gell a chance, he just might change how you understand art.

References Cited:

Bhabha, Homi; 2004. "DownloadThe other question: stereotype, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism" in The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge, 94-120.

Gell, Alfred; 1992. "DownloadThe technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology," in Anthropology, art and aesthetics. Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 40-63.

Gell, Alfred; 1998. Art and agency: an anthropological theory. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.