2019/04/09 Art as a discipline of inquiry | Tim Ingold (web video)

In the question-answer period after the lecture, #TimIngold proposes art as a discipline of inquiry, rather than ethnography. This refers to his thinking On Human Correspondence.

Digest from question-answer session, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ztVBhbO8E&t=152s

— begin paste —

[75m26s question] I am curious to know what art, or how art, informs what you are doing here. We are standing on the art school. I have a bit of a worry that all of us just go on and interpret or over interpret what you just said.

[73m46s Tim Ingold] Okay, yes. I have been working on the interface between anthropology and art and all of that has been driven by a concern to treat art as a discipline of inquiry on a par with anthropology.

[74m05] That both concern with inquiring into the conditions and possibilities of human life in an environment, in a world, I think, and they can learn from one another on that level

[75m19s] In the history of of my own discipline of anthropology, unfortunately, an ethnographic approach has been predominant in which art is treated as the productions of people that we can then study and analyze.

[75m34s] So instead of thinking about anthropology AND art we’ve had we’ve had a massive anthropology OF art.

[74:39] Now, anthropology comes along says, just as well, you know here’s a kinship system, we can analyze that. Here’s the city of Richmond, we can analyze that. Oh here’s some art, let’s analyze it.

[74m49s] And that’s intensely boring. I mean it gets us it gets us nowhere.

[74m54] So I think that where we can we can come together is to think of of art as as a form of inquiry. And again it comes to the same thing I said in in answer to your question here, that our job is not to is not actually to interpret the art — to sort of set ourselves up on a pedestal as having some special expertise to explain to everybody else what it means.

[75m29s] That’s ridiculous, I think, and politically somewhat abhorrent.

[75m33s]But what our job is I think is — and I’ve used the word — is to correspond with it.

[75m37s] I’ve been developing this idea of correspondence, not in a sense of matching one thing to another, but in sense of answering to, co-responding in one, as in a conversation.

[75m47s] They’ve got two people are having a conversation and each is responding to the other. Or in a string quartet you got the violin and the cello and whatever and and and they’re all answering to one another. And that processes is carrying on.

[75m58s] So that it seems to me that that that art is, to my mind, a certain way of corresponding with the world, of answering to it. And we in turn answer to the art.

[75m11s] And I would like to think of anthropology my own discipline joining art in that way. And,. but to do that, we have to stop thinking of art as objects to be interpreted, and stop thinking of ourselves as master interpreters.

[76m30s] And, in other words, stop pretending to be artcritics. We can we can do without them I think. I don’t really see what they’re contributing.

— end paste —

Ingold sees beyond science as an objective means of inquiry, seeing opportunities for transmitting wisdom based on more inclusive communications.

— begin paste —

[92m34s] For people who are engaged in research in one way or another, and then thinking about sharing their ideas in quite linear forms like papers — do you have — so varied and and and and mixing and about these gradients and and like things to do with like behaviors that happen in local social systems. Do you have any thoughts on — how is — what are some of the better ways to share ideas, and share what you what you find, in ways which are, yeah, less linear, I suppose.

[93m20s]it’s a big problem and, I think there’s something very seriously wrong with academic publishing at the moment, in that it’s become desiccated, really, and also driven — particularly in the sciences.

[93m26s] I mean there are these big publishers, Elsivier and so on, just making millions of pounds of profit on the back of all this stuff.

[93m41s] But the degree to which it’s appalling, the degree to which, are the writing of research reports has become standardized to a particular model, the extent to which, our own voices — the voices of the authors of these papers — have been eradicated

[94m08s] And I think, in the name of the objective dissemination of research findings.

[94m15s] And I think that this disconnect, between you, as a person who’s doing research, and what do you produce in the form of research output is very very damaging.

[94m282] And I think one of the reasons why we need to bring the arts in, is to try and introduce some sort of correction to that.

[94m38s] And somehow we need to get it across that, an author speaking personally on the basis of their considered experience is not somehow an inferior form of knowledge, to one that rules that out.

[95m00s] So, what I think what has happened, is that knowledge has become commodified within the the overall scope of of a global knowledge economy, and it’s the commodification of knowledge that has been created this this kind of situation.

[95m19s] And it and and you know young scholars are forced into it by the refs.

[95m24s] By all this kind of thing, when they supposed to publish — write and publish in certain kinds of ways — which I think are objectionable. That if we could just …

[95m34s] It can’t be right that there are two kinds of literature, that there’s one that’s sort of research literature and the other that’s called poetry.

[95m43s] You know and they’re not supposed to touch one another. And that can’t be right. And it must be the possible to find ways of communicating what we know, in ways that actually are infused with some sense of engagement of feeling with what we’re talking about.

[96m04s] And in that sense to create a more inclusive — actually more democratic — conversation. How we change that?

–end paste —


Ingold, Tim. 2017. “On Human Correspondence.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 23 (1): 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12541.

Ingold, Tim. 2019. “What on Earth Is the Ground?” Lecture presented at the Approaching Estate: Methodologies for practices of site and place, University Arts London, Central Saint Martins, April 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ztVBhbO8E.

Ingold, Tim. 2019. “What on Earth Is the Ground?” Lecture presented at the Approaching Estate: Methodologies for practices of site and place, University Arts London, Central Saint Martins, April 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ztVBhbO8E.

David Ing blogs at coevolving.com , photoblogs at daviding.com , and microblogs at http://ingbrief.wordpress.com . A profile appears at , and an independent description is on .

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Beyond this media queue
This content is syndicated to Twitter. For professional perspectives, look to Coevolving Innovations; for a photoblog, look to Reflections, Distractions.
  • Redesigning Our Theories of Theories of Change, Peter H Jones + Ryan J A Murphy (ST-ON 2020/11/19)
    While the term “theory of change” is often used by funders expecting an outcome of systems change for their investment, is there really a theory there? The November 2020 Systems Thinking Ontario session was an opportunity for Peter H. Jones (OCADU) and Ryan J. A. Murphy (Memorial U. of Newfoundland) to extend talks that they had given over a few days for the […]
  • Learning With Humility: Systems Thinking and Reordering Priorities (Global Change Days, 2020/10/22)
    For the third of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, Kelly Okamura, Dan Eng and Joanne Dong led a Beacon Event for Global Change Days. This session was one in a series for global changemakers.  Our expectation was that they would be hands-on practitioners, with relatively low familiarity with systems thinking methods and t […]
  • Theoretical Grounds, Pragmatic Grounds: Methods for Reordering our Priorities through Systems Changes Learning (ST-ON 2020/10/19)
    For the second of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, we convened a session for the monthly Systems Thinking Ontario meeting.  The focus of this workshop was a review of progress to date on methods by the scholarly team, informed by the adoption and use by the field team. The framing of this presentation centered on develo […]
  • Reordering Our Priorities Through Systems Changes Learning (RSD9, 2020/10/14)
    For the first of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, Zaid Khan led a session for the Relating Systems Thinking and Design RSD9 Symposium.  Our team had developed a set of reference slides for the three workshops, from which content that would most resonate with the audience could be selected.  RSD attracts designers across […]
  • Strategic Communications + The Brand Stack, Zaid Khan + David Akermanis (ST-ON 2020/09/14)
    Two Major Research Projects (MRPs) — they might be called master’s theses elsewhere — by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis reflect the Systemic Design agenda within the OCADU program on Strategic Foresight and Innovation (SFI).    To graduate, all SFI students complete an MRP.  With many subjects and techniques covered during SFI studies, only a few exercise Sys […]
  • Beyond the Tavistock and S-cubed legacy
    While it’s important to appreciate the systems thinking foundations laid down by the Tavistock Institute and U. Pennsylvania Social Systems Science (S3, called S-cubed) program, practically all of the original researchers are no longer with us.  Luminaries who have passed include Eric L. Trist (-1993), Fred E. Emery (-1997), and Russell L. Ackoff (-2009).  T […]
I welcome your e-mail. If you don't have my address, here's a contact page.
%d bloggers like this: