Second, there aren’t many well established programs, so you are usually talking about finding an individual professor you want to work with. That takes some research on your part, since there are so many different approaches.

And third, whether it is reasonable or not to pursue an MA in anthropology is open to debate, some would argue that you are better going for a Ph.D. directly, since an anthro MA doesn’t have much weight on the job market and you will be treated more seriously (and eligible for more funding) if you apply as a Ph.D. candidate.

First, I am a master’s student at SFSU and there is only one professor there with a Ph.D in Visual Anth. He produces multimedia and documentaries that can be seen on PBS type shows like Frontline and others. He laments constantly on how doing shows like that inherently involves a type of compromise in material and issue depiction/editing that otherwise wouldn’t have to happen say if you were producing for an academic audience. Unfortunately, as was mentioned earlier, he attests to the fact that there are virtually no grants to do that kind of a film and one must shop one’s film around to various media outlets, all with their own agendas and of course their own bottomlines. This kind of commodification of ethnography can be a fine line for some to walk especially if the student pursuing this kind of work is actually more interested in the anthropological side of things.

Personally, I want to thank you all for the discussion!

often times text is unable to clearly describe something observed by anthropologists.

Just wanted to add some support to this observation. One of my most vivid memories was showing slides of the Taoist rituals I analyzed for my dissertation to a colleague from the Physics Department at Middlebury College, himself an avid amateur photographer.

“I had no idea from reading your stuff that that was what it looks like,” he said.

I wonder if an Anthro Wiki is around? I haven’t heard of one. That’s a great place I presume to put media.

Hey film is what I use all the time unconsciously. Sorry about the nit pik.
Doyle

Why don’t people take multimedia seriously? I don’t think it is so much a problem with “the field” as it is a problem with “the university.” More and more schools are trying to quantify tenure promotions based on factors such as the number of journal articles in SSCI listed journals and the number of books from university publishers. Media doesn’t have a place in such metrics. I don’t think too many anthropologists are happy about such moves, and I think many departments would defend their film making colleagues, but the wind is currently blowing in the other direction.

Doyle,
What I hear is you saying that mostly Anthro is text at the graduate level. Meaning that to convey ideas and learning text is preferred?

I assume you don’t mean film since hardly anyone would shoot film anymore. At any rate from having shot movies myself, the camera creates distinct impact upon people. As does the tape recorder.

Frankly though, I am not sure why the field doesn’t take seriously such media?
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

Anthropologists need to make these types of “ethnographic” programs (or make an effort to collaborate with filmmakers of such programs) in order to avoid stereotypical portrayals of the “other” and to show what anthropologists actually do. Anthropology clearly has a pr problem (as I have argued in response to other blog entries) and ethnographic film is one way through which anthropologists can reach the general public. Not making an effort to make such films either allows for stereotypical portrayals to remain unchallenged and/or keeps anthropology regulated to a marginal position both within and outside the academe.

Second, often times text is unable to clearly describe something observed by anthropologists. I’ve often noticed that many undergraduates in anthropology classes don’t understand some readings or lectures until they see aspects of these readings or lectures on film. Similarly, I’ve found that some articles on certain subjects would be much better in film form. There was one article I remember reading about a year ago about the symbolic sexual and gender content of certain game played somewhere in East Africa. Based on the description of the rules of the game (even with a chart), I was unable to figure out how the game was played and in turn, I couldn’t evaluate the larger argument of the author. Had this game been part of a film about the sexuality and gender of those who played it, I probably would have been able to understand how the game was played (by observing it in action).

A better example of a cultural activity that is difficult to describe “on paper” might be American football. Describing American football “on paper” to someone who has never watched a game is extremely difficult. While some aspects like touch downs and field goals are easy to describe, explaining how downs work in practice and the complicated rules for running, passing and positioning (penalties for offsides, encroachment, factors determining who can catch the ball) is very difficult. Thus, in order for someone to fully understand how American football works, they would have to actually watch a game of American football.

Imagine if one were an anthropologist outside the United States and one decided to study American Football. One might run into this problem describing football in print. An ethnographic film might help alleviate this problem or provide a good complementary piece to written articles or books.

I think that anthropologists have a tendency to undervalue ethnographic film. I’m not suggesting that one eliminates dissertations or anthropological writing but I do think that anthropologists shouldn’t be penalized in tenure decisions for doing a mixture of writing and ethnographic film. For example, if an anthropologist decided to make an ethnographic film in their fourth year before tenure review and they had already published some articles, I do not see why that film shouldn’t count towards tenure.