Digital and printed media are extensively dis-

cussed as contexts of telling, but it is noted that these

venues often ‘‘highlight the contradictions between

knowledge as an academic discipline and knowledge

that reaches children through cartoon animation,

computer games, or books’’ (p. 8). Acknowledging

that video games are ever present in the lives of

modern children, several computer games are re-

viewed, and it is noted that there are disparate levels

of accuracy and quality among them. While some

prove to be well-developed, museum-based learning

tools, others are more reflective of present biases than

of the past they aim to represent. This is certainly a

concern, considering the increasing emphasis on

electronic learning tools in many educational envi-

ronments. This section also discusses the ways in

which extracurricular children’s books interpret the

past. Two main criticisms are explored. It is first as-

serted that some children’s books may ‘‘create a

distorted and ideologically laden version of the deep

past, where women, children, and the elderly are

subservient to male power’’ (p. 8). The second argues

that there is a need for general professional responsi-

bility when writing for children, because works for

this audience are often overly simplified, and thus

lose a great deal of scientific authority.

Museums and cultural heritage sites are also dis-

cussed as contexts of telling about the past. As

mentioned in the first section, it has been asserted that

museum exhibitions act as ideal educational contexts

because they juxtapose authenticity. However, it is

stressed that the primary role of the exhibition

should not to be the impartation of facts, but rather the

creation of an experience that will facilitate children’s

understanding of their world. This section also raises

some fundamental questions about the theory of telling

about the past, addressing what kind of past educators

want to discuss and whether or not realistic pictures of

the past are being presented to children.

The final section examines the practical methods

of telling children about the past in traditional west-

ern schools and special classrooms. While it is

perhaps the most widely accepted system, classroom

teaching may not be the most effective venue for

telling about history and archaeology. Citing exam-

ples from a Lakota tribe’s ‘‘winter count’’ traditions,

Native American story telling is presented as a suc-

cessful and student-centered method for telling

history to high school students. A study of Brazilian

school children is analyzed by the authors to stress

that regardless of the methods used, the information

presented to students must be relevant and relatable.

When presented with a curriculum of homogenous

cultural traits, the ethnically and culturally diverse

children were unable to retain the material, which

again emphasizes the value of telling about the past in

a way that is significant to each audience.

Galanidou and Dommasnes have done an excellent

job of compiling a delightfully diverse and interdisci-

plinary collection of essays about telling the past to

children, while acknowledging that the archaeology

of children and childhood is still a developing field. As

more information becomes available, so will better in-

terpretations of the past from a child’s standpoint. In

the meantime, books such as this will be necessary and

effective to help adults translate the current body of

archaeological knowledge into an appropriate and

meaningful language for children.

Contemporary Art and Anthropology. Arnd Schnei-

der and Christopher Wright, eds. oxford: berg,

2006. 223 pp.

Morgan Perkinsstate university of new york, potsdam

This important volume gathers together a wide range

of perspectives on anthropology and art to present

innovative proposals for the reconfiguration of anthro-

pological methods and forms of interpretation. It will be

of considerable interest to a number of audiences, par-

ticularly among those interested in examining the

significance of museum anthropology beyond the

boundaries of anthropology museums. The 13 contri-

butions, including the thorough introduction and a

photographic essay, center on the dialog between an-

thropology and contemporary art. This relationship

points the way toward countless other dialogsFbetween

disciplines, practices, audiences, methodologies, and so

onFthat have important implications for museum an-

thropology. Much of the engagement takes place through

the essays by anthropologists or art theorists discussing

particular contemporary artists. These are balanced by

varied and effective collaborations and by contributions

by artists that elaborateFthrough essays, interviews,

Museum Anthropology, Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 92–94 & 2010 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01086.x

book reviews

artworks, and photographyFon the many forms in

which contemporary art engages with anthropological

subject matter and with anthropology as a discipline.

While the text highlights the study of contemporary

art practice across cultures, the dialog that is most prom-

inent in my reading centers on methodological concerns

that, as the authors argue, have been rather one sided.

Artists experimenting with performance and installation

art have frequently turned their attention to anthropol-

ogy and used comparable methods that include ‘‘making

inventories, carrying out ‘fieldwork,’ using interviews,

and engaging with anthropology’s theorizations of

cultural difference’’ (p. 3) to create works that often reflect

artists’ intimate experiences with different communities.

The interviews with artists by Schneider and Wright, as

well as the essays by Paternosto and Calzadilla on their

own art, provide particularly detailed insights into the

many ways that anthropology has influenced artists.

Anthropologists have been somewhat more

reluctant to embrace creative or artistic forms of cul-

tural understanding as valuable methodologies.

Despite inroads, especially through the use of film,

the written word remains the preferred form for

documenting and disseminating information.

In the introduction that outlines the history of the

relationship between anthropological and artistic

practice, the editors suggest that the current period of-

fers great potential for collaboration because the format

and authority of ethnographic practice remains in a

transitional period. The experiences that anthropolo-

gists have while living in the field are multisensory. Just

as film has allowed for a broader documentation and

representation of those experiences, so, too, does art

offer an alternative form of expression to complement

the written word. The editors recognize that ‘‘artists

and anthropologists are practitioners who appropriate

from, and represent, others. Although their represen-

tational practices have been different, both books and

artworks are creative additions to the world; both are

complex translations of other realities’’ (p. 26). Despite

reflexive critiques in ethnography, the focus on cre-

ativity and the expression of personal experience that

lies at the center of much contemporary art is still

difficult for many anthropologists to accept. Yet the

practice of anthropology is itself imprecise, creative,

and spontaneous, while artistic interpretations can be

meticulous, scientific, or, as demonstrated in the con-

tribution by Kuchler, engaged with mathematical

precision. A more supple appreciation of artistic

method can allow anthropologists to have both scien-

tific rigor and embrace the art of doing anthropology.

Artists may be able to experiment and express

themselves in ways that anthropologists are not, but

both can be restricted by the training and institutions

that structure many aspects of their practice. This is

effectively demonstrated in Robinson’s essay on Susan

Hiller, who trained as both an artist and an anthropol-

ogist. While the editors point out that ‘‘ideas and

practices of training are one key area of differentiation

between the two fields’’ (p. 2), I do not believe that ei-

ther should be held to the standards of the other.

Producing work of high quality in either anthropology

or art requires particular skills that may only be learned

to a certain degree. The analyses of artwork and art

practice by the editors and by contributing anthropol-

ogists are therefore nicely complemented by the equally

insightful inquiry into anthropological practice, exhib-

ited, for example, in the interview with Lewis and his

photographic essay on the institutional framework and

human dimensions of academic anthropology.

Although borrowing subjects and techniques can be

productive, the editors, rather than promoting ‘‘the

transposition of one practice onto another,’’ are pro-

posing a more complex and potentially fruitful

approach for ‘‘the development of new practices that

draw on both disciplines’’ (p. 9). One of the most po-

tentially rewarding avenues for development lies in

collaborative projects. Although these have sometimes

been rewarding for ethnographic film, this volume

suggests broader forms of collaboration with artists

that place value on the varied skills and perspectives of

artists beyond, but also including, the esthetic realm.

The collaboration among Marcus, Calzadilla, and Her-

nandez exploring the themes of the marketplace, and

the photographic essay by Lewis, both highlight how

anthropology and contemporary art can inform one

another through complementary methods and varied

interpretations of common subjects.

The chapters make important contributions to the

consideration of contemporary art itself as a rich source

of anthropological information, and provide a much

needed balance to the predominance of studies in the

anthropology of art that focus on more traditional

forms. Schneider’s inquiry, for example, highlights the

complexities of appropriation, whether of forms, ideas,

or practices, in both the artistic and the anthropological

book reviews

93

endeavor. The discussion by Friedman of the art of

Carlos Capelan and his appropriation of personally

meaningful objects provides a particularly interesting

critique of museum practice and notions of hybridity.

Edwards’s analysis of artwork by Mohini Chandra pla-

ces personal experience and conceptions of boundaries

at the center of her analysis of diaspora identity in the

Fiji–Indian community. Richardson also demonstrates

how art can be understood as a social and personal

analysis of identity and boundaries through an anthro-

pological approach to the paintings of Josef Sıma.

This collection does much to dismantle contrasts

between contemporary art forms produced in traditional

or experimental forms. The essay by Thomas on the

varied forms of tattoo practice breaks down stereotypes

about traditional arts by demonstrating the complexities

of its contemporary forms. Although artists may have

come to embrace anthropological and other methods,

and this volume suggests how anthropology can learn

from artistic practice, many challenges remain for the

institutions of contemporary art. Pinney provides one of

the most effective critiques of contemporary art that ap-

propriates material cross-culturally by demonstrating

that representations of India by the artist Francesco

Clemente are received with institutional enthusiasm in

comparison to ‘‘the silence and void that greet South

Asian artists with equal claim to our attention’’ (p. 62). If

contemporary art is going to engage with global art

practice in its fullest sense, its institutions should also

embrace other contemporary systems of artistic knowl-

edge and practice. All contemporary arts remain rooted

in particular knowledge systems whether or not the ob-

jects or their producers remain primarily within those

systems or circulate in broader global networks.

I believe that one of the most important contribu-

tions that art can offer anthropology is its openness to

alternative forms of expression. These forms are pro-

foundly necessary as some seek a more direct and

visceral format for expressing the experiences and emo-

tions that are part of the anthropological field experi-

ence. Anthropologists need not be artists to appreciate

how their individual personalities and styles can benefit

from the availability of a broader range of expressive

modes. By learning from each other, these two forms of

inquiry, practice, and interpretation can provide unique

levels of cross-cultural insight by speaking to levels of

knowledge and emotion that are often difficult to inter-

pret. The themes that the editors have begun to explore,

particularly the subject of fieldwork, will be expanded in

another volume, in preparation for Berg, that draws in

part on the conference they organized at the Tate Mod-

ern, in London, entitled ‘‘Fieldworks: Dialogues between

Art and Anthropology.’’ As contemporary art takes

increasing interest in anthropological concerns and

as anthropology continues developing new forms to

acquire and express anthropological knowledge, this

rich dialog is linking audiences, museums, and other

interested participants in a vibrant conversation.

Vase Painting, Gender, and Social Identity in Archaic

Athens. Mark D. Stansbury-O’Donnell. cambridge:

cambridge university press, 2006. 233 pp.

Tim McNivenohio state university

This is a troublesome book. It takes an innovative ap-

proach to the study of gender in ancient Greek society,

but it is questionable whether the results are worth the

tedious analysis. The author demonstrates that Athe-

nian pot painters working in the black figure technique

used spectators, the anonymous place-fillers at the

margins of scenes, to display and construct ideology. In

Stansbury-O’Donnell’s words, ‘‘These watchers provide

a diagram of the viewing experience to guide us in

looking at images. Essentially, these figures can help us

to understand the role of images, narratives, and actions

in developing the identity of the ancient viewer’’ (p. 5).

There are a number of advantages to this new ap-

proach. First and foremost, it makes us look at

spectators and think about the roles they play in the

narrative. Traditionally, scholars, including this re-

viewer, have regarded spectator figures merely as filler.

Stansbury-O’Donnell argues convincingly that observ-

ers have a role in the narrative by providing reactions to

the main action and directing the viewer’s attention in

particular ways. Indeed, his analysis of the ‘‘viewing

matrix’’ (pp. 67–88), a diagram of who is looking at

whom (including the flesh and blood viewer holding

the pot), is a new and valuable contribution to the field

of iconography in general. By paying attention to where

people are looking in a scene, a modern viewer gains

insight into how to interpret the narrative depicted.

Second, Stansbury-O’Donnell examines the use of

spectators of different genders and their gen-

Museum Anthropology, Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 94–95 & 2010 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01087.x

book reviews