-
How / does artistic auto-ethnography differ from anthropological auto-ethnography? Is there any significant difference or do artists simply adopt an anthropological auto-ethnographic approach and apply it to their practice?
Art autoethnography is more subjective in nature and involves some creative medium, such as some form of creative writing or performance. In given cases, artists may take an anthropological autoethnographic approach to their work, using structured methods and rigorous data analysis to inform their creative process. However, artistic autoethnography tends to be more fluid and open, allowing for a more exploratory and creative approach to understanding.
-
Anthropological auto-ethnography continues to develop the anthropological concern with personhood formation and how this differs between, and within, cultures. Is artistic research also investigating personhood formation? If so, what sort of assumptions does artistic research make about the personhood of the โartistโ?
Art research’s assumptions about the “artist” personality may be distinguished from anthropological autoethnography.
In the study of art, the personalities of “artists” are often linked to the artistic practices and creative processes they undertake. Great emphasis is placed on individualism and creativity as important aspects of personality formation.
In contrast, anthropological autoethnography typically views personality formation as a more complex and subtle process, influenced by cultural, historical, and social factors. Individuals are seen as products of their cultural and social background, and their sense of self and identity are shaped by a range of factors including language, kinship, and social norms.
