Here we explored the prominence of ethnographic methods when talking about cross sections between art and anthropology. These include:
The Interview– differing styles of interview where this can be to facilitate more open discussion or ‘closed’ questions can be given in advance for a more structured interview. Both of these have their own pros and cons, for example, interviewers and participants may get more out of an open ended interview as this can take unexpected paths and answers may seem more honest when it is out of structure. The value of structured interviews comes from the participant having clear expectations of what the interview will be in advance and can prepare answers beforehand without veering of topic and into unknown territory.
Participant Observation– how someone will enter a community and observe the daily lives of participants. This can make research all the more valid as researchers and artists can get to know participants on a deeper level and see community activities first hand. Trust can only be gained with meaningful connection to participants which can take a considerable amount of time and resources, introducing a major ethical problem that can sometimes result in choosing between a strong ethical stance on a project and fulfilling this within a set time and budget. This can also cause a bias as the artist entering a community may have a set agenda to what it is they would like to achieve, therefore having a negative impact on the community and how they will be received by others. This methodology can generate much authentic data but has much to think about in regards to ethical decisions.
Fieldnotes– a way of capturing observations during a project and noting these findings. This can include writing, taking photos, drawings, graphs and recordings; all becoming a unit of qualitative data. This is useful to later reflect on and come to terms with the observations made and what can be done with them. This helps fieldwork begin to take shape that will be formed into, usually, a text; with fieldnotes remaining mostly hidden from public view. In Key Concepts in Ethnography, Karen O’Reilly identifies that an increasing amount of researchers disperse fieldnotes amongst their collected texts adding authenticity to cumulative research outputs, what ethnographers actually write down is therefore finally becoming more transparent. This is especially fortunate given that it is incredibly difficult to know what steps to take in order to reach the point where the information eventually needed is available for recall when it is required.
1999-2004:
In 1999, Glasgow-based artist Anne-Marie Copestake began Trigger Tonic, an ongoing series of recorded interviews between artists, musicians and writers. For each recording, Copestake set simple parameters: she would introduce one Glasgow artist to one visiting artist, and then videotape their unrehearsed encounter.
The ideas behind the project were social and egalitarian, based on expansive meetings between people, looking outwards to meet others, shared experience and exchange of ideas through informal conversations on whatever felt important at the time. Trigger Tonic is both a document of a period of time and an approach to the local history unfolding.
- In what ways could this artwork be seen to employ the method outlined in the related chapter of Key Concepts in Ethnography?
Anne-Marie Copestake facilitated a number of interviews in an UNSTRUCTURED approach that is free-flowing, interviewees were given loose topics of interest only with the expectation interviews can go in many directions. These were long term encounters, accounting for five years of interviews where she would introduce one Glasgow artist to one visiting artist, and then videotape their unrehearsed encounter. This could be seen as more valid research as participants would be more relaxed and less confined in terms of what they say and what they think a suspected answer to a question might be, ethnography relies much more heavily on unstructured conversations than on structured interviews (Key Concepts). This way of interviewing, I think, has made this project a success and more interesting to read about, ethnography is usually attempting to learn about participants from their own perspective, this will not be achieved by imposing one’s own line of questioning on people (Key Concepts), by facilitating interviews between participants, there is space for participants to ask questions they feel are necessary to the conversation, avoiding the bias which could be apparent if Copestake carried out all interviews.
- Does the artist’s approach differ from the ethnographic definition? If so, how?
Anne-Marie Copestakes decision for interviews to take place in the personal scene of the bed makes this project differ a lot from definitions of the ethnographic. J: So, I thought we could sit on my bed and I could chat to you. If that doesn’t make you feel too weird or uncomfortable. Like the decision for very open interview techniques, the bed as fieldwork has the potential of creating a very laid-back atmosphere where participants can be themselves and share without judgement. I think this is more of a push for this loose interaction by Copestake to ‘signify’ to participants, and in turn audiences, of what kind of information will be shared and how we should take it. Ethics involved in this decision of space makes the respondents more comfortable or suggests an expectation for more informal and personal conversation. A danger of this method may be that content created from these interactions may be taken less seriously due to their playful and silly nature, disrupting any successful contribution towards knowledge.
Another aspect that makes this differ with ethnography definitions is time with respondents. I believe ethnographic interviews are also about building relationships to enhance ethnography (Key Concepts). Although the project went on for a long time, Copestakes interactions with individual respondents did not last ‘years’ like what is spoken of in the Key Concepts text. This project has the potential of pushing respondents together, creating a unified entity that the project is about the interviews themselves, and their outlandish methods, rather than the content that came out of each interview.
- Why do you think the artist has chosen to make this work in this way? What does this method allow them to do?
This method allows for more personal interaction and can make participants lose themselves in a way that possibly could not happen in a more structured, sitting-opposite each other way. A relaxed environment is vital for a more relaxed conversation which I believe this project has done successfully. Maybe creativity in process enables creativity in conversation in outcome? As mentioned in the previous question, Trigger tonic turns into an outcome about interviews themselves over what was talked about and addressed by respondents.
- Other thoughts/questions?
Outcomes- text (formal/ consuming information/logic/timelines) or exhibition (to be experienced/multi-perspectivity/the ability to empathise with others/simulating that we may be having the conversation or encounter)
Can the outcome text be creative?
How all 3 concepts connect/combine in practice?
Purpose of carrying out creative methods- how does the clear-cut question fit into this?
Does this more relaxed approach make us more relaxed viewers?
Key Concepts in Ethnography. Karen O’Reilly. SAGE publications (2009).
Leave a Reply