3
246 BOOK REVIEWS Despite these shortcomings, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist is often illuminat- ing and always interesting. The book is filled with fresh articulations, if not wholly original interpretations. Its exegeses are often too detailed. But the close textual readings make the book particularly suitable as an introduction to Nietzsche’s thought. Berkowitz also writes wonderful prose. He turns a felicitous phrase with the best of them, even if occasionally things get out of hand (he dubs Christianity “a kind of Judaism for the people”). Most im- portantly, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist serves as a useful antidote to many post- modern accounts of Nietzsche that deny the centrality of his struggle for a higher morality and the probity of mind upon which this struggle was based. Professor Berkowitz Responds: Thiele’s review displays a generosity for which I thank him. But I am somewhat baffled by several of his criticisms. His chief criticisms are that I fail to investigate “the nature of Nietzsche’s metaphysical residues”; I do not give “an account of Nietzsche’s lapses of intellectual integrity”; and my analysis “misses the point of both Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s insightful discussions of re- venge.” These criticisms, I think, are not quite right. First, my book begins with the assertion that Nietzsche is a metaphysician for whom the death of God represents an interpretation that denies any fundamental structure in the cosmos (2-5). Morality must be man-made since no principle of order or right inheres in the world. Throughout, I argue that the problem of living well in such a world, a problem rooted in a controversial metaphysical interpretation of the human condition, is for Nietzsche the funda- mental problem. Second, I stress, particularly in the Conclusion, that Nietzsche betrays a de- cisive lapse of intellectual integrity by allowing his philosophical explorations to rest on the dogmatically asserted opinion that God is dead (27 1-272). Third, contrary to Thiele, I do not affirm the extravagantly complacent view that “any attempt to overcome revenge of any sort [emphasis added] constitutes a ‘confession of hatred for the human condition’ (178).” Rather, and quite differently, I maintain that “the attempt to extinguish or transcend revenge alto- gether” (178, emphasis added) gives extravagant expression to the spirit of revenge. It is, I argue, a tribute to Nietzsche’s intellectual integrity that his philosophical explo- rations effectively expose his own dogmatism. And, by clarifying the causes and conse- quences of Zarathustra’s failure to make himself the absolute author of his existence, Nietzsche, I contend, points the way to a free-spirited skepticism, one that does not seek to abolish, but to temper or discipline, the very human spirit of revenge. Journal of the Hislory ofrhe Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 32(3), 246-248 July 1996 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0002-506 1/96/030246-03 Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton, Eds. Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. 281 pp. $69.00 (cloth) $19.95 (paper) (Reviewed by Molly Lee) The stated purpose of this volume of collected essays is to provide an introduction to the anthropological study of art and aesthetics. An amalgamation of historical survey, theo- retical explication, and case study, this thought-provoking book largely fulfills its promise.

Anthropology, art and aesthetics

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Anthropology, art and aesthetics

246 BOOK REVIEWS

Despite these shortcomings, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist is often illuminat- ing and always interesting. The book is filled with fresh articulations, if not wholly original interpretations. Its exegeses are often too detailed. But the close textual readings make the book particularly suitable as an introduction to Nietzsche’s thought. Berkowitz also writes wonderful prose. He turns a felicitous phrase with the best of them, even if occasionally things get out of hand (he dubs Christianity “a kind of Judaism for the people”). Most im- portantly, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist serves as a useful antidote to many post- modern accounts of Nietzsche that deny the centrality of his struggle for a higher morality and the probity of mind upon which this struggle was based.

Professor Berkowitz Responds:

Thiele’s review displays a generosity for which I thank him. But I am somewhat baffled by several of his criticisms.

His chief criticisms are that I fail to investigate “the nature of Nietzsche’s metaphysical residues”; I do not give “an account of Nietzsche’s lapses of intellectual integrity”; and my analysis “misses the point of both Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s insightful discussions of re- venge.” These criticisms, I think, are not quite right.

First, my book begins with the assertion that Nietzsche is a metaphysician for whom the death of God represents an interpretation that denies any fundamental structure in the cosmos (2-5). Morality must be man-made since no principle of order or right inheres in the world. Throughout, I argue that the problem of living well in such a world, a problem rooted in a controversial metaphysical interpretation of the human condition, is for Nietzsche the funda- mental problem. Second, I stress, particularly in the Conclusion, that Nietzsche betrays a de- cisive lapse of intellectual integrity by allowing his philosophical explorations to rest on the dogmatically asserted opinion that God is dead (27 1 -272). Third, contrary to Thiele, I do not affirm the extravagantly complacent view that “any attempt to overcome revenge of any sort [emphasis added] constitutes a ‘confession of hatred for the human condition’ (178).” Rather, and quite differently, I maintain that “the attempt to extinguish or transcend revenge alto- gether” (178, emphasis added) gives extravagant expression to the spirit of revenge.

It is, I argue, a tribute to Nietzsche’s intellectual integrity that his philosophical explo- rations effectively expose his own dogmatism. And, by clarifying the causes and conse- quences of Zarathustra’s failure to make himself the absolute author of his existence, Nietzsche, I contend, points the way to a free-spirited skepticism, one that does not seek to abolish, but to temper or discipline, the very human spirit of revenge.

Journal of the Hislory ofrhe Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 32(3), 246-248 July 1996 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0002-506 1/96/030246-03

Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton, Eds. Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. 281 pp. $69.00 (cloth) $19.95 (paper) (Reviewed by Molly Lee)

The stated purpose of this volume of collected essays is to provide an introduction to the anthropological study of art and aesthetics. An amalgamation of historical survey, theo- retical explication, and case study, this thought-provoking book largely fulfills its promise.

Page 2: Anthropology, art and aesthetics

BOOK REVIEWS 247

The volume’s ten essays, most by British or Australian anthropologists, are divided among four topics addressing pertinent aspects of aesthetic anthropology (see below). The overall quality of the essays is excellent. Their grouping seems rather arbitrary, though it does allow the editors to emphasize relevant subsidiary themes.

The Anthropology ofArt: In the first section, two essays, by Firth and Gell follow a rather bland editors’ introduction. In his chapter, Firth, a revered elder statesman in the field, provides historical context for the volume and considers landmark contributions by anthro- pologists such as Claude LCvi-Strauss, Edmund Leach, and Roy Sieber. His main purpose is history but Firth nonetheless grapples with a question that plagues several of the authors (e.g., Coote, Morphy, Shelton): can non-Western’ artifacts be categorized as art when the cultures they come from lack any such concept?

What is not brought out by Firth or the others is that small-scale societies are not excep- tional for lacking a concept of art; Western culture is exceptional for having one. Nowhere is this point argued more persuasively than by aesthetic anthropologist Jacques Maquet, whose research, unfortunately, is touched on only in passing here.

In his seminal work of 19712 Maquet shows that art is an arbitrary Western construct and goes on to point out that there are two kinds, “art by destination,” objects intended by their makers to be used as art, and “art by metamorphosis,” objects made for some other pur- pose that Westerners reclassify as art. Non-Western artifacts are a stellar example of art by metamorphosis. My point is that had the term “art by metamorphosis” been introduced into these discussions it surely would have reduced the fruitless attempts of Firth and others to arrive at a definition based on qualitative judgments such as formal characteristic or context.

The essay by Gell is possibly the most provocative of the book. A unified theoretical approach has thus far eluded the anthropology of art, he argues, because anthropology has focused on function and meaning rather than specific qualities of objects themselves. Formu- lating a unified approach, he goes on to suggest, depends upon explicit consideration of the cultural specifics of these qualities. As a demonstration, Gell sets out a brilliant analysis of how the formal features of Trobriand canoe boards communicate themselves as magical to their intended audience.

Objects and Interpretations: The essays by Bowden and Kuchler are solid demonstra- tions of the work of art as social document, a paradigm that dominated anthropological re- search between the 1973 publication of Clifford Geertz’s Interpretation of Cultures3 and the onset4 of postmodernism. Oosten’s research on Inuit (Yup’ik and Inupiaq) masks, however, is disappointing. The self-admitted slant of this volume toward the cultures of Oceania is far less serious a flaw than including as the sole chapter on North America a study this old-fash- ioned. In an age when fieldwork is a given, this museum-based iconographical study is al- most a period piece. Moreover, Oosten makes frequent use of the ethnographic present, a practice long since abandoned by American anthropologists because of the false impression of backwardness it creates. It is regrettable that the editors did not seek out one of the several North American anthropologists (Fienup-Riordan’ comes immediately to mind) currently doing arctic research.

Traditions and Innovations: Coote and Shelton have rightly included articles that con- sider aesthetic productions made for commercial as well as local consumption. In North America, at any rate, it is risky to assume that any artifact made more than fifty years beyond the date of European contact was intended for indigenous purposes. Both Layton’s and Barnes’s essays show how creating art for outsiders can alter not only the formal features of the object but also its relation to a small-scale undergoing change.

One aspect of the commercial art system that is passed over here, however, is the role of

Page 3: Anthropology, art and aesthetics

248 BOOK REVIEWS

the Euroamerican collector in the native art system. Feedback (the process whereby con- sumer demand is relayed to producer) is extremely difficult to track cross-culturally, but is surely one of the most influential factors in any art system. Partly in response to postmodern reflexivity, the collector’s role is a research topic currently engaging many North American anthropologists.

Anthropology of Aesthetics: According to Coote and Shelton, the anthropology of aes- thetics (called ethnoaesthetics in North America) is based on explication of indigenous stan- dards of beauty (7). Thus the focus of the final section of this book is what Australian Aborigines (Morphy), Huichol Indians in Mexico (Shelton) and African cattle herders (Coote) consider beautiful, and how this is conveyed through visual and verbal communica- tion.

Coote’s article is especially satisfying. Here again, though, the research would have profited from a closer reading of Maquet. Coote rightly argues that the reason some cultures appear to lack aesthetic systems is because Western culture is so committed to objects that we often miss the myriad other categories in which aesthetic considerations are brought to bear. He illustrates his point with a model analysis of the aesthetic systems of the Dinka, Nuer, and other cattle herders of eastern Africa, whose primary aesthetic focus is the patterns created by the black, white or brown markings on their cattle. The concept of “aesthetic lo- cus,” the basis of Coote’s argument, was first proposed by Maquet in his 1971 article, yet in this analysis Coote uses the idea (245) and even the term (269) without specifically crediting Maquet. Nor does he mention numerous earlier users of this argument such as d’Azevedo6 or S~hefflein.~

To summarize, the main strength of this book is in the clear and concise case studies it presents. Postmodemists might consider its wholesale bracketing out of the investigator with all his or her many biases outmoded, but perhaps this omission is simply a difference be- tween anthropology on one side of the Atlantic or the other. Depending on the price of the forthcoming paper version, I certainly would consider using this book as a text for an upper division undergraduate class or a graduate seminar and would recommend several chapters (notably those by Gell, Kuchler, Barnes, and Coote) as good introductory reading for anyone curious about the anthropological study of art.

NOTES

1. Anthropologists no longer use the term “primitive art,” but no satisfactory substitute has achieved wide accep- tance either (in mock desperation, sociologist Dean MacCannell has suggested “ex-primitive art”). In cases where a collective term is necessary “non-Western art” probably is as generally accepted as any, although its drawbacks are immediately apparent to Asian art specialists. For the most part, “primitive art” has been replaced by the name of a group or groups or by reference to geographical location or country.

Jacques Maquet, Introduction to Aesthetic Anthropology (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 197 1). See also his The Aesthetic Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).

Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (NY Basic Books, 1973) The onset of postmodemism in the anthropological literature is more difficult to date. Certainly it reached ma-

turity with the publication of James Clifford’s Predicament of Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988). 5. Anne Fienup-Riordan, “Nick Charles, Sr.: Worker in Wood” (The Artist Behind the Work: Fairbanks, AK: Uni-

versity Museum, 1986) and “The Mask The Eye of the Dance” (Arctic Anthropology 24:40-55,1987). 6. Warren d’Azevedo, “A Structural Approach to Esthetics: Toward a Definition of Art in Anthropology,” Ameri-

can Anthropologist, 60:702-714, 1958. 7. Edward L. Schiefflen, The Sorrow of the Lonely and the Burning of the Dancers: NY St. Martin’s Press,

1976.

2.

3. 4.