1

Observational filmmaking as art education research

Nigel Meager

University of Cambridge

nrm32@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

It is possible to use film as a tool to document and illustrate subjects of art education

research. But, film is far more than a way of representation of social phenomena; it can be a

process through which those phenomena are explored (MacDougall, 2011). From within the

discipline of anthropology David MacDougall has pioneered contemporary techniques of

ethnographic observational filmmaking. I will discuss this in terms of a methodology

appropriate for art education research in school, not only because the nature of children’s

experience making art is partly visual, aesthetic and therefore non-verbal, but because the

scope of audio visual recording, editing and presentation is able to encompass the

ethnomethodological concern with the nuts and bolts which structure how experience works,

and, at the same time, reveal the ethnographer’s concern with illuminating subjective

experience of both the researcher and the research participants.

This paper introduces some of the broad features of MacDougall’s theoretical standpoint. I

set these alongside a reminder of the immediate radical empiricism of John Dewey in Art as

Experience (1934). To further explore the significance of MacDougall’s approach I critique

two papers which, in different ways, have explored filmmaking as arts-based research

method. Firstly Tom Barone’s 2003 paper, Challenging the Educational Imaginary: Issues of

Form, Substance, and Quality in Film-Based Research, which advocates a narrative based

documentary form of filmmaking and secondly, a more recent paper (Wood & Brown, 2012)

published in Qualitative Research Journal which surveys film based creative arts enquiry

before promoting the auteur approach to filmmaking. In this second paper filmmaking is a

medium through which, “qualitative researchers are characterised as creative artists who

bring their precise aesthetic choice to bear on an audience through a mix of technical

competence, distinguishable personality and interior meaning” (Wood & Brown, 2012). I

conclude by outlining how filmmaking as employed by MacDougall might be valuable as

arts-based research method appropriate for art education research and that this might

interpenetrate established text based methods of analysis and interpretation of children’s

experiences in school.

Key Words:

Filmmaking, film, MacDougall, anthropology, ethnography, arts-based, Barone

Introduction

The leading ethnographic filmmaker and academic, David MacDougall, begins his book, The

Corporeal Image (2006), by stating that he is concerned with the moment at which meanings:

[...] emerge from experience, before they become separated from physical encounters.

At that point thought is still undifferentiated and bound with matter and feeling in a

complex relation that it often later loses in abstraction. I am concerned with this

microsecond of discovery, of knowledge at the birth of knowledge (p. 1).

2

I suggest that this statement chimes powerfully with the effervescent, improvised,

undifferentiated moments of felt, perceived, aesthetic, thoughtful and meaningful experiences

which are characteristic of creating in the arts. One of my tasks, during the research journey I

am now embarked upon, is to explore how methods that MacDougall employs as an

observational filmmaker, in the broad field of anthropology, may usefully be applied to art

education research. In particular, how filmmaking is method in the exploration, description,

analysis and interpretation of children’s experience as they make art in school.

This paper introduces some of the broad features of MacDougall’s theoretical standpoint and

sets these in the context of two papers which, in different ways, have explored filmmaking as

an arts-based research method. Firstly, Tom Barone’s 2003 paper, Challenging the

Educational Imaginary: Issues of Form, Substance, and Quality in Film-Based Research and

secondly, a more recent paper (Wood & Brown, 2012) published in Qualitative Research

Journal which surveys film based creative arts enquiry before promoting the auteur approach

to filmmaking. In this second paper filmmaking is a medium through which, “qualitative

researchers are characterised as creative artists who bring their precise aesthetic choice to

bear on an audience through a mix of technical competence, distinguishable personality and

interior meaning” (Wood & Brown, 2012). I conclude by outlining how filmmaking might be

categorised as arts-based research method appropriate for art education research and that this

can interpenetrate and work with established text based methods of analysis and

interpretation of children’s experiences in school.

Background

In the 1930s, the anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901 – 1978) decided a camera would help

research. Film was an observational tool and part of the representation of research. Calas and

Mead (1953) argued that certain aspects of life, such as the intangibles of social life, simply

could not be represented in academic text. Mead had a view that the ideal camera could

simply be left running in a situation and life would be recorded running before it. She saw the

personality and technique of a camera operator as a danger to the objectivity and neutrality

demanded by science (Torresan, 2014). The camera should be a neutral tool. In contrast,

Gregory Bateson (1904 – 1980), at one time Mead’s husband, was a skilled camera operator

and argued that a camera was nothing without the person behind it (Rieber, 1989). The

person with the camera established relationships with those being filmed and made constant

decisions about where a camera was and where a camera would point as well as technical

decisions about aperture, lenses etcetera. This introduced authenticity as the researcher

reflexively acknowledged the camera was not objective in how it is used. The camera

demonstrated a point of view (Rieber, 1989). For Mead, that kind of reflexive, edited

ethnographic film was art and not science; this would not support the scientificity of

anthropology; Mead wanted film to illustrate a theory in a neutral and scientific way.

During the 1950s and 1960s, in contrast to Mead, the filmmaker and anthropologist, Jean

Rouch (1917 – 2004), originator of Cinéma Vérité, explored how a cinematic truth was

created through improvisation, collaboration and performance as, for example, people could

describe their own lives and memories stimulated and provoked by the presence of a film

camera. The camera becomes an instrument of exploration. This was opposed to the idea of a

camera recording an objective reality which was somehow already out there waiting to be

apprehended (Rothman, 1997). In collaboration with sociologist Edgar Morin (b. 1921),

Rouch also discovered that eliciting views of those he filmed, when they saw themselves in

the film, produced new knowledge about their lives. However, whereas Morin was interested

in what people thought, Rouch was fascinated by how people felt. At the end of one project

3

Rouch projects a film at a feedback session for all the participants. They discuss how

conversation and performance – acting out and acting up – can reveal realities, emotional

states triggered by memories, feelings and sensations.

The work of the filmmaker at the centre of this paper, David MacDougall, is rooted in this

substantial tradition. He has pioneered contemporary techniques of ethnographic

observational filmmaking. He uses only one camera, only going where invited, without

setting up any special circumstance, filming people at their own pace on their own terms,

keeping with the chronology of events, but not explicitly eliciting or provoking people to act

or speak (Torresan, 2014). MacDougall lets the movement and disclosure of information to

come from the participant as he follows with the camera. This is different from Rouch, who

was there, in your face, provoking and stimulating; MacDougall is showing, he unfolds

through the images a way of life, as each succession of images has a pace and sense of time

in tune with the filmed situation. This reveals minute details and atmospheres, so that the

viewer feels what it is to be there. The camera reveals knowledge rather than narrating or

explaining. This is evidenced by films such as: SchoolScapes (MacDougall, 2007), Arnav at

Six (MacDougall, 2012) and Under the Palace Wall, (MacDougall, 2014).

MacDougall and film

MacDougall (2006) builds on relationships between images, consciousness awareness, vision

and feeling. He argues that we assume “the things we see have the properties of being, but

our grasp of this depends upon extending our own feeling of being into our seeing” (p. 1).

This personalisation of others through ourselves complicates one vital aim of research which

is to understand and know about how others are in the world. This is because, MacDougall

argues, dealing with the meaning we find in what we see when we look at others is both

inevitable and an obstacle. For example, knowing the name of another person, suggests that

when we see them we may bring to bear some knowledge of them we already have. But,

MacDougall argues, this inevitable seeing-with-meaning may also distract us, even blind us,

to seeing clearly what else is before us in the situation we are in with that person, and in that

person. Sometimes, seeing with meaning makes it much harder to see something new. This

hinders a fundamental aim of research about others.

MacDougall is an anthropologist; he comes to a wealth of experience as an observational

filmmaker with a background of using images in an academic discipline. In academic text,

thoughts are organised, rationalised, and, as such, images in academic, largely text based

research disciplines, have been seen as an extension of that kind of rationalised thinking. For

example, Pink (2007) describes how visual research methods, rather than research into the

visual, have found a place in ethnographic practice within the social sciences. It is the

continual rationalisation of those visual methods as somehow ‘scientific’, and so how images

have a use as data, which visual researchers have focused upon. MacDougall (2006) suggests

that this tends to categorise images in research as evidence of a kind of visual language,

something which has the potential to be interpreted and explained through careful analysis.

But experience seems to be made up of much more than kinds of meaningful languages. For

example, experience as it is lived can be sensuous, emotional and perceptual in such an

immediate, effervescent way, that it appears ineffable. Certainly the experience of art can be

thought of in this way (Hickman, 2008). If research only treats images as simply another kind

of language, somehow only useful only if subordinated to words, MacDougall (2006) argues

we lose sight of the complex nature of thought itself. I would add we also lose sight of the

nature of experience in and through which the nature of thought is.

4

So, MacDougall’s endeavour, as a filmmaker within the academic discipline of anthropology,

is to bring to bear images in filmic representation of the “material presence, as thinking

being” of children and adults as they are in their lived experience (2006, p. 2). MacDougall

states that “the encounter with visual images demands more of us than the mental facility that

language has given us [...] in considering the use of images, it is no good simply insisting that

we must do a better job of adapting them to scholarly writing. This will only lead to bad

compromises. If we are to gain new knowledge from using images, it will come in other

forms and by different means” (2006, p. 2).

It is tempting to demote the value of photographic image making as a rather second hand

stand-in of actually seeing. Perhaps, in this line of thinking, cameras only make mechanical

imprints of what is before them. But an observational camera operated by a person is also

animal in origin (MacDougall, 2006). It looks at, adjusts its point of view, shifts attention and

decides on what to focus on with the perceptual and conceptual mind of the person the

animal that operates it. The artefacts, the images that are made, might embody thoughts,

feelings and perceptions not only of the subjects portrayed but also the maker of those

images. These, as MacDougall (2006) suggests are corporeal images and are inherently

reflexive. They are: “not just the images of other bodies, they are also images of the body

behind the camera and its relations with the world” (p. 3).

But completed images are separated from us and have independence; they are deliberately

made to be about something. This implies that decisions have been made about what is

recorded and then shown and how that process has been undertaken. What was seen through

the camera has been framed and organised and who views that may also frame and organise

what and how those images are seen. In other words, however corporeal filmed images may

be, they must also, especially when produced for viewing, be conceptual.

In both making and viewing films “we are constantly advancing our own ideas about a world

seen in the image whose existence owes nothing to us” (MacDougall, 2006, p. 4). The

danger, then, is that meaning can overwhelm being. MacDougall’s challenge to filmmakers is

to create structures “in which being is allowed to live, not only in isolated glimpses but in

moments of revelation through the whole work” (2006, p. 5). MacDougall’s aesthetic sense

of interaction with the context, wholeness and revelation suggests there might be resonances

between his conceptual framing of his ethnographic filmmaking and John Dewey’s Art as

Experience (1934); it is perhaps surprising that MacDougall does not make reference to the

radical empiricist pragmatism of the American philosopher. For example, Dewey claims that

experience, including aesthetic experience, forms in interaction with the environment in

which “environing objects avail and countervail” as there is a constant drive to fulfil needs,

be these emotional, psychological or physical (p.14). The “contrast of lack and fullness, of

struggle and achievement, of adjustment after consummated irregularity, form the drama in

which action, feeling and meaning are one” (p 14). This has a naturalistic flavour which

Dewey confirms with animal metaphors which draw out the instinctive nature of drives to

consummate needs.

Chapter 3 of Art as Experience is considered the most famous of Dewey’s writing on

aesthetics (Leddy, 2013). Here, Dewey solidifies his rejection of dualism and idealism. In an

experience (note that Dewey italicises ‘an’) every part of that experience melds into an

enduring whole which maintains a simplified identity. For example, a quarrel with a friend

or a memorable meal in Paris become clearly identifiable as unitary events even as they are

forged from complex interlaced experiences at the time. In this way “the unity of an

experience, which is neither exclusively emotional, practical, nor intellectual, is determined

5

by a singular pervasive quality” (Leddy, 2013, p.10). The connections, interactions,

interpenetrations of feeling, action and idea are melded. Dewey suggests emotion is a

cementing force which unifies the flux of experiences into an aesthetic experience. Aesthetic

quality rounds out experience into a sense of completeness. This is how complex layers of

experience become synthesised as a unitary work of art.

In making art, artists build a coherent artistic experience as they work by ‘doing’, that is

acting, and ‘undergoing’, that is experiencing, as they continuously shape and reshape

physical, mental and emotional experiences until they feel unified and complete. Artists seek

“qualitative unity” (Dewey, 1934, p.43) as they bind the assembly of experiences into one.

This demands an intelligence of thinking effectively in terms of relations of qualities. Dewey

(1934) rates this form of thought as demanding and highly productive. Provocatively he states

that art requires more intelligence than the so called thinking which “goes on among those

who pride themselves as intellectuals” (p. 47).

I suggest that Dewey and MacDougall are both writing about the texture the friction

between experience as lived and the objectification of that experience as image or idea. This

paradoxically must include the texture of that image or idea as lived! They both seek a

resolution of these qualitative relations in art. This is not easy as the rationally implied

image/idea hinders the direct form of knowledge gained through experience as lived. Yet

MacDougall’s films are showing that “appearance is [sic] knowledge of a kind [...] showing

becomes a way of saying the unsayable” (2006, p. 5). This is a challenge to a categorisation

of research methods that directly address the senses as merely “adjuncts to formulating

knowledge at a higher level of abstraction” (MacDougall, 2006, p. 6). In contrast,

MacDougall’s filmic sequences and their assemblage into a final film seem to me to echo the

significance and power of Dewey’s phrase “qualitative unity” (1934, p.43) as they bind an

assembly of experiences into one. I believe that the example of MacDougall is widening a

possibility that education research can benefit from the ethnographic, observational

filmmaking tradition in which he is placed. Education research can embrace the ineffable.

This is a broad open pathway forwards.

Tom Barone on film-based research

To contextualise MacDougall’s approach to filmmaking, I will now present, as a contrast,

Tom Barone’s argument for film-based educational research projects in his paper,

Challenging the Educational Imaginary: Issues of Form, Substance, and Quality in Film-

based Research, published in Qualitative Inquiry in 2003. Barone’s (2003) paper is an

example of an established view of how the creation of images through film might be useful in

arts-based research. His goal is to challenge the prevailing images of schools and school

people which, he argues “is composed of a cluster of negative stereotypes of public schools,

teachers, and students, images that tend to caricature rather than to enlighten” (p. 202). This

approach is founded in the idea that images convey meaning which are ‘read’ by the intended

audience, composed by the filmmaker/researcher and delivered through the form of a

particular medium – in this case film. Barone’s paper expresses an overtly political aim

which is to challenge “a master narrative, a grand, total, smooth, meta-story designed to give

final meaning to cultural (here, educational) phenomena” (p. 203). Barone argues that this

narrative produces damaging, debilitating, stereotypical outcomes. As a precedent, he cites

Satre (1905 – 1980), who argued that socially committed literature is a means of challenging

established interests within society.

6

Barone’s view is that film is an alternative form of discursive narrative based in images rather

than more theoretical, argumentative forms of text based discourse. This reaches a wider

audience but requires “a kind of artistry to enable this potential audience to imagine things

otherwise” (p. 207). So Barone sees the value of film in research as a form of artistic

documentary narrative. Film, for Barone, is medium for ideas which “augment the work of

counterhegemonic forms of linear, verbal, argumentative discourse” (p. 208).

Barone (2003) cogently discusses the tensions between socially scientific research paradigms

and arts-based inquiries. This draws out that filmmaking in research is often viewed as

merely a documentation or demonstration of intellectual work which precedes, justifies and

exists apart from it. But this may deny the “uniqueness of a single, historically situated, non-

repeatable case” (p. 210). If filmmaking as research is simply subordinated to academic text

as a form of illustration (even if a rich and complex), then the power of the medium itself to

reveal and create meaning and therefore knowledge is denigrated. The problem is that artists

may argue that this ‘meaning’ is embodied in affectual, perceptual, aesthetic and therefore

ineffable experience. This seems to conflict with criteria for knowledge demanded by social

scientists.

The reason why I wish to contrast Barone’s (2003) paper with MacDougall’s approach to

filmmaking as research, is that Barone sees film as a form of documentary image whose

meaning is formed through techniques such as plot and characterisation which “serve a

significant theme” (p. 215). This palaces the role of filmic images in education research as

delivering narratives which have political and social purposes. There is nothing wrong with

this, of course. But it is a way of seeing films as a kind of language, albeit a visual language,

whose meanings have potential to be analysed and interpreted in a way that forms argument.

In other words this is another form of meaningful discourse. MacDougall’s films cannot be

easily framed as discourse because they deny narrative in favour of experience. I suggest it is

the nature of the embodiment of knowledge in that experience, revealed through film, which

is of profound interest to research. This is a distinctive quality which is differentiated from

film as a form of argument.

Wood and Brown and sensuous methodologies

In contrast to Tom Barone’s 2003 paper, Wood and Brown (2012) take a radically empiricist

rather than literary view of film in qualitative research. They provide a useful review of

academic literature about art, science and documentary film. They echo, via reference to

writers such as Barthus (1977) and Sonag (1977), MacDougall’s more nuanced idea that

using a camera is necessarily a subjective participation and intervention in the world, even if

cameras are also dispassionate recording mechanisms which can capture data for science.

They also review what they term the development of sensuous methodologies. They argue

that this comparatively recent turn has gone farthest in film and that this trend is part of an

interest in affect in cultural investigation and the creative arts (Barone and Eisner 2012).

However, Wood and Brown (2012) do not cite the developments in anthropology which are

not only exemplified by the prominence of filmmakers such as David MacDougall but also

by projects such as the Harvard Visual Sensory Lab within the Anthropology Department at

Harvard University. However, despite this omission which might have changed their

argument around, Wood and Brown (2012) suggest that our aesthetic engagement through

film is sidelined in research by theorising which tends to imply that affectual forms of

knowledge, possible through film, are secondary to analytical forms. Their paper does not

engage directly with this issue, but is itself analytical and inevitably text-based as it

constructs a framework to examine the interconnectedness of “filmmaking as a mode of

7

aesthetic engagement and the system of domination that shapes the parameters of qualitative

research” (2012, p. 132).

However, Wood and Brown (2012) suggest a number of theoretical features of filmmaking as

method in qualitative research which resonate with the trust of my message in this paper. For

example, although they do not develop this idea in their paper, they indicate that radical

empiricism, via the writings of John Dewey’s predecessor William James (1842 – 1910),

might be a conceptual framework which may be helpful in “a rolling of subjective and

objective elements into a kind of immanent relation connecting what we can perceive with

what we feel by genuinely being in the world [...] rather than an indirect representation

(logic) that can reflect or determine an external object, our perception is now a direct sense-

feeling” (p. 135). To augment this idea, Wood and Brown (2012) go on to cite the relational

radical empiricism of Gilles Deleuze (1925 – 1995) evident in his two books about cinema

which suggest cinematic visual images are “both directly constituting and participating in the

world and simultaneously undoing our indirect phenomenological representation” (p.135).

I will not describe the detail of Wood and Brown’s experiment in a radically empiricist

qualitative methodology via their own film Lines of Flight (2009) here. This is documented at

length in their paper. But I will draw out the framework they construct to aid the analysis of

their methodological process. They use three elements of auteur theory as premises or criteria

of judgement to distinguish relative qualities of admired film directors. These were originally

put forward by Andrew Sarris (1962) as: technical competence which is a capability to give

experience a “fresh nuance in the presence of a spectacle that really is lived in” (Wood &

Brown, p. 136); distinguishable personality of a film which is visible in “the assemblage of

things that have been put together in new and unexpected ways” (p. 136); and interior

meaning through which filmmakers “move away from customary or ‘official languages’

(Deleuze and Guattari, 1983) used in social science research world around us” (Wood &

Brown, p. 136).

It must be noted that, just as Barone does, Wood and Brown identify their objectives as

political. Through auteur theory, admired film directors could be argued to be forming new

languages in the face of the restrictions of established systems; in a similar way Wood and

Brown are suggesting that as academics employing creative arts forms of enquiry, they are

fighting against the shoehorning of “work into a style favoured and thus legitimatised by key

scholarly journals” (p. 136). So, write Wood and Brown (2012), citing numbers of others,

that “despite this modest interest in artistic forms of output, it is the official language of

science that remains deeply entrenched in the minds and professional practices of many

qualitative researchers and editors of key scholarly journals” (p. 137).

MacDougall’s work sits comfortably within anthropology and bears none of these doubts or

contradictions. His films are not shoehorned into a particular style, neither is his writing

resplendent with the ‘official language of science’, riddled with academic citations or styled

so as to form part of some kind of ‘official language’. Does that mean that MacDougall’s

anthropology is not rigorous, valid or reliable? Of course not. Qualitative arts-based

researchers and enquirers who wish to open pathways to knowledge about others via artistic

methodologies should look to the long and venerable tradition of filmmaking in anthropology

and in particular to MacDougall’s work. They might also consider the most recent

manifestations of this tradition in institutions such as Harvard. There is no need for the

anxiousness so apparent in papers such as that of Wood and Brown (2012) which see

themselves, despite themselves, as needing the affirmation of the social sciences.

8

However, Wood and Brown (2012) suggest that a conceptual underpinning for filmmaking as

research might be founded in the radical empiricist traditions of thinkers such as William

James and Gilles Deleuze. They also, usefully, argue that “the contribution of film itself as a

mode of thinking lies precisely in the extent that it can be used to evoke, elicit and engage

viewers in affective dynamisms that comprise physical phenomena and sensuous

perceptions” (p. 145). However, this, as MacDougall would remind us, is only part of the

story. Using a camera produces corporeal images which form a conceptual connective tissue

between the present actualities in the situation filmed, the filmmaker who was there, the

editor who assembles sequences of images as film, and the viewer who’s affective, perceptual

and aesthetic sensations are engaged.

Conclusion

I have introduced an approach corporeal image making in anthropology through filmmaking

as exemplified by the work of David MacDougall. This requires the filmmaker to give

him/herself up unconditionally to what is seen and abandon the protection of conceptual

thought (MacDougall, 2006). I suggest that this entails a synthesis of affect, intellect,

perception and aesthetics which finds resonance with the immediate radical empiricism that

Dewey articulates in Art as Experience (1934). Late twentieth century intellectual traditions

established by thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze also embrace a similarly radically empiricist

view (Rorty, 1982).

To draw out MacDougall’s conceptualisation of his filmmaking, I have juxtaposed this with

two contrasting approaches in arts-based research methodologies. The first is Tom Barone’s

(2003) argument for the narrative base of documentary filmmaking as research. This has a

powerful political value but images produced form narrative discourses; in other words they

become texts. The second considers Wood and Brown’s (2012) paper which agonises about

how their qualitative research via filmmaking is aligned to the arts and in conflict with

accepted discourse in the social sciences. Wood and Brown are open to the affectual,

perceptual qualities of arts practice as research and also suggest a conceptualisation of their

methodology through radical empiricism might underpin this approach. Their analytic

academic text lacks the sophistication of MacDougall’s directness and, despite itself, retreats

into contortions as it orientates itself in relation to qualitative research within the social

sciences.

My purpose here is to open out the potential of MacDougall’s approach to research and to

suggest that this is not only confidently positioned within an academic context where

filmmaking has the benefit of many decades of tradition but is also highly relevant in both its

conceptualisation and practice to arts-based research in education. I believe education

research in general has much to learn from contemporary approaches to media based

ethnography. If this momentum has a tendency to locate itself within the arts and humanities,

rather than the social sciences, that may be all for the better. However, those labels fall away

if the rigour, validity and reliability of the knowledge created is secure, whatever form that

knowledge takes.

Finally, my own research is unfolding as I explore filmmaking as method to explore,

describe, analyse and interpret children’s experience as they make art in school. I remain

open to film as a research tool, film as a research outcome in its own right and film as a

source of data. I see no reason why each of these cannot interpenetrate one another to yield a

vibrantly and richly layered understanding of what happens when children make art. If that is

possible, arguments for its value in education will be easier to make.

9

References

Barone, T. (2003). Challenging the educational imaginary: Issues of form, substance, and

quality in film-based research. In Qualitative Inquiry. 9: 202 – 217.

Barone, T., & Eisner, E. (2012). Arts based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image Music Text, Fontana, London

Calas, N. & Mead, M. (Eds.). (1953). Primitive Heritage: An Anthropological Anthology.

London: Random House.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1983). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia 2.

London: Athene Press.

Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. New York: Penguin (The paperback edition used in this

paper was printed in 2005 under the Perigee imprint).

Hickman, R. (2008). (Ed.). Research in Art Education: issues and exemplars. Bristol: Intellect

Leddy, T. (2013). Dewey's Aesthetics. In E. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/dewey-

aesthetics/

MacDougall, D. (2006). The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

MacDougall, D. (Director & Producer). (2007). SchoolScapes. (DVD). Australia: Australian

National University.

MacDougall, D. (2011). Anthropological Filmmaking: An Empirical Art. In E. Margolis & L.

Pauwels (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook Visual Research Methods (pp. 99 – 114). London:

Sage.

MacDougall, D. (Director & Producer). (2012). Arnov at Six. (DVD). UK: Royal

Anthropological Institute.

MacDougall, D. (Director & Producer). (2014). Under The Palace Wall. (DVD). UK: Royal

Anthropological Institute.

Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.

Rieber, R. (Ed.). (1989). The Individual, communication, and society: essays in memory of

Gregory Bateson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothman, W. (1997). Documentary Film Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarris, A. (1963) The auteur theory and perils of Pauline. In Film Quarterly. 28:1 60 – 63.

Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography. London: Penguin.

10

Torresan, A. (2014) Using Film in Ethnographic Research. Retrieved from:

http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/methods/ethnographic-film/

Wood, M., & Brown, S. (Director & Producer). (2009). Lines of Flight. (DVD). UK: Durham

University

Wood, M. & Brown, S. (2012). Film-based creative arts enquiry: qualitative researchers as

auteurs. In Qualitative Research Journal. 12:1 130 – 137.