Antinomies of representation

David ZEITLYN
2014 HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory  
This article addresses a profound anthropological issue: how do representation and the represented relate? What motivates or warrants the inevitable disconnection? It is a mistake to dismiss representation as misguided, oppressive, or misleading. Representation is part of cognition generally and natural language in particular. As such it is inescapable and part of how we think and talk about the world. Moving between visual and linguistic anthropology I suggest that photographs and portraits
more » ... hs and portraits provide a rich basis for thinking about the particular sorts of warrants for anthropological representations. The general conclusion is that anthropological representation may be conceived of as a form of ekphrasis (a verbal account or evocation of a typically non-present image or object) providing the indexical or deictic bridge between representation and the object represented. As "similarity implies difference" so "representation implies ekphrasis. " Description is revelation. It is not The thing described, nor false facsimile It is an artificial thing that exists, In its own seeming, plainly visible, Yet not too closely the double of our lives, Intenser than any actual life could be.
doi:10.14318/hau4.3.022 fatcat:sgbudi7r6rhxxpzrhi26rvjnme