Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the relationship between photography and anthropology in the age of digital ethnographies and anthropologies of the future. It focuses on the phenomenological bond between the picture-taking process and the politics of visual representations by looking at an object that has shaped the discipline since its very origins. Based on a series of visual encounters in a French banlieue, I describe to what extent good pictures are relative, incomplete, uncertain, sometimes inconsistent, and contain contradictory objects interacting with existing cultural and photographic conventions. I argue that good pictures are experienced pictures that go beyond the realm of a photograph. To this end, I consider the material and experiential connections between photography, sound, and text. Finally, I discuss how anthropologists’ pictorial choices redefine the material and experiential ties to photographic materials. From a critical standpoint, a good picture might challenge the politics of visual representation of the imaged subject through both a photographic and ethnographic engagement. RÉSUMÉ Cet article explore la relation entre la photographie et l’anthropologie à l’ère des ethnographies numériques et des anthropologies du futur. Il examine le lien entre le processus de prise de vue et la politique des représentations visuelles en s’intéressant à un objet qui a façonné la discipline depuis ses origines. Suivant une série de rencontres dans une banlieue française, je décrirai dans quelle mesure les bonnes images peuvent être des objets incomplets, relatifs, incertains, parfois incohérents et contradictoires qui interagissent avec des conventions culturelles et photographiques existantes dans le milieu étudié. J’affirme que les bonnes images sont des images « expérimentées ». J’analyse en quoi les choix plastiques des anthropologues redéfinissent les liens matériels et expérientiels avec les matériaux photographiques issus de l’enquête de terrain. D’un point de vue critique, une bonne photo peut remettre en question la politique de représentation visuelle du sujet imagé, par un double engagement à la fois photographique et ethnographique. RESUMEN Este artículo explora la relación entre la fotografía y la antropología en la era de etnografías digitales y antropologías del futuro. El texto analiza el vínculo fenomenológico entre el proceso de realización fotográfica y la política de representación visual mediante el estudio de un objeto que ha forjado la disciplina desde sus orígenes. A partir de una serie de encuentros visuales en un suburbio francés, describiré hasta qué punto las buenas imágenes son objetos relativos, incompletos, inciertos, a veces incoherentes y contradictorios que interactúan con convenciones culturales y fotográficas existentes. Las buenas imágenes son imágenes “experimentadas” que van más allá de la fotografía. Para ello, considero las conexiones materiales y experienciales entre la fotografía, el sonido y el texto. Des ésta manera analizo cómo las decisiones plásticas de los antropólogos redefinen los vínculos materiales y experienciales con los materiales fotográficos. Desde un punto de vista crítico, una buena imagen puede desafiar la política de representación visual del sujeto representado a través de un compromiso tanto fotográfico como etnográfico.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".