The ontology of the dot
Barra lateral de artigos
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Along with the technics that allows archaeology to adopt a precise knowledge about the composition of the materiality, also exists a critical thought that claims for take into account experience, perception and creativity. In the latter, we find Art-Archaeology approach. With this at background emerged the idea of the presence and the ontology of the ‘dot’ in archaeology, identified in the ongoing process of the attendance of a meeting at Kyoto, in the excavation of a simulated site, in the survey of an unidentified site and in a short research about Prehistoric tattoo. This idea, in its explicit simplicity, is part of a creative thought situated in the roots of the archaeological practice. In this paper I reflect about this through an artistic photo-essay that is at the same time an artistic and theoretical exercise, with the intention to identify the existence of the ‘dot’ in different dimensions of archaeology, and to make theory making art.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.displayStats.downloads##
Detalhes do artigo
Responsabilidade dos autores:
São responsáveis pelas ideias e dados recopilados nos manuscritos, pela fidelidade da informação, pela correção das citações, pelos direitos para publicar qualquer material incluído no texto pela apresentação do manuscrito no formato requerido pela Revista (arquivo web). Um manuscrito enviado a CHAKIÑAN não deve estar publicado com anterioridade, nem mesmo haver sido apresentado da mesma forma a outro meio de publicação.
Direitos do Autor:
Os artigos publicados não comprometem necessariamente o ponto de vista da REVISTA CHAKIÑAN. A revista se alinha a política da licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No comercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0). Cada autor conserva o direito sobre o artigo pulicado na Chakiñan.
Declaração de privacidade
Os dados pessoais e endereços de e-mail inseridos nesta revista serão usados exclusivamente para os fins declarados na publicação e não estarão disponíveis para nenhum outro objetivo ou pessoa
Como Citar
##plugins.generic.shariff.share##
Referências
- Bergson, H. (1963). La evolución creadora. In H. Bergson. Obras Escogidas. Madrid, España: Aguilar.
- Castañeda, Q. & Matthews, C. (2008). Ethnographic archaeologies: reflections on stakehold-ers and archaeological practices. Walnut Creek, United Estates: Unidos: Altamira.
- Cochrane, A. & Russell, I. (eds.). (2013). Art and archaeology: collaborations, conversations, criticisms. New York, United Estate: Springer.
- Clifford, J. (1988). On ethnographic surrealism. In J. Clifford (ed.). The predicament of cul-ture. Cambridge, United Estate: Harvard University Press.
- Edgeworth, M. (2010). On the boundary: new perspectives from ethnography of archaeology. In D. Garrow & T. Yarrow (eds.). Archaeology and Anthropology. Oxford, England: Ox-ford Books.
- Edgeworth, M. (2006). Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, materi-al transformations. Walnut Creek, United Estates: Altamira.
- Edgeworth, M. (2003). Acts of discovery: An ethnography of archaeological practice (Vol. 1131). Oxford, England: British Archaeological Reports.
- Fernández, V. (2006). Una Arqueología Crítica: ciencia, ética y política en la construcción del Pasado. Madrid, España: Crítica.
- González-Ruibal, A. (2012). Hacia otra Arqueología: diez propuestas. Complutum, 23(2), 103-116.
- Hamilakis, Y. (2014). Archaeology and the senses: human experience, memory, and affect. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Hamilakis, Y. & Ifantidis, F. (2016). Camera Kalaureia: An Archaeological Photo-Ethnography. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.
- Hamilakis, Y. & Anagnostopoulos, A. (2009). What is archaeological ethnography? Public ar-chaeology, 8(2-3), 65-87.
- Hamilakis, Y., Anagnostopoulos, A., & Ifantidis, F. (2009). Postcards from the edge of time: archaeology, photography, archaeological ethnography (a photo-essay). Public Archaeology, 8(2-3), 283-309.
- Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M., and Tarlow, S. (2001). Academic performances, artistic presen-tations. Assemblage, (6), 7-21.
- Heider, K. (1988). The Rashômon effect: When ethnographers disagree. American Anthropol-ogist, 90(1), 73-81.
- Ingold, T. (2001). Anthropological perspectives on technology. In T. Ingold. Beyond art and technology: the anthropology of skill. Albuquerque, México: University of New México Press.
- Ingold, T. (2008). When ANT meets SPIDER: Social theory for arthropods. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (eds.). Material Agency. Boston, United Estate: Springer.
- Ingold, T. (2013). Making Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London, England: Routledge.
- Ingold, T. & Hallam, E. (2007). Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. An Introduction. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (eds.). Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. Oxford, England: Berg.
- Jay, M. (1993). Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. California, United Estate: University of California Press.
- Mármol, J. (2016). Proyecto Arqueológico Monte Miravete: Foto-etnografía arqueológica #1. Un estudio visual y sensorial del trabajo de campo de la campaña de prospección arqueológica de 2016 (Unpublished book). Monte Miravete Project, Murcia, España.
- Mármol, J. (2017). Dropping the trowel: three narratives and one creative archaeology. AP Journa, (6), 75-116.
- Moreno, W. (2013) Fotoetnografía educativa: una ruta para comprender la cultura corporal escolarizada. Revista Iberoamericana de educación, (62), 119-141.
- Simonetti, C. (2013). En presencia de lo ausente. Rastreando materiales en movimiento. Pape-les de Trabajo, 7(11), 40-61.
- Simonetti, C. (2015). The stratification of time. Time & Society, 24(2), 139-162.
- Layton, R. (2003). Art and agency: a reassessment. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insti-tute, 9(3), 447-464.
- Shanks, M. (2004). Three rooms: Archaeology and performance. Journal of Social Archaeolo-gy, 4(2), 147-180.
- Shanks, M. (2012). The Archaeological Imagination. Walnut Creek, United Estate: Left Coast Press.
- Shanks, M. & Pearson, M. (2001). Theatre/archaeology: Reflections on a hybrid genre. Lon-don, England: Routledge.
- Shanks, M. & Zvabo, C. (2013). Archaeology and photography: A pragmatology. In A. González-Ruibal (ed.). Reclaiming Archaeology. Beyond the tropes of Modernity (pp. 89-102). London, England: Routledge.
- Schneider, A. (2017). Alternative Art and Anthropology: Global Encounters. London, England: Bloomsbury.
- Renfrew, C. (2003). Figuring it out. Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? London, England: Thames & Hudson.
- Ruiz, G. (2014). Fotografía y Arqueología: ventanas al pasado con cristales traslúcidos. In E. Baquedano (ed). Jose Latova. 40 años de Fotografía arqueológica española. Madrid, Es-paña: Comunidad de Madrid.
- Tilley, C., Hamilton, S. & Bender, B. (2000). Art and the RePresentation of the Past. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6(1), 35-62.
- Valdez-Tullet, J. & Chittock, H. (2016). Archaeology with Art. Oxford, England: Archaeo-press.
- Van Dyke, R. (2006). Seeing the past: Visual media in Archaeology. American Anthropologist, 108(2), 370-375.
- Weebmor, T. (2005). Teotihuacán, Mexico. Mediating Monumentality: An Experiment. Recov-ered from http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/teotihuacan
- Witmore, C. (2004). Four archaeological engagements with place mediating bodily experience through peripatetic video. Visual anthropology review, 20(2), 57-72.
- Witmore, C. (2006). Vision, Media, Noise and the Percolation of Time Symmetrical Approaches to the Mediation of the Material World. Journal of material culture, 11(3), 267-292.