Full text loading...
Abstract
In the past decade, anthropologists have taken up drawing—more specifically, comics and graphic narratives—as an object of study, a mode of inquiry, a pedagogical tool, and a medium through which to share anthropological ideas. This review examines the graphic turn in anthropology. As part of a wider turn to multimodal and nontraditional modes of research and scholarship, anthropologists are both using drawing practices in their field research and publishing their research in long-form graphic narratives. This review contextualizes the graphic turn in relation to the deeper history of visual anthropology and the wider field of comics, including graphic memoir and graphic journalism. Drawing on comics theory and anthropological insights, we explore the unique assets of drawing, broadly, and sequential graphic narratives, more specifically, to anthropological research and publication. We approach comics as a way of thinking and making that is dynamic, open-ended, collaborative, and embodied. In exploring the affordances of the comics medium to anthropology, we also explore what anthropology can offer the medium of comics.
Facts Only
* Anthropologists have studied drawing, comics, and graphic narratives in the past decade.
* Drawing is used as an object of study, a mode of inquiry, a pedagogical tool, and a medium for sharing anthropological ideas.
* Anthropologists are using drawing practices in field research.
* Anthropologists are publishing research in long-form graphic narratives.
* The review contextualizes the graphic turn relative to visual anthropology history and comics studies.
* The review explores the assets of drawing and sequential graphic narratives for anthropological research and publication.
* Comics are approached as a dynamic, open-ended, collaborative, and embodied way of thinking and making.
* The review also explores what anthropology can offer the medium of comics.
Executive Summary
Full Take
Sentinel — Human
This text exhibits the high coherence and specific, focused vocabulary expected of an academic review written by a domain expert, showing no immediate signs of automated generation or coordination.
