Exhibition as a visual tool for the anthropological interpretation of social interactions in urban space

Today, various visual tools are increasingly used not only to document information or illustrate academic texts in the social sciences and humanities, but also as independent forms of presenting research findings — making them more accessible and engaging for a broader audience. One such form of visualization is the exhibition. This paper analyzes several exhibitions created by Gonzo: Research&Art Studio (Saint Petersburg). Addressing themes such as spiritual practices and religious experience, family memory, intercultural dialogue, relationships with the Other, and life in closed mental health institutions, the team deliberately transcends the boundaries of traditional exhibition spaces by moving into the urban environment. By placing exhibitions in unexpected locations such as shopping malls or city markets, they aim to make the invisible visible, give voice to those typically silenced, and build bridges between worlds that rarely intersect in everyday life. In a conversation with Gonzo co-founder Ksenia Diodorova, we explored a wide range of topics, including the emergence of the exhibition concept itself, field research design and the interpretation of collected material, the artistic embodiment of these interpretations, and interactions with visitors and their feedback. This case study offers an opportunity to examine the exhibition as a distinct medium of anthropological knowledge — situated at the intersection of visual and urban anthropology, art and science, multicultural studies, the social turn in art, and participatory aesthetics. The main conclusion highlights the heuristic and humanistic potential of the exhibition format in addressing complex and often contentious aspects of social interaction, and its promise as a medium for synthesizing scientific and artistic approaches to knowledge production. 

1. Aleksandrov, E. V. (2007). Instead of a review. In search of a subject of visual anthropology. Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 2007(7), 9–20. (In Russian).

2. Aleksandrov, E. V. (2015). Transiting from perception to document (functional and genetic structure of visual anthropology medium). ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 2(4), 55–68. (In Russian).

3. Bauman, Z. (2008). Liquid modernity. Saint Petersburg: Piter. (In Russian).

4. Bishop, C. (2018). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Moscow: V-A-C press. (In Russian).

5. Brubaker, R. (2012). Ethnicity without groups. Moscow: Izdatel’skij dom Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki. (In Russian).

6. Burawoy, M. (2008). For public sociology. In P. V. Romanov, E. R. Yarskaia-Smirnova (Eds.). Social Policy in Modern Russia: Reforms and Everyday Life, 8–51, Moscow: Сentr social’noj politiki i gendernyh issledovanij, Variant. (In Russian).

7. Calogirou, С. (2005). Recherche anthropologique et musée de société. In E. RudeAntoine, J. Zaganiaris (Eds.). Croisée des champs disciplinaires et recherche en sciences sociales (Crossroads of disciplinary fields and research in social sciences), 149–162. Paris: PUF. (In French).

8. Davallon, J. (1989). Peut-on parler d’une langue de l’exposition scientifique? In B. Schiele (Ed.). Faire voir, faire savoir. La muséologie scientifique au présent (To show, to let know. Scientific museology in the present), 47–59. Québec: Musée de la Civilisation. (In French).

9. Davallon, J. (1992). Le musée est-il vraiment un média? Public & musées, 1992(2), 99–124. (In French).

10. Elkins, J. (2010). Six ways to make visual studies more difficult. In J. Elkins. Exploring the visual world. Vil’nius: Evropeiskii gumanitarnyi universitet. (In Russian).

11. Foster, Н. (2011). Towards a grammar of emergency. Moscow Art Magazine, 2011(82). Retrieved from https://moscowartmagazine.com/issue/15/article/209. (In Russian).

12. Golovnev, A. V. About film anthropology. Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 2007(7), 21–32. (In Russian).

13. Gornykh, A. A. (2007). Visual anthropology: seeing yourself as different. Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 2007(7), 32–52. (In Russian).

14. Yakovleva, L. Yu. (2019). The atmosphere of architectural and urban spaces in the aesthetics of Gernot Böhme. Terra Aestheticae, 1(3), 43–66. (In Russian).

15. Krikhtova, T. M. (2024). The seen and unseen: Visitors of the “Rescue Hangar”. Urban Folklore & Anthropology, VI(4), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.22394/2658-3895-2024-6-4-8-25. (In Russian).

16. Kupiainen, J. (2007). Visual anthropology. Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 2007(7), 64–68. (In Russian).

17. Low, S. (2024). Spatializing culture: The ethnography of space and place. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Russian).

18. Macdougall, D. (2004). Visual anthropology and the ways of knowing. Journal des anthropologues, 2004(98–99), 279–333. Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/jda/1751. https://doi.org/10.4000/jda.1751 (In French).

19. Matvienko, K. N. (2024). Theatre itself or the theatre for the audience: The problem of taking part in the participatory performance. Theatre. Fine Arts. Cinema. Music, 2024(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.35852/2588-0144-2024-2-87-105. (In Russian).

20. Omel’chenko, D. A., Poliakov, S. I. (2017). Researcher with a camera in the space of media publicity: fieldwork experience. Interaction. Interview. Interpretation. 9(13), 73–81. (In Russian).

21. Pankov, I. A., Abashin, S. N., Knysh, A. D. (Eds.). (2022). Suffisim after USSR. Moscow–Saint Petersburg: Mardzhani, Al’-Makam. (In Russian).

22. Pink, S. (2007). Visual anthropology in XXIst century. Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 2007(7), 68–78. (In Russian).

23. Riff, D. (2015). Toward participatory aesthetics. An interview with Claire Bishop. In R. Martin (Ed.). The Routledge Companion to Art and Politics, 258–265. London: Routledge.

24. Romanov, P. V., Yarskaia-Smirnova, E. R. (2007). Visual anthropology. Forum for Anthropology and Culture, 2007(7), 85–89. (In Russian).

25. Ruby, J. (1989). The teaching of visual anthropology. In P. Chiozzi (Ed.). Teaching of Visual Anthropology. Firenze: II sedicesimo, 9–18.

26. Russel, C. (1999). Experimental ethnography: The work of film in the age of video. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

27. Schmitz, H. (2023). Atmospheres. Milan: Mimesis International.

28. Shchedrovitskii, P. G. (2005). Philosophy of development and the problem of the city. In P. G. Shchedrovitskii, V. L. Avksent’ev, O. B. Alekseev et al. Formula of developpement, 28–42. Moscow: Arkhitektura. (In Russian).

29. Sennett, R. (1994). Flesh and stone: The body and the city in Western civilization. New York: W. W. Norton.

30. Sennet, R. (2002). The fall of public man. Moscow: Logos. (In Russian).

31. Sennet, R. (2024). The conscience of the eye: The design and social life of cities. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Russian).

32. Sokolovskiy, S. V. (2024). On atmospheric turn in social sciences. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie, 2024(4), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869541524040018 (In Russian).

33. Sokolovskiy, S. V. (2024). In search of atmospheres: Directions, methods, perspectives (an interview with Tonino Griffero). Etnograficheskoe obozrenie, 2024(4), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869541524040023 (In Russian).

34. Tlostanova, M. V. (2013). Postcontinental theory and the rehabilitation of place, or Does a Post-Soviet Chronotope Exist? Moscow Art Magazine, 2013(90). Retrieved from https://moscowartmagazine.com/issue/7/article/97. (In Russian).

35. Zhelnina, A. A. (2011). “It’s like a museum here”: The shopping mall as public space. Laboratorium, 2011(2), 48–69. (In Russian).