Contemporary Ethnographic Aesthetics: The TikTok Turn

Abstract

This article explores TikTok’s impact on the aesthetics of visual anthropology’s methods and highlights epistemic implications. TikTok engenders new inquiries regarding the position and role of researchers, and the spatiality and temporality of digital research. This article offers a reflection on the specific aesthetic characteristics that shape ethnographic investigations on, and with, TikTok. Further, we argue that the influence of algorithms on digital creations necessitates critical reflection on the researcher’s engagement and analysis of visual data. Finally, we suggest that the figure of the anthropologist as “curator” might inspire a creative navigation of these complex digital waters.

THE REALM OF THE ALGORITHM

A make-up tutorial by a young woman living in inner Mongolia; an end-of-school party in a rural Kenyan village; a warscape set to a soundbite of a pop song filmed and edited by a soldier from his tank; a Filipino housekeeper in Saudi Arabia, discussing what she does when her “madam” is away; clips of a wrestling match in Dakar filmed by a wrestler’s sister; Afghan men crossing the Hungarian border; an Albanian folk-dance performed in a shopping mall; throat signing at an Inuit community center in northern Canada; a guide to the seven tones in spoken Cantonese; a self-identified Romani person living in Europe discussing their mistreatment; horse racing among Tuareg men in the Sahel; a Brazilian LGBTQ activist raising awareness. This is a small sample from the online, ever-expanding trove of videos uploaded and circulating on TikTok. In many ways the cultural phenomenon of social media has introduced new spatial dimensions of encounter, with TikTok now accelerating this shift in how people not only represent themselves but also perceive and engage with visual content.

How is anthropology transformed when individuals, on their own initiative, rapidly generate endless amounts of visual and digital documentation, analysis and meta-discourse about their life experiences and worldviews, all readily accessible via smartphones and mediated through algorithms? Drawing from Wagner’s supposition that “seldom is UGC [user-generated content] discussed or theorized in terms of how it now reorganizes culture” (2023, 326), we will focus on the methodological procedures and epistemic questions with regard to new digital visual expressions as well as the role of the ethnographer within them.

In this article we reflect on the ways TikTok impacts the aesthetics of visual anthropology’s methods. Given that our mass-mediated moment is often characterized as being saturated with images, the field of visual anthropology is especially appropriate for analyzing this deluge of content, though it must also contend with the less explicit, sometimes more ambient effects of digital media. Inquiries regarding the position and role of researchers within a complex web of digitally-mediated gazes all emerge from a confrontation with TikTok’s social presence. We argue that there is a sense in which the researcher contends with these new aesthetics in a curatorial manner, sifting through and selecting images to be analyzed. However, this process of selection has been further complexified with the presence of algorithms that obey their own curatorial logic. In this way we suggest that there are two “selecting machines” at work.

Our attention to digital creations should not be conditioned by an expectation of (immediate) accessibility, let alone legibility. Unstable connections, slow and interrupted transmission, glitches, 404 error messages, low resolution, large pixels, frozen or fragmented moving images, deep fakes, and distorted voices are all part of the landscape of online aesthetics. Centering these ambient characteristics—embracing the poor image (Steyerl 2009)—within visual anthropological endeavors can lead to a better understanding of the politics and poetics of internet aesthetics, and arguably platforms like TikTok.

This paper does not offer a way forward out of this “curatorial dynamic between anthropologist and algorithm,” whether cooperative or competitive, but rather explores the ways in which it requires a new level of awareness, especially with regard to the novel aesthetics that it engenders. Further, we do not endeavor to provide a definitive “how-to” guide for conducting research on TikTok, but instead hope to provide an analytical reflection and outline the characteristics that create a specific aesthetic to the methods of ethnographic investigation using TikTok.

DIGITAL ROADMAP

We first provide a brief overview of some of the key turns in the discourse of visual anthropology that have explored the interaction between technology and the methods employed by the discipline. This will be followed by a thick description of TikTok and some of the ways in which the aesthetics of methods have changed. Here we consider the role of algorithms in shaping the visual landscape, influencing content creation, and subsequently affecting the methodologies employed in visual anthropology. We show how algorithms act as curators, influencing what content is presented to users, and how this curatorial aspect alters the methods used by visual anthropologists. Next, we consider the complex interplay of gazes within the context of TikTok, considering how the platform fosters various perspectives and visual narratives, and how these gazes impact the research methodologies of the field. Further, we argue that the users on TikTok, who simultaneously participate, consume and create content, can be seen as proto-anthropologists. Finally, we explore the ways in which visual anthropologists themselves engage in curatorial practices, selecting, analyzing, and presenting content in the context of digital platforms like TikTok.

NEW WINE, OLD WINESKINS?

Visual anthropology is now more dynamic and vital than ever. It exists in dialogue with the fields of new media and technology, as well as multimodal anthropology, enriching its potential for transformative research and cross-cultural communication. The historical transformations of the field could be read as a sequence of nodes where technology has shaped the aesthetics of larger epistemic discussions about ethnographic research. This evolution includes the drive to capture immediacy, which has led to profound changes in how anthropologists document and convey their findings. The question of “who is doing the capturing?” has become increasingly significant, as advancements in technology have democratized the tools and platforms for visual documentation, enabling a broader range of perspectives to be shared. Moreover, the exploration of what new technology allows for, in terms of capturing and presenting anthropological data, has expanded the boundaries of the discipline.

Alfred C. Haddon, the late-19th century progenitor of ethnographic film, is counted among Franz Boas and Melville Herskovits as being a pioneer of filming experiences of “being there” in the field, highlighting the dynamic of proximity and distance inherent to anthropology. Advancements in film technology and the new immediacy of viewing experiences would later inspire a set of debates centered on perspectivism and the ethics of documenting people through visual means. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson would spearhead discussions on the production of knowledge through visual language.¹ For example, they recognized that while dance performances—with their dynamic and kinetic forms—could be documented through film, the process of selecting footage resulted in the omission of certain scenes and moments, thereby revealing the limitations of representation (Jacknis 1988, 168).

“Shared anthropology,” as conceptualized by Jean Rouch (2003) and Faye Ginsburg (2011), has contributed to initiatives premised on privileging emic perspectives and marginalized voices that allow for the subaltern to “speak back.” This practice is aimed to promote ethical ethnography by providing individuals and communities with access to cameras, to create their own narratives, as demonstrated in indigenous and activist media (Turner 1995; Weiner 1997; De Groof 2013). However, in the current digital age, laymen have joined alongside academic researchers in practicing auto-ethnography, documenting and sharing their own stories and perspectives through online visual representations. Among new figures in digital-scapes are activists, comedians, home cooks, gamers, make-up enthusiasts, and travel influencers.

In contrast to the practice of anthropologists asking their research participants to create videos of their personal experiences, individuals now are voluntarily making their own videos and sharing them with a wider audience at a rapidly accelerating rate. Given the billions of social media user accounts, the amount of visual content that is being produced by individuals who are practising self-representation makes for a deluge of images. This raises questions about new methods for observing the emerging visual online language, identifying and articulating the value of specific pieces that are part of a mass-produced visual economy, as well as situating online ethnography within visual culture. Further enriching, or complicating, this phenomenon is the phatic function of video, that allows for multiple interpretations of their production and reception (Schneider 2002, 116).

Technological changes have further transformed the landscape of anthropological research, prompting us to unbind ourselves from physical spaces and consider our virtual subjectivities (Kozinets 2015) from stationary cameras to mobile phones (Miller and Wang 2021; Bell et al. 2018), augmented reality (Eagle 2020), virtual online worlds (Boellstorff 2008), and Snapchat (Waltorp 2021).

Since the notion of “being there” has expanded to encompass virtual presence, anthropological methods must adapt to this transformation of aesthetics. In this regard, TikTok videos, which sometimes give the impression of being unmediated, perhaps point to a contemporary longing for a “being there” experience, reflecting a long-standing if not tricky desire for genuine and unaltered representations. The initial apprehensions expressed by Mead and Bateson over the influence of cameras on Balinese performance have ironically evolved into a contemporary scenario where the performers, far from being passive subjects, now actively film their own performances—which are not only accessible to researchers but simultaneously to a much broader audience. Now there is a plurality of individuals filming Bateson and Mead’s Balinese ritual, capturing both the backstage, frontstage, and even the “live stage.” However, the proliferation of moving images does not offer a totalizing impression of the unfolding social drama, but rather complicates the discussion about the (de-)centering of perspectives.

The interplay of visual anthropology, technology, and digital-scapes has led many researchers to adopt a multimodal approach. This multimodal methodological toolkit equips visual anthropology to explore emerging media platforms like TikTok, where content takes the form of visual narratives.

Multimodal ethnography has gained traction in its pursuits of documenting and making sense of contemporary and ever-transforming (digital) lifeworlds, especially in a collaborative, embodied, experimental and multisensorial manner (Astacio, Dattatreyan, and Shankar 2021). This fosters a critical engagement with both emerging and established media, while also addressing the challenges of establishing methodological and analytical connections inherent in research endeavors related to the latter (Pink 2011, 2015). Collins, Durington and Gill (2017) highlight the ways in which new media ecologies are engendering new approaches to fieldwork and ethnography, with a particular focus on engagement and collaboration.² The curatorial approach we describe here occurs within a multimodal framework that is especially fruitful when looking at TikTok. There is a sense in which TikTok ethnography is inherently multimodal, as we will see in the following section.

TIKTOK’S THICK DESCRIPTION

TikTok, a video-sharing network service established by Bytedance in 2017, has amassed over one and a half billion registered users across 160 countries. Its visual content is made up of predominantly vertical-oriented short videos, but also includes “carousels” of stills which frequently combine images with texts in the form of captions on or below the images. The app also provides a feed of livestreams. There are two versions of the “Home” page: The “Following” part is a feed produced exclusively by the creator accounts one subscribes to; the “For You” part includes content by accounts one doesn’t follow (yet?) but are suggested by the algorithm based on “one’s” past engagement, as well as viral videos and trends. Interestingly, the “For You” feed is also known to offer up content that still has zero viewings.

TikTok is geopolitically significant, as it has been involved in concerns and controversies over Chinese surveillance. As a for-profit company operating out of a relatively nontransparent state that works hand-in-hand with their biggest corporations, it is nearly impossible to get a clear picture of how its immediate public use-value is balanced against long-term private objectives. TikTok, like most social media applications such as Instagram, YouTube and Blogger, is partly designed to transform some users into content creators, enabling them to “participate in the storytelling experience of the platform” (Pitre 2023, 71).

Navigating the internet is very much shaped by major geopolitical and infrastructural constraints and opportunities distributed unequally around the world.³ Even though smartphones are increasingly more affordable, not everyone has access to affordable data or a stable internet connection. These inequalities matter all the more, as the potential for visibility offered by TikTok is particularly compelling in a climate where visibility plays a crucial role in inclusion and participation in different political landscapes. This holds true even when increased government surveillance poses risks to individuals’ safety through their heightened visibility. Further, it is important to recognize that having an account or internet connection is not a constant: accounts can be flagged, suspended, (shadow-)banned or deleted from platforms, and connections may be unreliable or severed due to bas connectivity.

The onset of the global pandemic and consequent travel restrictions forced many researchers to adapt their methods by shifting to online platforms. In a sense, we all became armchair anthropologists, dealing with new forms of virtual proximity and IRL social distance, engaging with digital spaces as substitutes for physical fieldwork, and trying to rebuild forms of intimacy in digital fields. This experience served as a poignant reminder that the concept of coevalness (Fabian 1983; White and Strohm 2014) has been fundamental to the anthropological project. Drawing inspiration from George Marcus’s exploration of the changing aesthetics of anthropological visual fieldwork (2010), we embark on a similar journey of rethinking older anthropological paradigms. By engaging with the digital realm as a field site, we seek to uncover new insights and possibilities for anthropological inquiry, while acknowledging the enduring relevance of the encounter as a foundational concept in our discipline (ibid., 267).

Banhishikha Ghosh argues that digital ethnography is not a discrete and bounded research method with a distinct beginning and end (2020). Instead, it is a fluid and ongoing process that requires flexibility and adaptation. “Being there” in the digital space takes on new forms and requires researchers to adapt their observational methods. Tom Boellstorff (2008) has demonstrated that “deep hanging,” which involves combining traditional elicitation methods, such as interviews and focus groups with participant observation, is possible in digital spaces. In terms of IRL participation, the most immersive form is being physically present in the same room as a person while they are filming their videos (e.g. Abidin 2020a, 2020b). It is crucial to acknowledge the differences between what people say they do and what they actually do, as highlighted by Boellstorff (2021), and Horst and Miller (2012). Building rapport with individuals online requires patience, just as it does in more customary offline interactions. Additionally, creative approaches are often necessary to capture someone’s attention in the online realm and establish contact. For example, some TikTok users allow for direct messages, while others may choose to disable this feature, thereby creating a barrier to immediate and private communication. In ethnography, as with other research projects, potential participants can be identified and approached for interviews. While there are continuities between online and offline research when it comes to ethical considerations, the digital environment introduces some unique aspects.

The management of self-presentation repetition is a generative attribute tied to imagined communities and collective memories. Gabriella Coleman, one scholar who has conducted extensive ethnographic research among online communities, highlights the management of self-presentation through avatars and online personas, arguing that tricksterism can be thought of as forming part of anthropological research (2015). The researcher is at once broker and collaborator, expressing these roles in oscillating moments of engagement and disengagement (Coleman 2017, 33). As such, we must engage critically with the constructed nature of these self-presented personas and the motivations behind them. This involves exploring questions of performance, and the influence of the platform’s affordances and algorithms on the content that is shared and suggested.

TikTok’s videos, capturing snapshots of situations, discourses and practices, introduce a unique temporal dimension to the platform. These videos can be seen as freeze-framed impressions, encapsulating brief glimpses into people’s lives, representations of cultures, and experiences. Users (and researchers) create and consume content asynchronously, with videos being uploaded and viewed at different times by different individuals, emphasizing the non-linear and fragmented temporality emerging from the platform. In the context of TikTok, the traditional methodological approach of intersubjective exchange in a shared physical space-time and co-presence is altered: Instead of sharing a coffee or a chat in person, the researcher and participant engage within the digital space of feed and interface. The absence of physical communion and mutual engagement raises specific insecurities and uncertainties about the nature and depth of the research interaction. Indeed, in the digital realm, the notion of shared togetherness and its absence are redefined. Rather than looking onto a common physical landscape, the experience of togetherness is mediated through the digital interface, shaping the dynamics of connection and interaction.

The challenges of reaching an interlocutor, both in a literal and a figurative sense, are influenced not only by technical considerations related to structural power differentials inherent to internet navigation, such as internet infrastructure equipment, faster bandwidth, and not to mention the free time to spend to devote to online activity, but also by the difficulty of establishing a shared experience of sight as a basis for encounter and exchange. In the fast-paced world of digital communication through chats, voice messaging, video calls and livestreams, there is a mediated sense of immediacy—mediated because it is inherently shaped by the digital nature of these interactions.

Further, the participatory nature of video-sharing platforms, where individuals willingly upload representations of their lives without being prompted, marks a significant shift for visual anthropology. Unlike previous approaches where individuals are asked or given a camera to film, this new paradigm disrupts the authority and control typically associated with anthropological work. The anthropologist becomes a visitor to an archive of the present, one that is constantly expanding and evolving. In this context, the anthropologist takes on a curatorial role, navigating and engaging with the vast array of content available. But this role works in parallel with the curatorial impulse of the TikTok algorithm. This shift highlights the importance of rethinking the mechanisms of collaboration and initiation in visual anthropology, as the power dynamics between the anthropologist and the subjects of study are reconfigured in this participatory space. The ethical considerations surrounding the utilization of user-generated content on TikTok as research material without prior creator consent, raise important questions. In the past, when individuals were provided with cameras for research purposes, there was often a mutual understanding that the content they produced would be employed for research purposes. However, in today’s more complex context of freely shared digital content, how does one delineate the boundaries of consent? The act of using user-generated content for research without explicit permission may inadvertently infringe upon a creator’s rights and autonomy over their creations. This underscores the need for thoughtful ethical deliberation and redefined guidelines, to ensure that the principles of informed consent and respect for creators are upheld in a digital landscape where content dissemination has become freer, more fluid and interconnected.

STRUCTURING MACHINE

It is essential to acknowledge the seemingly mysterious black-box nature of TikTok’s algorithm, one that forms the foundational structure of the platform. Pitre points out that the application performs “the cultivation of genres that apprehend organic (or artificial—it hardly matters) trends and turns them into stories with particular, but diffuse, audiences to target” (2023, 71). The following comparison may seem like a stretch, but to a certain degree, the algorithm seems to bear resemblance to the impetus of structural anthropology, as it emphasizes the identification of repetitions, habits, conventions and shared structures that collectively convey information akin to an orchestrated ensemble (Leach 1973, 320). Perhaps, just like previous structuralists, the algorithm seeks to identify, categorize, sort and archive content and cultural productions within recognizably defined genres, niches and aesthetics—that is, recognize a trend, and turn it into a story from which to extract meaning. Just like museum drawers categorized by pre-determined taxonomies, algorithms give the impression of functioning as taxonomy machines, signified with hashtags; for example, categorizing and organizing information that is then adopted by users of the platform for their own gains.

The array of genres and niches, each with their distinct aesthetics, is vast and seemingly limitless. Faced with the inclination for such groupings, researchers must resist the temptation to accept these categorizations as they are presented and normalized by the algorithm. Among the most popular categories are inspirational content endorsing the digital nomad lifestyle or, ironically, an "off-grid" lifestyle; cultural commentary and political activism; celebrity edits; and the timeless internet genres of beauty, fashion, gaming, business tips, comedy sketches, and pranks. The algorithm’s categorizing and recommendation processes can reinforce certain perspectives that may impact the representation, understanding, and investigation of visual and cultural practices and identities. The algorithm that contributed to the platform’s success permeates the ethnographic research process, casting a constant shadow over the epistemic pursuit.

To navigate TikTok, users are required to swipe up to the next video; it does not automatically make the next piece of content appear, but instead continuously loops the same video. A constant, albeit low-effort engagement is perpetually demanded from the user, which the media theorist Rob Horning (2020) connects to the wider impetus of capitalism, which “requires that our consumption become deskilled” in order to “manage and regularize levels of consumer demand.” Based on a fine-grained ability to track the complex tastes of the application’s users, the algorithm offers a seemingly endless plethora of localized interpretations and re-enactments of globalized infectious trends and content genres.

The algorithm reacts swiftly to the user’s preferences while also introducing them to new suggestions. The experience of randomness in TikTok evokes affective sensations, as it introduces a sense of alterity and estrangement from reality. The never-ending content feed realized by the repetitive act of swiping balances, on one hand, the sense of familiarity that momentarily satisfies the gaze of the user with, on the other hand, the disruptiveness and newness needed to keep boredom at bay. The user’s interaction with the feed is closely tracked, asking (and answering) questions like: What visual piece is swiped more quickly than others? What loops for longer? What is shared with WhatsApp contacts? What is liked and bookmarked? While this feature may not be unique to TikTok, the responsiveness of its algorithm is immediately noticeable, rendering the merger of the algorithmic perspective with that of the user even more unsettlingly evident.

In line with this, Bhandari and Bimo observe (2020) that TikTok blurs the distinction between the platform and the self by engendering an “algorithmic self.” TikTok produces a new kind of subjectivity that responds to the effect that the platform has on the self, as the application strives to cultivate a desire that individuals can identify as their own. This process thereby solidifies the user’s sense of self with discernible preferences that are easily catered to with the application’s available content.

The algorithm utilizes various data points such as user preferences, interactions and trends to curate personalized feeds for each individual. It plays a significant role in shaping the content that we see and engage with, due to the unique way it affects the user’s sense of self: “The experience of using Tik Tok is one of repeatedly engaging with one’s own self: intra rather than interpersonal connection” (ibid.). Others, like Rob Horning (2020), argue that it is not so much the “self” that one is engaging with, but the algorithm’s version of oneself that one takes pleasure in confirming or rejecting in a sort of game with the algorithm’s suggested videos.

The researcher’s encounter with content on TikTok is inherently intertwined with the unseen calculations of the algorithm. One cannot engage with the platform’s content without simultaneously grappling with the algorithm’s influence and shadowy omnipresence. Schellewald argues that the algorithm ought to be perceived, “not as a bound technological object but rather as a cultural artifact enacted in everyday processes of meaning making” (2022, 1)—that is, not a discrete thing to be examined on its own, but something that emerges in becoming. This interacts with “algorithmic hearsay and folk theories” where the algorithm takes up the position and role of “an anthropomorphised mythical creature or vengeful God” (Glatt 2022, 8). In this sense the algorithm itself becomes the subject of stories, speculation and suspicions, forming productive “algorithmic imaginaries” (Bucher 2017).

There is a sense in which a theistic understanding of AI directly challenges the false binary between religiosity and technology/secularization and reveals the disruptive (re-)enchantment of the world that the AI provokes as the source of its power (Singler 2018, 2020). Likewise, Schmidt emphasizes (2016, 546) the significance of avoiding a complete substitution of the intricate systems underlying digital platforms with theological and teleological terminology, as this can oversimplify the discussion and disregard questions of human agency and politics. Instead, such terminology should be employed to facilitate a meticulous investigation, thoughtful contemplation, and thorough analysis of algorithms.

Researchers who aim to engage deeply with TikTok content may find it relatively easy to access and compile a substantial amount of material. They might however encounter a significant challenge in identifying, describing and analyzing the limitations that exist within the scope of their study. The encounter with algorithmically selected and categorized content is complexified, when we consider the algorithm’s role in the interplay of gazes. Instead of characterizing this phenomenon as an echo chamber or a bubble, it can be more accurately described as a complex web of gazes. Within this web, creators observe and monitor who is watching their content, while the AI itself observes both the creators and the viewers. This interconnected network of gazes highlights the intricate dynamics at play, where multiple actors are engaged in reciprocal observation and influence, while for creators monitoring their engagement there is a sense of "watching oneself being watched."

Attempting to articulate this intricate process becomes an exercise in postmodern writing. A feedback loop arises as the algorithm monitors the researcher-user, who, in turn, views content from other creators. These creators also reciprocate by observing the researcher-user, all while the algorithm continues observing them. This web of gazes questions the idea of a single focal point, and underscores the importance of decentering the gaze in our analysis.

WEB OF GAZES

TikTok-scapes challenge text-image distinctions, but also call into question the shifting dynamics of authenticity and representation in the digital age. In this context, consider the way in which the gaze of anthropologists shifts when they engage as participants, and how the participants themselves become researchers:

Informants are also in some sense anthropologists; if they had no such individual proclivity beforehand, they often respond to professionals’ presence by reframing their understanding of their own culture in ways designed to compensate for the visitors’ incomprehension. This becomes very clear when we place a camera or other recording device in their hands. (Herzfeld in Banks and Ruby 2011, 314)

In order to capture the multifaceted nature of online cultures, anthropologists need to adapt and evolve their methodological approaches by exploring the dynamics of participation and observation within the digital landscape. The abundance of auto-ethnographic material created by users who arguably become inadvertent anthropologists themselves introduces a double displacement of ethnography. In this context, daily life is no longer just lived; it potentially becomes ethnographic material. People’s actions and interactions are informed by the awareness that their experiences may be visually shared, analyzed and interpreted by others. The distinction between personal experience and research inquiry becomes blurred, as all users navigate the dual roles of participant and observer.

The omnipresence of the algorithm and its effects on the researcher, the investigative process, and epistemic authority, give rise to a situation in which the anthropologist is tasked with confronting not only the self-commodification processes of creators/users but also their interaction with the technological and invisible infrastructure of the platform, which itself relies on the curatorial force of its algorithm. In parallel with this, self-reflexivity in the context of TikTok ethnography appears to be a double movement where the researcher-user is challenged to not only account for her own positionality in the digital field, but also, due to the nature of the platform, for their “algorithmic self” (Bhandari and Bimo 2020) interacting and merging with the platform.

TikTok creators position themselves as documenters of their own lives, sharing their experiences with a virtual audience. In their role as both content creators and consumers, they contribute to and engage in a multifaceted interplay of perspectives, facilitated by the organizing and classifying influence of algorithms. This dynamic interaction forms a complex network of gazes, shaping the infectious nature of TikTok content.

Anthropology has long been studying the creation of commodified culture, where various forms of the gaze are utilized to generate capital. Deborah Poole’s concept of the “visual economy” is especially relevant in this context, particularly her research on Andean photography (1997). She examines how images are produced, circulated, archived, commodified and assigned meaning by deploying a poststructuralist approach that emphasizes the significance of understanding the statistical and archival technologies that support modern imperial power (Poole 1997, 12). Her ideas resonate with TikTok ethnography, as they shed light on how users negotiate their visibility amidst the proliferation of algorithmic and non-algorithmic gazes in the service of data-driven value creation. Users on TikTok are actively packaging their own lives, even the most mundane aspects, into short visual pieces. This work progresses at an increasingly accelerated pace resulting from TikTok’s ability to play with temporality, distorting it for the purpose of capturing eyeballs and engagement. The commodification of representation can also become a strategy for economic and social mobility serving the creators, where individuals utilize the app’s devices as tools for their desired image projection amidst a fragmented, asynchronous, entertaining, endlessly looping landscape. To quote Steyerl again, who perhaps best captures the content of this landscape: “The poor image is no longer about the real thing—the originary original. Instead, it is about its own real conditions of existence: about swarm circulation, digital dispersion, fractured and flexible temporalities. It is about defiance and appropriation just as it is about conformism and exploitation” (2009). TikTok content, like the poor image, lives or dies not based on the fidelity of the creator’s intention to the produced representation but to circulation and dispersion, in other words, virality.

Online personas are consciously crafted and managed, often as a generative attribute tied to imagined communities and collective memories. Achievement in a consumer-driven society sometimes relies on an individual’s ability to recognize and exhibit their self-identity as a valuable cultural asset. This personal identity is then carefully presented to the marketplace, to attain power and approval (McDonald and Wearing 2013, 48). Visibility through the use of hashtags, as well as being part of specific communities or trends, becomes important for establishing relatability and a sense of belonging. As such, the cultural scripts observed by anthropologists already come prepackaged, tracked, classified and presented by TikTok’s algorithm to be consumed by viewers.

In the visually diverse online realm, the anthropologist faces the task of navigating this fragmented landscape while grappling with the impact of algorithms on their own perspectives. This is no small challenge to established epistemic authority. In this regard, the visual anthropologist’s project must involve curating content in a way that critically examines and challenges the classifications that algorithms offer to the user.

THE ANTHROPOLOGIST AS CURATOR

Understanding the implications of this altered temporality is crucial for visual anthropology. It necessitates an exploration of how the freeze-framed impressions and fragmented temporalities inherent in TikTok videos shape our comprehension of cultures, identities, and social dynamics. Moreover, it invites critical reflection on how the medium itself exerts influence over the portrayal and understanding of these fleeting moments. While this shift from asking for visual documentation to being inundated with it is somewhat similar to the offline world where research is always playing catch-up with changing social practice, it does alter the epistemic authority of anthropologists. In other forms of temporal reversal, only retrospectively can users/creators be positioned as collaborators or even auto-ethnographers.

By focusing on the experience of the algorithm and by dwelling on its impact on epistemic procedures we propose the idea of “the curator” as a potential inspiration for (multimodal, visual, and/or digital) anthropology of the contemporary moment. While there is nothing necessarily new about this position, we nevertheless suggest that recognizing “the anthropologist-as-curator” within digital like the TikTokscape can serve as a navigational tool in this web of gazes. The TikTok anthropologist weaves a narrative out of the web of gazes, showcasing creativity when dealing with the platform’s constraints, while simultaneously critically questioning the predefined categories and forging meaning from the nuanced taxonomies inherent in this dynamic digital landscape.

The figure of the curator might be a way to challenge the invisible-but-omnipotent presence of “the algorithm” as the predominant force driving the selection processes. The anthropologist-as-curator might therefore be the one who is able to not only sense the preferred curatorial decisions of the algorithm, but one able to criticize it meaningfully, and most importantly, one who can therefore follow an alternative curatorial logic. The taxonomies and genres created, reinforced, disseminated and normalized by the algorithm cannot be taken for granted or serve as unique aesthetic and methodological orientations. Just as “methodological nationalism” has been debunked for quite some time, something we could—for lack of a better term—call “methodological algorithmism” must be called into question. This does not mean that content producers and consumers do not relate to the genres and terminologies cemented by the algorithm to navigate the digital waters surrounding them. However, these genres must be considered as data, not as taken-for-granted analytical categories. The anthropologist must strive to challenge these algorithmic taxonomies and navigate the digital landscape with caution.

Embracing the curatorial aspects within multimodal ethnography in and with TikTok brings to bear the creative aspects involved in selecting and making decisions while developing a research project, especially given the risks of being overwhelmed by the constant influx of new digital content. This recognition may encourage researchers in collaborative projects to embrace their responsibility for knowledge production more explicitly. The researcher confronts the necessity of rationalizing aesthetic choices within the context of a profusion of potential avenues. True for any ethnographic research endeavor it is imperative to forthrightly acknowledge one’s personal predilections and inclinations. A failure to do so may expose one to the perils inherent in digital and/or multimodal research: succumbing uncritically to the structuring force of the algorithm.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Durington and Ruby predicted that, “In the near future, ethnographic film will be fundamentally altered by media that combine film, text and still images in an interactive way, creating ever-exciting means for anthropologists to utilize media as a form both of anthropological research and of dissemination” (2011, 208–09). In the context of TikTok ethnography, the anthropologist faces the curatorial force of an algorithm that transforms the researcher’s subjectivity, position and role. In the digital-social world, a cultural artifact is always created not only by the original producers but also by the consumers who reproduce the content through sharing and virality. Even further, while the artifact/product is being used, the user generates data about its use, which gets fed back into the production process to further improve the artifact or product. Yet while TikTok panders to our voyeuristic impulses, these can potentially be converted into deeper connections, especially with regard to anthropological studies.

The aesthetics of TikTok ethnographies are particularly affected by the platform’s reliance on user-generated content. This impacts the process of the researcher-turned-participant who asks relevant interlocutors to document their lives from their own point of view. Can we prompt our interlocutors-turned-autoethnographers to reflect more deeply on their self-documentation practices, engaging in collaborative discussions about their visual imaginaries? If so, this challenges previous ethnographic approaches centered on collaboration as a method. Research thus requires developing new approaches and methodologies that account for the fragmented and asynchronous nature of the platform while still striving to capture the cultural and social dynamics at play.

The anthropologist here assumes the role of a curator and engages in the study and re-categorization of TikTok videos. They actively explore the vast array of content available on the platform and the algorithmically created taxonomies, carefully selecting and organizing videos based on specific themes, cultural phenomena or research interests.

Recognizing that algorithms shape subjectivities and influence interactions on platforms like TikTok, the anthropologist seeks to understand and unravel this complex relationship. However, studying the precise effect of algorithms on culture is challenging. It is difficult to trace and account fully for the influence of algorithms on individual subjectivities and broader societal dynamics, just as it is difficult to isolate any one single source of influence due to the reality that many are always at play and affecting one another. Self-reflexivity, which involves examining one’s own positionality and biases critically, becomes a nuanced and intricate endeavor in the context of algorithm-driven platforms. While self-reflexivity may not be straightforward in this context anthropologists can still make the effort at self-criticism by reflecting on their own methodology, biases and position within the research process. They can acknowledge the limitations and challenges posed by algorithmic systems and work toward developing methodologies that address these complexities. In line with this, coevalness and collaboration as ethnographic methods are not precluded by digital explorations. Their aesthetics undergo a fundamental transformation, however, operating on a different level that is yet to be clearly identified and, perhaps more crucially, with uncertain outcomes (Marcus 2010, 275).

The fluidity of TikTok’s content can be likened to a ceaseless current, wherein new videos constantly surface and circulate. The metaphorical boat of the TikTok ethnographer perpetually embarks on new voyages, docking at various islands of content before departing again, skillfully navigating the ever-changing waters of the platform. This signifies a departure from the traditional Malinowskian aesthetic voice of authority, as it is the users themselves who actively shape the mise en scène of fieldwork for the viewing of others, as well as for themselves. Consequently, the act of observing and reflecting has transcended the confines of a singular gaze. Observation is now the act of a multitude of, not passive individuals, but active users.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lesley Nicole Braun

LESLEY NICOLE BRAUN is an associate researcher in the Institute of Social Anthropology, at the University of Basel. Her current research encompasses digital culture, the symbolic construction of memes, and internet infrastructure in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). She is the author of Congo’s Dancers: Women and Work in Kinshasa (2023) and Digital Sirens and Viral Landscapes in the DRC (Routledge 2025). E-mail: [email protected]

Anna Magdalena Vollmer Mateus

ANNA MAGDALENA VOLLMER MATEUS is a graduate student in the Institute of Social Anthropology at the University of Basel. Her interests are digital ethnography, gender and mobility, as well as the production of urban space in the contemporary neoliberal context. E-mail: [email protected]

Notes

1 They made attempts to develop less intrusive camera filming techniques in order to capture “natural” unfolding social scenes and the perspectives of the “natives” (Bateson and Mead 1942, 49).

2 Rob Eagle’s multimodal digital explorations (2020) delve into the world of site-specific Augmented Reality (AR) to unravel the intricate process of translating ethnographic data and various forms of embodied knowledge.

3 In 2020, TikTok was banned in India during a moment of increased geopolitical tensions: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/03/21/tiktok-india-ban-bytedance-data-access/. In March 2024, the USA passes a TikTok ban bill. See: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/13/house-passes-tiktok-bill-ban.