The concept of “primitive” art is problematic mainly in part that it carries a connotation of inferiority between different cultures. In What is Art For? Dissanayake explains that “writers using the appellation “primitive “ in regard to societies are advised to explain and justify their use of the word, since it carries unfortunate mistaken connotations of being underdeveloped and lacking complexity, hence inferior. In my view there are no satisfactory synonyms” (Dissanayake, 43). So in Dissanayake’s point of view she does not like the term primitive to describe art from cultures with small scale settlements and are not industrialized and or modernized, but she would rather use it because there are no other terms that are suitable replacements in her mind. But she does not believe that Primitive art is produced by a culture that lacks complexity, or is any way inferior to the modernized cultures. According to Layton in the Anthropology of Art “the phrase primitive art can surely be used of recent cultures only as one of those figures of speech which combine opposites for dramatic effect. Any community which possesses a tradition of artistic expression has more or less a little sophistication in its culture” (Layton, 3). There is a difference in the attitudes of these two authors about the use of the term “primitive” when describing art. As mentioned before Dissanayake does not like using the term but will use it because there are not many other terms in her mind that give it justice. Whereas in Layton he takes a less sympathetic approach stating that the term is bad but it’s a good use only if describing recent cultures and for a clear differentiation between the terms. He says that primitive is a problematic term because any culture that can produce art has some sophistication. Both authors dislike the use of the term primitive when talking about cultures and their art, but Dissanayake made a much more in-depth attempt to explain why the term is problematic, and disagrees with the term but at the same time still use it.
My position the use of the term “Primitive”, is that I am against it because right now its out of context and place in the modern world. This term has a connotation of westernized superiority, colonialism, and racism mainly stemming from the 17th century. Even though the term primitive is still used today as a category for culturally different types of art than that of the west there should be a different term that is much more modern and of today’s world. Even Picasso is famous for quoting after the seeing the cave paintings at Altamira that "after Altamira, all is decadence" (Wikipedia).
Dissanayake, Ellen. What Is Art For? Seattle, Wash. [u.a.: Univ. of Washington, 2002. Print.
I used the same quote from Layton in my post, so I agree with your views on the cultures that produce art. The use of the quote from Picasso was a real good idea because he is among the elite painters from western society and it displays that he was even blown away by the work of the people that produced those works of art. It was a good idea to discuss how much Dissanayake didn't want to categorize the art from small-scale societies as primitive, as well as Layton using a time to classify their art. Time or population related terms are definitely less offensive than using "primitive" to classify past cultures.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that primitive is a word that stems from colonialism, Western superiority, and racism. It's only primitive because it's "other" than what we in the West understand to be art. It is fundamentally different than our civilized perspective so obviously it would therefore be "primitive." (Hopefully, you can hear my sarcasm.) I'm glad you don't agree with the use of the word and I think Dissanayake, if she finds it so problematic, shouldn't use the word either. Despite her explanation, just because she is an academic writer doesn't mean she is above linguistics. The fact is the word "primitive" arises from negative connotations, it cannot exist outside of those parameters.
ReplyDelete