Primitive?

The concept of primitive art is very problematic for numerous reasons. In What is Art For?, the author takes up nearly two pages justifying her use of the word ‘primitive.’ Her definition of primitive society is, “a form of traditional society characterized by small-scale settlements, a low level of technological development, an unspecialized economy and a non-literate tradition, and generally slow-changing, unquestioned homogeneous social institutions and practices relevant to non primitive societies.” (Ellen Dissanayake, p. 42-43) She does tell us that she is by no means saying that primitive societies are “inferior” to our own, just have not adopted the same technologies that the Western world has adopted, but have turned to other elements in life. It’s hard to deem something ‘primitive’ because to that culture, it isn’t necessarily ‘primitive,’ but tradition or ancestral.

In The Anthropology of Art, the author’s definition of primitive art is presented right in the beginning stating, “the art of small-scale societies are very often also objects of everyday, technical use which have been decorated with artistic designs... accurate though the statement is that many ‘primitive’ art objects have a utilitarian purpose, it disregards the fact that many others do not and are primarily vehicles for the communication of ideas, rather than axes, or bowls, or canoes with a decorative frill.” (Robert Layton, p. 42) The goal to understand primitive art is to put it into it’s own cultural context and by looking at the status of the artist in his or her society.

A lot of traditional societies decorate their homes or cooking devices, yet Westerners are quick to label those things as ‘art.’ Even though these items can be ascetically pleasing or displeasing, who are we to tell someone what is art and what is not? In class, we discussed who labels things as art, and came up with anthropologists, museum curators, art historians, etc. -- all westerners who “know” what to label what, and the price it’s worth. It’s interesting that something used in daily life or for ceremonial purposed in a society can be considered worth hundreds if not thousands of dollars, just because some fancy westerner say it is.

As a side note: I've also found it perplexing how there is virtually no reference to Asian art. All the ‘primitive’ art is based on remote islands, Africa or Aboriginal societies and “western’ art refers to European and American art. What about the art from Japan, China and the other Asian cultures? Just a thought...

Text Sources:

Layton, Robert. The Anthropology of Art.1991. Print.

Dissanayake, Ellen. What Is Art For? 2002. Print.

Picture Source:

http://kilshaws.com/images/specialty_items/large/2060-20090820-161.jpg