Hiller - The Myth of Primitivism. Perspectives on Art - Esoteric Online

3
Primitive art and the necessity <strong>of</strong> primitivism
to art
DANIEL MILLER
INTRODUCTION
This chapter 1 is divided into two main sections: in the first, I want to argue for the
necessity <strong>of</strong> primitivism to art. That is, primitivism is not simply an idea picked up from
time to time by particular artists, but is integral to what art is, and indeed the two terms,
‘primitivism’ and ‘art’, may best be understood in relation to one another. It will be
suggested that this is so because our concept <strong>of</strong> ‘art’ is based upon several contradictory
premisses, and that primitivism is central to these definitional paradoxes. Secondly it will
be suggested that most <strong>of</strong> what is termed ‘primitive art’ is an equally contradictory
construction, consisting <strong>of</strong> artefacts produced by peoples without a concept <strong>of</strong>
primitivism for peoples who utilize those artefacts to objectify this concept. In the second
section <strong>of</strong> this chapter, examples will be given <strong>of</strong> how primitive art is constructed as an
assemblage <strong>of</strong> objects in relation to primitivism, outside <strong>of</strong> which it has no meaning.
A premiss <strong>of</strong> this chapter is that the concept <strong>of</strong> art may be subject to the critique <strong>of</strong>
relativism, in that it stems from no essentialist foundation—that is, no absolute quality <strong>of</strong>
the world—but has become an established perspective through particular cultural and
historical conditions. This premiss is supported by historical works which indicate how
the particular evocations <strong>of</strong> the current concept <strong>of</strong> art arose. An example is the semantic
history <strong>of</strong> Williams (1958:48–64) who has shown how a series <strong>of</strong> interrelated terms such
as art, genius, aesthetics, and culture, developed their modern connotations. <strong>The</strong>se terms
refer mainly to an assumption as to the qualitatively superior products <strong>of</strong> an individual
(until recently, usually male) genius, who has the privileged capacity to produce authentic
cultural forms. Williams argues that, previously, these same terms tended to refer to
characteristic dispositions and qualities which anyone might hold.
A series <strong>of</strong> histories <strong>of</strong> high and popular culture follow in broader terms the means by
which a relatively socially homogeneous, though regionally heterogeneous, European
culture transformed to become socially divided, but spatially united. This commences
with a division into an opposing culture <strong>of</strong> elites and the popular mass (Burke 1978), and
then develops that specific form <strong>of</strong> production for elites which detached itself as an
aesthetic medium <strong>of</strong> value from the traditional constraints <strong>of</strong> the value both <strong>of</strong> any
particular materials (e.g. the paint itself) and the contractual obligations <strong>of</strong> the painter
(Baxandall 1972). Some artists, such as Dürer, continued to work in both the new fields
<strong>of</strong> fine art and mass commercial print-making (Mukerji 1983:60–5). Recent historical
research has emphasized the use <strong>of</strong> gender differentiation to accentuate these divisions
(e.g., Parker and Pollock 1981). Eventually, the point is reached today where even the