William Rubin “Modernist Primitivism: An Introduction” 1 ... - iSites

from tribal models or by tracing the ways their art moved away from, gave
new twists to, non‐Western forms?” What do you think?
13. Do Western objects merely mean objects that are made by processed
materials? Then what are non‐ Western objects?
14. Noting that “anthropologists, long familiar with the issue of cultural diffusion
versus independent invention, are not likely to find anything special in the
similarities between selected tribal and modern objects.” (pg. 151) What
other two mediums or types of art can be argued to have a similar lack of
attention that are in need of development?
15. I wonder if the didactic catalogue that was a part of Rubin’s “’Primitivism’ in
20 th Century Art” was more easily accessible or even maybe more visible
alongside the actual art objects that his exhibition would have been less
harshly criticized.
16. Would Clifford say that analyzing primitive art by its’ differences with
contemporary art would be completely useless, or rather could it serve some
intellectual purpose?
17. How has this debate about museums exhibiting "tribal" art evolved since the
1980s, when these articles were written?
18. Do you think both Natural History and Art museums have changed their
approaches to non‐Western art since the time Clifford’s article was written?
19. Clifford makes some interesting assessments regarding Western displays of
non‐Western art and the lack of acknowledgement of time. Why do you think
it was so hard for Westerners to accept that many of the objects displayed
were contemporary objects?
20. It seems that the art/artifact or ‘aesthetic anthropological debate’ has some
of its roots in the pattern of repeated opposition of relativism and
objectivism in western philosophical thought. Does bringing in the
experience of the artist in conjunction with cultural and historical context of
the work help to transcend this pattern? How do we learn accurately about
the cultural context of the artist?
21. What did the MOMA exhibit (and its resulting fallout) do to change the way
both art and cultural artifacts (sometimes one and the same) were perceived,
curated and displayed? How has it altered academic approaches to artistic
traditions (modern and otherwise)?
22. After reading the Clifford article, it appears that the premise of “Affinities”
section of the “Primitivism” MOMA exhibit could have as easily been applied
to modern architecture and illuminated manuscripts, or 1950’s automobiles
and contemporary kitchen appliances‐that is, two groups of material objects
that (inevitably) share aesthetic and/or structural similarities, either by
inspired design or the course of nature. Was this a condescending or facile
8