Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Site for posting class reading responses as comments. Feel free to comment on other posts. History of Art, U.C. Berkeley. Instructor Sarah Hamill.
Fur-Lined Cup, Meret Oppenheim, 1936
Students
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(15)
-
▼
January
(15)
- No title
- Minimalism: For Class 3/31
- Warhol and Pop: For Class 3/19
- Johns, Rauschenberg, Frank: For Class 3/17
- Abstract Expressionism: For Class 3/12
- Modernist Sculpture: For Class 3/5
- Surrealism and Gender: For Class 2/19
- Modernism and Mass Culture: For Class 3/3
- Modern Objects and Things: For Class 2/10
- Primitivism: For class 2/5
- Cezanne and after: For Class 2/3
- Impressionism and Science: For class 1/29
- Response Week 1
- What is Analysis? For class 1/27
- Defining the Modern: for class January 22
-
▼
January
(15)
From reading the essay by Gill Perry which included both the “Introduction” and “Part 1: ‘The Going Away’--a preparation for the ‘Modern’” I learned that primitivism is a way of expression yourself through artwork to represent or ‘determine’ a culture. Artists use there ideas and beliefs to base an image of what they think the culture is like around them. We also learned a definition of primitive which Perry states “has been used since at least the nineteenth century to distinguish contemporary European societies and their cultures from other societies and cultures that were then considered less civilized” (Perry 233). As we can see, Perry differentiates between Primitivism and being primitive. One (Primitivism), is based on their views of culture as a whole; whereas the other (primitive) is used as a comparison between higher and lower class societies. Perry continues to analyze paintings where he continues to discover and add to the definitions that he as already established. How is society portrayed by artists, with different forms of of the words primitive and primitivism being used that? How do these techniques make these paintings modern compared to others of their time?
ReplyDeleteReligion was one of the techniques used by artists to define primitive. The relationship between the the subjects within the painting as well as the way the are dressed creates an environment that can be separated by classes--it is primitive. We can tell the difference between the classes within the society because the people of higher class dress nicer and interacting more with the priest, where as the people of lower class are shown more in the background with torn, dirty clothing. The primitiveness creates a feeling of primitivism. While we notice the separation between the social classes (primitive) we also get the sense of how society is built and interacts with one another (primitivism).
We can also see that Bernard creates a primitive environment with in a modern painting by distorting certain aspects of the image such as, color, scale, and space. He came to paint what was soon to be known as Symbolist art. He showed his emotions through less obvious realizations that made the audience look for the ‘hidden meaning’ of the painting, of his emotions and ideas. His way of going about expressing his views of society were different and not expected by the viewers. By focusing less of what the subjects actually looked like within the painting, people had to start to pay attention to the way the painting was made and created--emphasizing the ‘modern’ aspects of his paintings. He also uses influences of Japanese art which has been used as “evidence of ‘simpler means’ and ‘honesty’” (Perry 249). Here, Bernard uses the word primitive as a way to simplify artwork within the painting--to show the simplicity within the painting. While earlier we defined primitive as essentially classifying between different social classes, Bernard adds to the definition of primitive by differentiating between simple and complex--where simple would be more along the lines of living as a peasant, and complex being more of higher class.
Through the “Introduction” and “Part 1” of Perry’s work, we can see that primitiveness and primitivism can be portrayed through artwork and used to accentuate the ‘modern’ within paintings. Each artist has their own specific ways and views of how the accomplish this, but in the end both primitivism and primitive have longer and more extended meanings than what Perry starts with.
The shift from modernity, which we established had to do with modernization, to Primitivism is really odd for me. I noticed that the previous article by Cox on Picasso and Braque mentioned how these artists incorporated primitive elements into their artwork; but the articles we have to read this time go to the base of what most people would picture of when they hear the words “primitive art”. Gill Perry’s article introduced the ideas of Primitivism and primitive art, how they are not the same (like how we thought modernity and modern art were the same). I thought it was interesting how Perry defined how primitive sources “conform to, rather than simply to inspire the changing interests of modern artists” (231). These primitive sources sound very malleable, almost as if the modern world can change their meanings and what significance they have to us than they did to the people who created them. This brings me to how Perry defines Primitivism, as a “relationship of power… those within Western society who analyse, teach, paint or reproduce a view of the ‘primitive’ would, by this activity, be dominating, restructuring and having authority over that which they define as ‘primitive’” (232). It seems to me that ‘primitive’ is such a loose term that it is applied to basically anything that falls into the ‘other’ category of Western art, or art that we are accustomed to seeing. Perry describes ‘primitive’ in words such as barbaric, backward, uncivilized, and savage; but there are also views in favor of it, such as “the essential purity and goodness of ‘primitive’ life, by contrast with the decadence of over-civilized Western societies” (234). When I look at the ‘primitive’ subjects or art that is influenced by primitive sources, I feel like they are not true and honest. The paintings are biased from a Western viewpoint and do not accurately depict these ‘primitive’ people. Artists take these ‘primitive’ artworks and then apply it in such a way to bring meaning into their own artwork for the modern world.
ReplyDeleteEinstein’s article specifically delves into a culture that most people usually imagine of to produce ‘primitive’ art. African sculptures were created for the people for more than just religious depictions but for religious embodiment. “The European artwork is subject to emotional and even formal interpretation… The African artwork signifies nothing, it symbolizes nothing” (279). For the African people, the sculptures are seen as more than just symbolic artwork or decoration. “It is the god, and he maintains his closed mythical reality, taking in the worshiper, transforming him into a mythical being, annulling his human existence” (279). I thought it was interesting how the sculptor himself “maintains a distance from his work because this work either is or contains a specific god” (279). The Africans and Europeans view sculptures and art in general so completely differently that this brings me back to my previous statement of how there is no way Europeans can accurately depict primitive lives. The way the African people instill meaning into their masks and sculptures reminds me of the way Western society restructures meaning and significance in their primitive sources; but besides this enforced power to extract what is desired from the source, I find the primitive art of the modern Western world is not true because the artists are seeing from an unequal level.
Changing from modernism and impressionistic art towards this primitive based style of artwork at the turn of the twentieth century seems to me to be very abrupt, although stated otherwise by art historian Robert Goldwater, " The artistic interest of the twentieth century in the productions of primitive peoples was neither as unexpected nor as sudden as is generally supposed. Its preparation goes well back into the nineteenth century." (231) I see the gestation of primitivism in 'modern' art perhaps in the sense that after moving past the classical depiction of of their art in transforming exactly what we see to canvas, they moved to abstract that notion to paint what they felt... and where would you go on that same note from there? Perhaps they lost the same line of painting and found a new desire in depictions of primitive peoples and their traditions and daily rituals (not to be confused with art from the primitive era of man, what I originally thought it referenced until I got to the 14th lin of the reading.)
ReplyDeleteHowever, although the artists claim to be depicting 'primitive' artwork, they instead present their interpretations of the primitive peoples in their works. In putting these people into the subject of their paintings, it is as if these painters had the ability to make their subjects bend to their will and change their behaviors like a puppet master can. Also, the subjects and their actions in these paintings very greatly, from 'The White Slave' 1888 to 'Breton women at a Pardon' 1888 and 'The Yellow Christ' 1946 .
As the readings progress, you begin to see the connection between the primitive style and the older notion of 'modern' art. The two begin to tie together again in certain works, for example Paula Modersohn-Becker's 'Poorhouse Woman in the Garden). This piece uses modernistic style and a primitive subject to achieve it's emotion and story.
Through these writings, we can see that the art of primitive and the term primitivism progressively became known and used in incorporation with the ideas of ‘modern’ art.
In the article “Primitivism and the ‘Modern” which includes an introduction titled “Primitivism in art-historical debate” and Part One titled “The going away- a preparation for the ‘modern’?” the author Gill Perry describes the though behind primitive pieces of artwork. Primitive artists rejected the modernization and industrialization of the 19th century and sought a return to the “essential purity and goodness of ‘primitive’ life, by contrast with the decadence of over-civilized Western societies,” (Perry 6) through painting. However appropriate this goal may seem considering the ill effects of modernization, primitive art was laden with a perhaps unintentional, however prevalent, degree of derogatoriness.
ReplyDeleteSimply naming this style of art ‘primitiveness’, instantly characterizes Western society as civilized and in contrast to other ‘primitive’ or barbaric societies. Primitive art created a great us versus them chasm between the Western societies who painted ‘primitive’ societies and the primitive societies they painted. This divide led to a sort of paternalistic attitude of Westerners in relation to the primitive subjects they painted. In his essay, Perry notes how many primitive artists traveled to ‘primitive’ lands (such as Tahiti) where they were able to exercise their god given talent at drawing inspiration from societies who were more naturally rooted than typical Western societies. This idea of traveling to another person’s home in order to draw inspiration from them suggests that primitive artists viewed their subjects as people over whom they had the right to control, both by entering their homes and considering them simply objects off of which to get inspiration.
Primitive artists not only showed paternalistic domination over other societies, but over women as well. Primitive artists used nude women as symbols of the return to the natural, pure and peaceful that urbanized, industrialized societies lacked. However, this image of the women seemed only to reach its peak effectiveness when femininity was over exaggerated, and this occurred by presenting the Wagnerian representation of a women where “the ultimate expression of the feminine is the abandonment of the self to the elements and to man; in it the woman is supposed to reach fulfillment only in her most natural and submissive state.” (Perry 26) By representing women in this manner, primitive artists suggest, despite a desire to return to the natural and thus feminine state, an acceptance to the domination of women by man.
As suggested by Perry in the article, the ideas of primitivism also partially gave rise to Nazi ideas in Germany. As an offshoot of primitivism, a style of art and literature called Kulturkritik emerged in Germany. Kulturkritik supported a rejection of the modern and a return to spiritual values. As Germans typically associated Jews with the modern and civilized, Jews became the antithesis of the views proposed by Kulturkritik artists. This opposition, as Perry argues, perhaps ignited the anti-Semitic feelings that eventually led to the Holocaust.
Though primitive artists had the intention of simply encouraging a return to purity of freedom from materialism, their methods mimicked the pillars of colonialism. Primitive artists were intrusive and patriarchal in their methods of observing their subjects and eventually depicting them.
I appreciate that Perry addressed not only the aesthetic qualities of primitivism but also the social and historical context of that time period.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the aesthetic qualities, Perry discussed subject matter and new techniques employed by artists such as Gauguin and Bernard. The subject matter of alien/foreign cultures outside of Western Europe, often from newly colonized nations or remote rural communities such as Brittany and Pont-Aven. I have seen Gauguin's Ia Orana Maria (Hail Mary) and La Vision apres le sermon. La Lutte de Jacob avec l'ange previous to this article, but I did not understand its significance in departure from bourgeoisie subject matter. Perry's article clarified why these paintings represent a turning point in modern art, a rejection of the newfound industrialization and modernization of urban Western Europe. Especially in the new age of science and technology, I can understand why Gauguin strove to return to an idealized, rural, simple life with an emphasis on faith and religion. From a technique perspective, I found his explanation on page 246 of the reader extremely clear as he describes that artists "focus on our attention...on the actual processes of painting...construed as some kind of primitivism...suggesting a more direct, unmediated mode of expression." This goes along with the class of discussion about modern paintings being more "honest" and not "lying" to us in the traditional style of art. This quote resonated with me because it agrees with the class discussion and I found it insightful in connecting primitivism with this technique. It reminds me of cave paintings, where it is the representation and the not reality emphasized. In this way, I find it ironic that often a 2-D or flat depiction of a scene has greater depth in interpretation as the audience is focused on the techniques the artist uses as well as the subject matter of the scene.
I also found that Perry's explanation of the historical context very helpful in understanding the motivation of the artists to create these paintings. Similar to the earlier article on the "Wild Men of Paris", this essay reminded me that artists were often on a budget so using rural settings and ordinary people allowed them to have a more accessible form of model. I found it humorous however, since Gauguin's quest for primitivism (as he defines it "simplicity, severity, and lack of naturalistic scale" (p. 247)) was not as pure or an accurate representation of his definition of primitivism. Perry's description of Brittany on p. 238 as an increasingly modernized community with "changing farming methods, increased cultivation of land, farming of the sea, and the growth in tourist revenues" helped ground me in recognizing that I should not look to these paintings as accurate portrayals of life in the 1880s. Granted, I acknowledge that modern painting has no intention of portraying life realistically. But at least I am reminded that these artists idealize their subject matter just as much as their predecessors. More so, I found it helpful that Perry reminded readers of the relationship between the subject and artist, often as perceived as "inferior" to "superior" so artists may have felt justified in changing the portrayal if they were like Gauguin and believed that they could express their own inherent primitivism rather than what actually existed in that time.
In response to changes occurring in the industrialized European countries, such as France, artists took to primitivism as a way of departing from the chaos of the civilized world. By escaping to rural villages, which were seen by Europeans as less competent, unfamiliar, and less technologically advanced, artists were able to connect and be closer to nature. Describing a culture as “primitive” took away any sort of identity from the country; it was only less civilized and seen as barbaric. However, describing a place as primitive was also saying that the people lived a simple way of life that was pure and free from any distractions created by industrialization. In order to paint these simple scenes, artists felt as though they had to be surrounded by simple folks. They needed leave the hustle of Europe.
ReplyDeleteColonization was one of the main reasons that artists were able to travel to these simple countries, such as North Africa and Tahiti. These pictures were evidence of colonization and they gave Westerners ideas of what life was really like at these locations. “The artists brush has a quite exceptional ability to create the illusion of life itself.” It goes without saying that from the point of view of the Europeans, colonization was beneficial for both parties. The “European culture could be replenished and primitive culture (could) gain through the introduction of trade, Western religion, and technology.” Colonizers really had no interest in finding out whether they were wanted there or not. In fact, the customs of the villagers, such as in Tahiti, were quickly lost once colonizers arrived. Paintings portrayed scenes of the Tahitians practicing the Christian faith.
Women, who were seen as simpler than man and as a symbol for nature, were frequently painted in the primitive artwork. The paintings show women working in nature and are continually surrounded by the outdoors. Women are never near anything modern or fake. It is evident why Gauguin chooses Eve to represent the primitive women. Being the first women, she is the essence of pure simplicity and she has a sincere connection with nature. At the time, it was though that women “reach fulfillment only in her natural and most submissive state.” Personally, I think Gauguin’s painting, The Loss of Virginity, shows the state at which a woman is completely under the control of man and at the same time completely connected to nature. The fox obviously represents man.
Primitive artwork is seen as modern because it is not trying to give an illusion or illustrate a picture. Instead, artists openly painted what they felt and experienced. While the lifestyle may have been simple, artists distorted images, which made it harder to understand the meaning. Because primitivism is an expression of the artist’s observation, symbols were often used, such as women. This simple, yet modern style of artwork allowed artists to be creative and express their thoughts, ideas, and impressions without having to worry about how realistic the painting seemed. This primitive style developed a theory known as “theory of equivalence” in which “artists used distortions, signs, or symbols to produce pictorial equivalents for their emotions or feelings.”
The Germans also took to this primitive style in hopes of getting back to the simple spiritual lifestyle which was still seen is rural, peasant-filled villages. The German government wanted to bring religion to a simple level so it was reachable for everyone.
Mark Kohn
ReplyDelete02/04/09
Much of Gill Perry’s essay “Primitivism and the ‘Modern”” focuses on defining and evaluating “primitivism” within an artistic and historical context. Interestingly, Perry points out that artists considered to be “modern” were actually in stark opposition to practices perceived to be “modern” such as industrialization as well as the increased emphasis on urbanization. As a result, many “modern” artists often looked toward the margins of Western society and attempted to draw artistic inspiration from what Western civilization considered to be “primitive” and “savage”. Spawning from this increased interest in what is considered “primitive”, many intellectuals tried to define “primitivism” within their own spheres of specialization. One such attempt was made by the historian and philosopher Michel Foucault who posited that any examination of “primitivism” was a practice in “discourse theory”. Perry elaborates more specifically on Foucault’s “discourse theory” when he says, “…’primitivism’ is seen as a complex network of sociological, ideological, aesthetic, scientific, anthropological, political, and legal interests (that is, ‘discourses’) which feed into and determine a culture. As a discourse, it involves, according to Foucault, a relationship of power.” Here, Perry is noting how the increased interest in “primitivism” that many Western artists demonstrated was a clear indication of the Eurocentric ideology that characterized Western society. In other words, by classifying something as “primitive” Western society is judging how “civilized” another society’s practices are by using their own cultural practices as the standards of “civility”. Furthermore, the notion of the “primitive” implies that there is a “correct” and “incorrect” way of living in the world, which serves to exclude and alienate many while only including and embracing a select few, all within the context of a “power dynamic”. Another attempt to characterize the “primitive” was made by an influential French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that those considered “primitive” should be seen as “noble savages”. Under this examination of the “primitive”, Rousseau argued that “primitive” people were closer to their “human roots” and somehow possessed a greater awareness of the connection between man and nature. It is this way of thinking about the “primitive” that prompted many artists to join “the cult of ‘the going away’”. Artists such as Paul Gauguin felt that if they renounced their lives in the European metropolitan centers like Paris, and moved to more rural areas, they would be able to draw artistic inspiration from the native people. Perry provides a clear explanation of this practice when he says, “The contemporary European obsession with the myth of the rural peasant as a figure of great moral wealth, uncorrupted by the sophistication and materialism of the modern world, was a crucial shared interest [to many artists]…” This obsession with the “primitive” sometimes led to the “self-deification” of artists, particularly Gauguin, who felt that they had some natural ability to relate to “primitive” people so effectively that it enabled them to extract their “inner savage” and express it through the medium of painting. Perry describes this phenomena when he explains, “…the artist [Gauguin] saw himself as a direct communicator, a kind of innate savage, for whom the objects and stimulus within an unsophisticated culture enable rather than simply inspire the expression of what is thought to be inherent in the artist. The artist is self-defined as a superior being, as creatively endowed.” Here, Perry makes clear the egocentric view that Gauguin carried with himself to the rural communities he visited and demonstrates how Gauguin manifested these views in his art. Clearly, the notion of the “primitive” had a profound influence on the art world and imbued itself in many artistic representations.
In the article titled “Primitivism and the ‘Modern’” author Gill Perry discusses the emergence of Primitive art that came out of the 20th century. This style of art while still considered part of the modernist movement, differed in subject matter and technique. Modernist art had originally focused on urban western culture exclusively, however this new style offered to change the traditional subject matter. The word primitivism is suggested by Perry as being derivative of “alien culture” which was “less civilized” than that of western cultures. Perry also discusses how the primitivism focuses on the simplicity as well as “purity and goodness” which contrasts that of “over-civilized Western societies” (234). These images presented the savage, primitive and uncivilized that were far escaped from Parisian cities.
ReplyDeleteMany artists chose to convey this simplicity through images of semi or fully nude women. Gauguin was known to have depicted women in the nude because females were considered to be closer to nature and symbolized an opposition to civilized urban life. Gauguin was also seen to have depicted women in their traditional costumes, which conveyed their difference in manner in dress from mainstream western culture. Gauguin depicts primitive women in The Breton Shepherdess as seeming very much a part of nature both in posture and express. Women despite their dress seem to be a popular subject matter through out primitivism.
The article also marks a trend in the emigration of artist into primitive societies. Gauguin moved to Brittany in order to “represent and to idealize a supposedly uncivilized culture” (236). This search in turn was used to find a new source of inspiration and expression. A way of breaking away from the typical to create something fresh and undone. This idea of “going away” was used in by various other primitive artists who sought the inspiration outside of the norm. This search for Gauguin however was never satisfied he continued to travel in order to search solace from western culture. His travel took him to Tahiti and the Marquesas islands in order to find “fertile soil” for his imagination. (257)
Artists such as Bernard were inspired by the religious nature of the primitive people and thus were inspired to create Symbolist art. Symbolist art occurs as the “artist convey[s] ideas and emotions, rather than observations, through the use of lines, colours and forms.” (244-245) This technique was thought to have revealed the inner meanings to the subject. This lead to a break away from naturalism allowing artists to focus their attention “on the actual processes of painting- on the surface the canvas as on the illusions creased” rather than the technical ability to reproduce an image (246). Examples of this can be seen in Gauguin’s The Vision in which he depicts the religious thoughts and beliefs of the primitive people. The goal of this style of painting is convey emotion rather than realistic images.
I found Perry’s essay on primitivism rather interesting because it explores problems of interpretation. Because artists most generally do not write essays with explanations to go along with their art, it is sometimes difficult to determine what exactly the artist is trying to express. Sometimes art can reveal a more obvious theme, message, or emotion; however, more ‘modern’ pieces are particularly difficult to interrupt due to the levels of abstraction. Because of the ambiguity in art it is hard to find a clear-cut shift in subject and technique over time. Perry argues that a primitive “tendency was already being produced within modern art” and that it would then become “a distinguishing feature of the ‘modern’” (231). This has us then question if artists such as Picasso, who are seen to be more in touch with an authentic artistic expression, really represented a radical advance in art or was inspired by sources of a similar type. Perry points that it is important to examine the political and cultural ramifications of a particular historical time period rather than focusing on “formal affinities and the ‘autonomous’ meanings of objects” (232). To better understand a work of art one should consider the social and cultural morals fixed in the piece of art and to investigate the relationship between ideology and representation. I can see now how exploring ideas, beliefs, and values can be seen within a painting.
ReplyDeleteArt endured some major shifts in style and technique during the era of industrialization and modernization in Europe. Artists tended to share their opinions about a new attitude toward life. Perry states that many artists who have been labeled as ‘modern’ were actually opposed to modernization. These artists expressed this feeling through their art, which is why some believe artist like Picasso began to paint more ‘primitive’ pictures. It has been debated that primitive art is the response to the development of modern society and the growth of technology and whether it has helped or hurt society. The word ‘primitive’ is rather controversial in itself, but I feel that this description has naturalized, racialized, and even sexualized some less technologically advanced societies. It was thought that the primitive cultures were “closer to nature” and better sources for artistic inspiration than the modern man. Art labeled as primitivism tended to be very abstract with figures, especially in facial and body proportions. This style of art is very visible in Picasso’s work such as, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, where human figures are distorted. Whether Picasso was unaware or conscious of painting in a primitive style his art has evoked many questions and debate.
While reading Gill Perry’s “Introduction: Primitivism in art-historical debate”, I began to notice the similarities primitivism shares with still-lifes. In his essay, Perry states, “the artist saw himself as a direct communicator, a kind of innate savage, for whom the objects and stimulus within an unsophisticated culture enable rather than simply inspire the expression of what is thought to be inherent in the artist. The artist is self-defined as a superior being, as creatively endowed” (247). This line clearly expresses how with primitivism, the objects of a less civilized culture in a work of art act as a medium for artists to express their thoughts and emotions. Such expression is similar to still-lifes in that when painting a still-life, an artist gives life to objects with their thoughts; in both cases, the objects are inferior and greatly depend on the artist. In my opinion, the objects or subjects within a primitive work of art share a stronger relationship with the artist than the objects or subjects of a still-life; I feel as if there’s a deeper connection between the primitive objects and one’s thoughts. For thoughts, to me, are somewhat like the basis of who we are as human beings; they affect our behavior, our personality. There’s also a savage and natural characteristic to our thoughts and emotions, which gives strength to the relationship a primitive artist shares with objects. The primitive objects represented in a work of art give viewers an insight to the fundamental, simple, and savage-like, emotions and thoughts of the artist.
ReplyDeleteThe other interesting area of primitivism that Perry discusses concerns how Gaugin used the female as the subject of his primitive works. I must admit I’m a little confused when Perry explores Gaugin’s Eve theme. Perry states that Eve “is, as [Gaugin] suggests, both the symbol and the subject of his primitivism, ‘painted in the forms and harmonies of another world’” (252). What “other world” is Gaugin referring to? Is it a world merely composed of his thoughts and emotions? Or is it a world of romanticism, where Gaugin is at one with nature, who I wonder, in this case, is represented by Eve? It makes sense that Gaugin chooses Eve to be the focus of his primitive works for Eve, in her natural state, roams around the Garden of Eden naked; until she tempts Adam to bite the apple, she leads a simple, uncivilized, lifestyle. Also, women are known to be the givers of life; because Eve is considered to be the woman of all women, she can be considered as the origin of providing life. In this sense, I suppose she is the epitome of “savage” and she embodies all the principles of primitivism.
Gill Perry’s writings in Privitism and the ‘Modern went deeper than most of the other readings we’ve encountered to place this style of art in historical context. Perry illustrates the concept of primitivism as a result of misunderstanding, ignorance, and social construction of the ‘other’. He allows us to call into question the validity of Primitivism as a genuine representation, pushing the reader to consider more than successful composition.
ReplyDeleteThe section on “going away” was unsettling. Perry discusses how artists, such as Gaugin, felt that they needed to “go away” from urban centers to experience the “primitivism” they intended to portray in their paintings. At the surface, the artists appear to be taking initiative to make their paintings more honest and original. Yet Perry reveals that this notion of authenticity was based on the ignorant assumption that the places they fled to were actually primitive communities. In fact, at the time that Gaugin spurred the creation of an artistic community in Brittany---intending to immerse himself in a less civilized culture--the area had already experienced various forms of modernization. But the artists appeared to have clung to their preconceptions of Brittany being a vastly different society.
The “Primitivist” paintings reveal how the artists created their subjects in an image of the “other”--as different from the artist who is depicting them. In Breton Woman at a Pardon, the artist, Bernard, paints figures throughout the image in a flat, highly stylized manner. The human and animal figures in the painting are simplified and made less sophisticated in order to reflect the nature of the subjects they are depicting. Bernard chose to convey the primitivism of the people of Breton by painting in a primitive style. However, Perry points out that the women in the painting were actually “relatively affluent peasants.” Thus, the painting is based off of false assumptions. In the spirit of “going away” Bernard attempts to become deeply familiar with his subjects. Yet he ends up misunderstanding and in effect constructing a false image of a group of people.
Perry’s account on Primitivisms helps to shatter whatever illusions of infallibility we might have towards artists. With many amateur art observers, like myself, we tend to only see what the artist accomplishes with any given painting. We are used to trusting that every choice presented in a piece is deliberate and offers something meaningful to say. But artists like Gaugin and Bernard are not immune to misconception when it comes to their works of art. By placing Primitivism in its historical context, we can better understand the pieces and think more objectively about them.
Elisabeth Sevy
ReplyDelete2/4/2009
The words “primitivism” and “primitive” can mean quite a range of things. When I first read these words I immediately thought savage, or pictures cavemen, but obviously these words mean more than that. Especially when used in an art form, these words can take on a whole different light. These words inspired and shaped many artist’s pieces and continue to do so.
Guaguin and Picasso were able to get “in touch with a pure, direct mode of artistic expression” through primitivism, much before most other artists. (Perry, 231) They used this “complex network of sociological, ideological, aesthetic, scientific, anthropological, political, and legal interests, which feed into and determine a culture” as an inspiration and often them or subject for their artistic works. (Perry, 232) Perry also makes sure to differentiate between “primitivism” and “being primitive”, two terms that may be falsey used interchangeably. Primitivism, as I quoted perry above, is a person’s view on another culture, whereas being primitive is a being less civilized or of a lower class in comparison to another culture or group.
Artists who used primitivism did not just paint pictures of what they thought were considered “primitive” people. They used them as an inspiration and placed them in their works, bending and molding them however they wished. It’s interesting to see the wide range of artwork that emerged from this “movement” or inspiration. From Jules-Jean-Antoine du Nouy’s The White Slave, to Paul Gauguin’s Hail Mary, they are all so different yet have used the same idea of drawing from these different cultures to influence their work and change their ideas. All of these works are draped under the same umbrella named “primitivism”, but have used the idea in different ways to depict different feelings and themes they believe. The works, and the ideas of this time just showed how much Europeans believed that they were above other cultures. They believed other cultures to be almost barbaric, and simple just because they lived differently from them.
Victor Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteSection 7
Primitivism
The whole concept of Primitivism makes a lot of sense to me. The idea that life was simpler when there was less things to worry about is actually quite attractive. Wouldn’t we all love to live simple, care-free lives? Unfortunately, we don’t really have that option anymore. In any case, Primitivism as an art form also makes a lot of sense. In Gil Perry’s article “Primitivism and the Modern,” I was especially struck by the way Perry presented the argument. The concept of “going away” is perhaps the best example of the way the argument was structured. It was easy for me to understand more concretely, what primitivism was, by comparing it to the act of going away from the modern and into the primitive. Perry suggests that the roots of Primitivism go back to the 19th century and that this need of capturing the rawness of a primitive life was what inspired many artists to incorporate primitive scenes and subjects in their work.
Among other things, Picasso is famous for the primitive elements that he incorporated into his art. But Perry also acknowledges the fact that Picasso was not the first to explore with primitivism. In fact, primitivism was prevalent in the work of appraised artists such as Paul Gauguin. Perry writes that “Picasso was building on an innovative tradition anticipated in the work of Gauguin’s generation” (231). If we look at some of Gauguin’s work, we can see what Perry is referring to. As a point of reference, I have chosen my favorite Gauguin, La perte de pucelage (The Loss of Virginity) to demonstrate this idealizing of the primitive.
In La perte de pucelage, I was struck by the rigidity of the female’s body. It is akin to that of ancient Egyptian art. Her stiffness does a great job of illustrating that something was stolen from her. Based on the title and her rigid posture, one can infer that she has been raped. Having said that, I found the primitivism in this painting is a lot more subtle than in some of Gauguin’s other work. To me, the primitivism in the painting is found in her rigidness. However, this interpretation negates the idea that primitivism recalls a simpler time. In fact, the young woman in this situation appears to be going through anything but a simple time. In this respect, I am not sure how the ideology of primitivism and the art practice of primitivism overlap.
Perry addresses several of the problems that complicate our understanding of Primitivism both as a concept and as an art form. What exactly is something primitive? Perhaps it is easy to say that it is anything below the highest standards of civilization, but this is exactly why Perry regards primitivism as Eurocentric. On the other hand, the fact that European artists and intellectuals were searching for deeper understanding of life within the ideals of primitivism suggests an openness to what the rest of society considers “primitive.”
The excerpt from Gill Perry’s “Primitivism and the ‘Modern’” reflects on artist Gauguin’s use of primitivism in his paintings. Gauguin felt as if he needed to break away from urban environments and modernization and sought out primitive societies and rural environments in an attempt to leave metropolitan Paris behind. (Perry 236) I think Gauguin fell prey to as Perry says, “the myth of the rural peasant as a figure of great moral worth, uncorrupted by the sophistication and materialism of the modern world.” (Perry 238) Gauguin spent some time in the rural area of Brittany and spent the later years of his life in Tahiti as a result of this desire to depict primitive culture. To him primitivism is defined by it’s “severity, simplicity, and lack of naturalistic scale”; the artist must not record nature, but rather his feelings towards it; he must focus on the process of painting. (Perry 245-6) This response is going to focus on the role of women as subjects for Gauguin’s ‘primitive’ works and more specifically, on the painting “Bergere Bretonne” painted in 1886.
ReplyDeleteGauguin has a common theme in his primitive paintings – the subjects are, most often, local peasant women. For example, in “Bergere Bretonne” (The Breton Shepherdess) Gauguin depicts a woman sitting on top of a grassy hill watching over a herd of goats with a rural background. The woman is dressed as a peasant with a white bonnet on her head and what appears to be an apron tied about her waist. She is sitting with her legs out in front of her leaning out toward the herd of feeding black and white goats a little ways below her. The viewer knows that the shepherdess is atop a hill because the tops of colorful gold and green-leaved trees are in the distance along with a plain that appears to be farmland or a vacant field. There are also some indiscernible structures in the background that could possibly be a farmhouse or barn of some sort. The warm colors and soft fluid brushstrokes used throughout the piece put the viewer at ease; the scene is calm and inviting. Gauguin depicts this peasant woman as one with nature; she is completely content with her surroundings. Perry uses Gauguin’s depiction of women as one with nature in his argument that “the notion of the ‘primitive’ as the ‘other’ of Western culture sometimes carried with it a set of gendered oppositions, of ‘feminine’ Nature against ‘masculine’ Culture.” (Perry 252) Maybe Gauguin is trying to show that a relationship exists between men and women as does with Western culture and primitivism. In other paintings he uses naked women as a symbol for ‘primitive’ life such as in “La Vie et la Mort” and “Dans les Vagues.” (Perry 252) The fact that these women are naked in nature drives home the idea that they are one with nature; clothes are the only aspect of the subject of “Bergere Bretonne” that deviate from a completely natural scene. While the shepherdess is fully clothed in our painting, she still acts as an important symbol for Gauguin’s use of primitivism.
In “Primitivism and the ‘Modern’” by Perry it explores the debates over primitivism in modern art, and most interestingly it explains the debates of how different types of women are represented. One important debate is the meaning of primitivism. One interesting point that is indulged throughout the text is the use of primitivism to describe slaves or ‘savages’ vs the use of primitivism to describe many other types of women. Primitivism is used by Bernard to describe “a land characterized by a simple poverty and religion” (244), while primitivism is also make allusions to Eve “as a metaphor for [Gauguin’s] own primitivism” (252). These definitions bring up an interesting point, primitivism is often used to portray anything that is seen as sub standard or as inferior, and often represents something vastly different for different people. One person’s view of primitivism can be greatly influenced by their situation, such as Gauguin, who often painted women working in fields in Brittany. This surrounding gave him a perspective to observe and judge what he saw as primitivism. This is important because it has a great effect on their paintings.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about primitivism, it helps to examine the artwork and see how the paintings represent women and primitivism. It is interesting to see different representations of women, and compare the pieces. One interesting part of the paintings is the body position of the women. Many of the pieces such as the Dinet and Marianne have women in lounging positions on fields, while the Dinet and Nouy have subjects that are sitting in lounging positions. This is interesting because it contrasts many of the other paintings which show women doing work either in fields or other organized forms of work. By representing primitivism through these multiple perspectives it shows that primitivism can be represented by either women being put to work on manual labor or through showing them not participating in work.
Details within the artwork provide further expression of primitivism. Brushstrokes are used to convey a multitude of messages. In some parts of the painting the brushstrokes are long and angled, providing a streaky effect that emphasizes the subjects that are not distorted, such as Bernard’s silhouettes and Gauguin’s Agony’s subject’s faces. This is important because it gives the painting flow that makes it easier for the viewer to understand the subject. Other techniques used for painting is the use of thin dark lines. These lines are important for emphasis, providing stark contrast and defined shapes that make the subject very clear. This is important because it can emphasize a shape to bring attention to it, such as Gauguin’s Christ painting, where the Christ figure is outlined by dark lines to emphasize the cross shape. Overall, the artistic techniques are used to emphasize certain aspects that help the artist show their subjects.
Throughout today’s (and some of last time’s) readings, primitivism (or at least its name) seemed like a rather racist conception to me. Although this wouldn’t really surprise someone that knew about the heights that European imperialism and colonialism had reached in the late 19th century, when primitivism started, I thought it strange that some of these artists then considered avant-garde had apparently embraced the colonialist rhetoric so fully in casting these foreign cultures and civilizations as undeveloped, simple, and essentially, ‘primitive’.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, they don’t seem to have been trying to seem racist; what they said was completely acceptable in the society that they lived in, and they freely condemned/embraced any relatively unindustrialized and undeveloped area or associated cultures, even one as close as Brittany, a rural region of France. Also, of course, primitivist artists sought not to necessarily disparage these people, but rather wanted the simple life they considered these ‘savages’ to have, considering them purer and closer to nature.
Although this desire for to get away from modernity, from civilization and industrialization, from all of the activity in the cities, may seem contradictory to modernism and preceding art movements, it seems perfectly reasonable and expected to me. When any rapid change occurs, sociological or technological, many people have a tendency to seek a more familiar, perhaps simpler past, not wanting the new troubles brought forth, and perhaps the improvements and conveniences too. The events of the 19th century were no exception to this, and combined with this new myth of the peasant and the ‘savage’ as morally uncorrupt, pure, and close to nature, the reasons behind the apparently sudden popularity of artists forming communes in remote places and showing interest in depicting this ‘primitivism’ lack mystery.
While these artists may have dearly sought this lack of civilization, whether they actually found this seems doubtable. While Gauguin, one of these primitivists, lived in Brittany for several years, due to its appeal as a quaint, backwards farming region, increasing numbers of tourists and others like him who sought simplicity had led to economic development, and new farming methods had brought prosperity and modernized its agricultural industry, leaving the foreign (to these outsider artists, at least) customs and religious rituals of these people as mere “tourist spectacle” rather than something truly genuine and meaningful. Similarly, when Gauguin relocated to Tahiti, he had done so in search of the ‘savage’ and uncivilized; however, by then, the continuous Western contact had rather ‘civilized’ the locals, who wore Western clothes and attended Catholic churches in increasing numbers.
In terms of artistic style and technique, however, these artists did not abandon the defining modernist characteristics of their time. Painting in a vaguely Impressionist style, Gauguin’s and others’ paintings featured wide swathes of flat color, dark outlines, and general lack of depth. However, also influenced by Japanese art prints, while they remained firmly against illusionism, they subjectively distorted and stylized their representations, departing from the complete empiricism of Impressionism. As art critic Maurice Denis notes, they used “decorative deformation” to represent “[their] emotions and [their] dreams”, not “objective deformation” to create an aesthetically pleasing picture and fooling the viewer with an illusionistic space.
In my experience as an Art History major, I have not crossed the topic of “Primitivism” thus far. The concept and connection between artists such as Gauguin and Picasso now seems extremely obvious after reading Gill Perry’s “Introduction: Primitivism in art-historical debate” from Primitivism and the ‘Modern’. I found the connection between primitive and primitivism extremely intriguing; yet distinction of ‘primitive’ in terms of subject matter versus style even more compelling.
ReplyDeleteLast semester I took a European History class that focused on the historical modern era, i.e. 1400- present. During this class I listened in on a lecture that focused on the late 19th century’s interest in colonization of “lesser” societies. At the peak of the industrial revolution, people also had a remarkable interest in what was nearly the complete opposite of the new age, ‘primitive culture’. Perry states that “Many artist whom we now label, ‘modern’ were in fact opposed to the processes of modernization (by which I mean the forces of industrialization and urbanization in Western capitalist society.)” (231) After reading this quote, I was able to place this notion of “primitivism and primitive” into context, of not only history but in art history as well.
Unlike artists such as Manet or Renoir who embraced the changing society of their time, artists like Gauguin chose to take a step back and paint what they thought triggers our natural state of being. For Gauguin, he not only painted in a primitive style but he also painted what the European’s thought of as a ‘primitive’ society, Tahitians. The idea of a rebirth to a natural state and the refocusing on an emotive way of painting instead of technical talent, may have been an opposition to the modern ways, but ironically is in fact a modern outlook on art.
Altogether, modern art is clearly new art, and although ‘primitive’ is typically seen as old an outdated, in this case is very avant-garde. Primitivism became rather fashionable at the turn of the century, and furthermore influenced artists such as Picasso to take primitivism to another level-abstraction. Which in therefore continues the trend of art and past movements effects on future ones.