Modern and Primitive Art [antikvár]

ForewordIn the chapters that follow I intend to treat the theme of the relationship between modern and primitive art with deliberate reserve and caution. The reason for this is clear. There is no fundamental relationship between the art of the 20th century and that of the so-called primitives.Greece, the guiding light in European history, was the inspiration of the Renaissance in the 15th century. Values which had previously held good right round the Mediterranean were rediscovered. But the conditions which prevailed at the time of the birth of Greek art were not the same as those of 15th-century Italy. Nevertheless this encounter with Greek art - which was paralleled by the new life given to ancient writers by the humanists - was of lasting significance: Europe owes the evolution of its image of man, which played no decisive role in primitive art, to the influence of Greek art on the masters of the Renaissance.In contemporary Europe, primitive art is not just exoticism but also a rich mine of forms for an age in which originality threatens to become extinct and which therefore seeks spontaneity wherever it appears. This quest by European artists for originality in the art of the South Sea Islands, Africa and other civilizationsborder on aesthetic exploitation. Such foreign exploitation and influences had already largely destroyed primitive civilizations. Their art cannot be used as a model: it cannot be copied, and where imitation occurs It is based on a misconception. At best, primitive art can be a touchstone. But when it Is used as a criterion, it leads to judgements that are ambivalent for modern art.It is not possible .to claim that the Western world lacks expressive impulses or some 'savageness' presupposed in primitive art, for the latter is neither savage nor barbaric. 'Negro' art has Its own classicism. It expresses man's existence, the complete individual, the stability of his life. It does not express the colossal, nor what is larger than life, but rather the humility which the Greeks called 'Tapeinotes' and the Romans 'Humilitas' - weakness, lowliness - that which binds human destiny to the earth' (P. M'Veng).Nevertheless, this primitive classicism does contain a driving force, which could be called barbaric and which Is searching for form and elucidation, striving for classical expression. In contemporary Europe, which no longer possesses this energy, we look for the primitive: hence there is an evident preference for archaicforms. Perhaps that is a clear indication of artistic sterility.The tension which alone can produce a great classical form Is patently lacking. The artists of the Expressionist movement tried to suggest this tension by means of distortion. Worringer has described these efforts as the pitiful philosophy of the 'as if: primitive sculpture is not art In our sense of the word because the plastic or decorative product is not separated from other manifestations of life. Art was one form of social expression amongst others, born of man's knowledge of his community, and of his religious experience. Since the Gothic age it has no longer held this function in Europe.There Is. therefore, no real inner connection between contemporary and primitive art. Where an evident affinity exists, it is often no more than an almost tragic nostalgia for the primitive world. Many modern artists are no doubt trying to salvage something of the magic nature of primitive art for contemporary Europe, although in the process the character of this magic must change. But usually the imitation of primitive art is merely a fashion.Charles Wentinck