Anyone writing about the anthropology of art is eventually forced to confront the problem of how art is to be defined. In the recent past they may also have felt obliged to deal with the question of the label 'primitive' (see Gerbrands 1957, Anderson 1979, Layton 1991). In the case of this latter term, however, I am content to assume that the battle has been won in anthropology, if not in art history (cf. Rubin 1984: 6ff.) The addition of the label 'primitive' adds nothing but confusion to the literature on the art of non-Western societies (see Layton 1991 for an informed discussion, but Gell 1992: 62 fn. 1 for a qualified defence of the use of the term). However, the fact that the word 'primitive' was applied to these arts for so long tells us something about the European concept of art and the role it has played in the positioning of 'other cultures' in European thought, and highlights why it is so necessary that any review of the anthropology of art should begin with the definitional problem.1
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.