Three criticisms of "Primitivism" in 20th Century Art: the Postmodern Challenge to the Concept of "Affinity"

Abstract

This article analyzes the discursive foundations of the controversial exhibition “Primitivism in 20th Century Art”, held at the MoMA (1984/1985) and curated by William Rubin. Additionally, it examines, in chronological order, the three main critiques articulated against it, written by Thomas McEvilley, James Clifford, and Hal Foster. These authors demonstrated a solid postmodern awareness by identifying in “Primitivism in 20^th Century Art” the most pernicious axioms of the enlightened discourse of Western modernity, which includes the formalist narrative of modern art. Among these axioms, the article highlights the universal pretension of William Rubin's theses; the understanding of the cultural Other as a non-historical subject; the canonization of Picasso as the genius of primitivism; the teleological-linear sense of artistic progress; and the logic of autonomy and self-realization of Western art. The article also points out and comments on the main argumentative differences in the texts of McEvilley, Clifford, and Foster, as well as their most characteristic aspects. It will be evident that Thomas McEvilley’s postcolonial critique is driven by an imperfect cultural relativism, as the critic assumes certain essentialist categories from the narrative of “Primitivism”. Regarding James Clifford's text, the continuity of his critical discourse with some methodologies of Global Art History will be highlighted, especially those related to the reconsideration of historical-temporal paradigms and the transcultural understanding of artistic practices. Concerning Hal Foster's critique, certain conceptual resources that underpin his theoretical thinking will be distinguished; similarly, his unique interpretation of primitivism and his counter-discursive formulations will be explored.