In this section of the book, a part that stood out to me was the idea of there being a connection between primitivism and modernism. Primitivism, as defined by the book, as a deep link to 'feelings and ideas'--a sort of fancy way to say that they take root from the past and what we consider 'primitive' or 'third world'. But when you think that the book has suddenly shifted to an ignorance, you flip the page to find that primitivism has received controversy over the notion of ethnocentrism (or bigotry judging based on the values from one's own world view). So, is primitivism, while a crucial part of redefining art to create modernism (because most anything new takes its foundation from something in its past), could it possibly be the wrong way to go about creating modernism? The whole primitivism section delves not only in art in the typical canvas form, but also in literary and expressionistic form.
I also liked the way that the novel blended together Dadaism into surrealism, which in turn refers back to Freud and the idea of the 'mental world' and psychology being used to express the real world in rather abstract ways.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EDdCjtzcw8&feature=PlayList&p=BEB03A62FE28FFD3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18
^ primitivism reminded me of "Why Man Creates", because of this idea of an evolution of creation and how some things never change
Why Man Creates
No comments:
Post a Comment