Dean - 2006 - The Trouble With (The Term) Art
Dean - 2006 - The Trouble With (The Term) Art
Dean - 2006 - The Trouble With (The Term) Art
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20068464?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
CAA is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal
The Trouble with substitute term?non-European art?was also criticized by those in the
field. Suggested alternatives?exotic art; traditional art; the art of pre -
industrial people; folk or popular art; tribal art; ethnic or ethno-art;
(the Term) Art ethnographical art; ethnological art; native art; indigenous art; pre
urban art; the art of precivilized people; non-Western art; the indige
nous arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas?have all been proposed and cri
tiqued.3 Despite decades of discussion, little has been resolved, as was seen in
This essay was originally formulated as a paper the array of commentary provoked in 1984 by William Rubin's "Primitivism" exhi
delivered at the 2005 Annual Conference of the
bition and its companion catalogue.4 What interests me in all of this is the fact
College Art Association, in a session entitled "Art
History, Theory, and Ancient American Visual that discussion, from the i9?OS to the present, invariably focuses on the adjective?
Culture" and organized by Dana Leibsohn and primitive, exotic, or what have you?rather than the noun, "art." This is the case
Bryan R. Just. I am grateful for the comments and
suggestions offered by many of those who attend
even when the author acknowledges that "art" is also a difficult term without
ed the session. My thanks also to Shelly Errington, proper definition and agreed-upon usage.5 Thus, it may be time to focus specifi
Catherine M. Soussloff, Dana Leibsohn, Elisabeth
cally on the term "art" as currently used by scholars writing about the many and
L. Cameron, Steve Chiappari, and an anonymous
reviewer who commented on early versions of varied autochthonous visual cultures of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Such
the paper. Funds for manuscript preparation were
a discussion matters not only to those studying long-ago or faraway places; it
generously provided by the Arts Research Insti
tute at the University of California, Santa Cruz. concerns all those who employ the term, for what art is seems to be at the very
heart of the issue.
1. As early as 1942, Leonhard Adam, in Primitive
Art (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1942), 14, While all can concur that "art" is an ambiguous term with multifarious
noted that only a certain foreignness in form and and inconsistent meanings, a surprisingly small number of art historians in the
content linked the arts of Africa, Oceania, and the
Americas in the minds of Europeans. He argued
so-called AOA fields (Africa, Oceania, Americas), those fields focused on cultures
that, because the linkage is extraneous to the most commonly labeled "primitive," face this problem head on.6 Some recent art
works themselves, the alleged association of
historians working in the diversre AOA fields skirt the issue by declining to say
African, Oceanic, and indigenous American arts
depends solely on the attitudes of Europeans what art is; they focus instead on what those objects that have been collected and
toward said works. Still, despite his own reserva
displayed in the West as art do. Dorie Reents-Budet is one of a few exceptions; in
tions, Adam entitled his book Primitive Art.
2. Adrian Gerbrands, Art as an Element of Culture, her catalogue Painting the Maya Universe, she notes that the "Western recognition of
Especially in Negro-Africa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957), non-Western art is vulnerable to historical events, education, and sociocultural
9-24.
fashion."7 Outside the AOA area, Donald Preziosi has asked "whether our own
3. One only has to peruse the pages of Current
Anthropology in which, over the past five decades, modernist conceptions of art make much sense beyond our own spatiotemporal
some forty anthropologists and art historians have
published their opinions, to see that plenty of
or socio-cultural horizons"; he answers his rhetorical query largely in the negative
very smart people have attempted to reckon with and points out that the discipline of art history, with its indistinct boundaries, has
terms and labels of this ilk. In 1965, for example,
in response to a letter from Adriaan G. H.
no clearly defined, coherent domain of study8 Despite his reservations, the assump
Claerhout, the editors of Current Anthropology tion that art is a universal that can and perhaps should be found in every society
published the comments of twelve internationally
in every historical period pervades the discipline. Although people everywhere
recognized authorities on the term "primitive
art," which was widely used at that time, but sometimes make aesthetic distinctions between objects and value certain things
widely disliked as well. See Claerhout, "The above other things owing precisely to these aesthetic distinctions, "art" as a special
Concept of Primitive Applied to Art," Current
Anthropology 6 (October 1965): 432-38. Several category of things and practices composed of subcategories defined variously by
years earlier Herta Haselberger offered readers of medium, function, geographic provenance, value, and so on, is not recognized
25 art journal
26 SUMMER 2006
27 art journal
28 SUMMER 2006
29 art journal
30 SUMMER 2006
3 I art journal
32 SUMMER 2006