The Term of Primitive Inspiration - Essay Example

Going primitive Modernism originated when Western world was going through too radical changes for any artist to describe reality in terms they used to describe it before. Real life was changing in a very fast tempo due to industrialization, the increasing power of masses which was changing potential audience, making intellectuals in general and artists specifically seek for new themes, new artistic languages and new inspiration to put in a new form. Mass production affected arts, and a general materialization already peculiar to Western world reached the peak unprecedentedly bringing commercialization to many spheres of life. Among modernists there were artists who supported materialization, and there were ones trying to rebirth spiritual life. Paul Gauguin was one of those seeking for something spiritual in a new highly commercial world. Desire to find himself, and specifically, to reveal a human savage nature made him interested in those less civilized (from Western point of view) native inhabitants of Brittany first, and later Tahiti painting them in a specific manner that was later called “primitivism”. Some critics think that this way Gaugen was going back to own savage origin (“a savage who must return to the savage”) but Solomon-Godeau sees a more social explanation on Gauguin’s desire: it was a reaction of a civilized colonist, a man from patriarchal society willing to express a power upon colonial, predominantly female savage culture (Solomon-Godeau 120). Meanwhile, in Germany there was a discussion among intellectuals on the way Germany should choose for a spiritual culture rebirth. Despite dissidence, German artists agreed that modern art should “serve for” German state. Some of artists stood for a turning back to own origins thinking on more conservative themes and forms, and some insisted Germans to look for inspiration from folk culture of non-European colonies to put in expressional forms. According to Lloyd, Emil Nolde was artist fitting both trends, and at the same time none of them because in his art Nolde was inspired by primitive forms and themes considering them eternal, but also trying to engage them with modern concerns (Lloyd 93). For Nolde that primitive inspiration, a true spiritual origin could be only found in spiritual artifacts hand-made by “primitives” “with actual material in their hands, between their fingers”, with “pleasure and love of creating” (Lloyd 100). And primitives themselves for Nolde were native inhabitants of colonies, yet not those generations of living which were experiencing colonization and therefore, exercised a mix of own culture tradition with one of colonists (willingly or unwillingly), but those once living before westernization. What left of them were artifacts keeping “a spiritual unity” with authors through centuries (Lloyd 100). Thus, Nolde’s models for series of his still lives paintings were masks, Aztec pottery, native jewelry of tribes and etc. observed in museums or individually found to put in a composition. It seems Gauguin had fallen into the trap Nolde had successfully escaped when turning for inspiration to non-European culture representatives. Solomon-Godeau insists that Gauguin supposed to know that a savage culture of Tahiti he considered to be original and “primitive”, had been actually affected by French culture already for more than 100 years (Solomon-Godeau 124). Models (predominantly young Tahiti women) Gauguin was painting were westernized churchgoing on Sundays, and “the bright-colored cloth used for clothing, bedding and curtains that Gauguin depicted was of European design and manufacture” (Solomon-Godeau 125). In this way, despite Gauguin’s “primitives” were natives, experiencing colonization, and often by intermarriages, Tahitians were representatives of a mixed culture at best, or of a Western culture, - the one Gauguin was trying to escape. Thus, Gauguin was creating a myth of a savage “primitives”, and of being a savage himself (Solomon-Godeau 120). To convey this myth to audience Gauguin portrays stasis to bringing a feeling of something eternal. Secondly, Gauguin portrays females, rarely young boys with androgynous body features, or children to create a feeling of purity, naturality. For example, on Gauguin’s painting Te nava nava fenua (1892) the model’s painted absolutely naked with a pubic hair. She’s standing among exotic flowers, and a tropical lizard is climbing near, yet the posture of a model looks quite of Western kind. The reason is that despite a primitive manner of painting, Gauguin was borrowing from other Western artists “picking up here and their” a lot, says Pissarro, and postures were borrowed from paintings Manet, Cranach etc., faces and backgrounds often drawn from photographs (Solomon-Godeau 128). Similarly to his doubtfully “primitive” savages, Gauguin was doubtfully painting a primitive art. Similarly to Gauguin primitive manner Nolde paintings were drawn in a primitive manner with visible lines, generally looking more like sketches than finished works of art, and colors Nolde used when drawing were also bright like on Gauguin exotic paintings. Yet topics differ greatly. Nolde paints “ethnographic” still pictures with still emotions, at the same time stylizing them “to subjective reality” (Lloyd 92). Nolde’s painting The missionary (1912) has a modern but at the same time still narrative: there’s a missioner (most likely European) come to impose colonial religion on a native women (who already confesses a native religion, according to a traditional mask on a wall). Facial expressions on the painting are still as well as the scene itself, and apparently, faces were inspired by “primitive” masks. Difference between two artists also exists on borrowing. Oppositely from Gauguin who borrows much from Western paintings, Nolde takes the style of painting, characters etc. from tribal paintings or child paintings including copying from Nolde’s own school textbooks in this way, conveying primitivism. Generally, Nolde’s approach on conveying primitivism can be considered a more logical comparing to one that Gauguin applies. Believing in a spiritual unity between artifacts and their authors, Nolde was processing best existing examples of a savage culture in a colonial world. What seems illogical is Nolde’s desire to mix them among each other with a view of modern concerns, despite artifacts may belong to different cultural traditions. It makes artifacts be ahistorical and basically, missing of origin. Meanwhile, Gauguin seems to fail in conveying a primitive culture at all. Being inspired by westernized Tahitian inhabitants, Gauguin was rather painting a myth for Europeans made by civilized Europeans than a primitive culture itself. It can be concluded that Paul Gauguin and Emil Nolde had similar reasons to “go primitive”, expect Nolde’s desire to fulfill a spiritual life of a German nation was a more social in kind than individual desire of Gauguin to discover a savage nature of himself first. Both feeling inspired by non-European cultures, neither Gauguin nor Nolde had managed to convey a lost primitive cultural tradition. Instead of that primitive artists had rather created a myth of “primitivism” for a modern commercial world. Yet however successful were findings of both painters they developed a unique manner of drawing making a valuable input in art history of 20th century, and inspiring new generations of artists. Works Cited Lloyd, Jill. “Emil Nolde’s Ethnographic Still Lifes: Primitivism, Tradition and Modernity”. In Hiller, Susan (Ed.) The Myth of Primitivism. Routledge, 1989. Solomon-Godeau, Abigail. “Going Native”. Art in America, Vol. 77, no. 7, pp. 118-129. July 1989. Read More