In Jamaica, the term Primitive has come into current art-historical usage primarily through the debate initiated between David Boxer and the critic Andrew Hope. Hope has suggested that 'primitive' is a convenient name and descriptor for our self-taught artists, while Boxer has argued its inadequacy, and instead favoured the term 'intuitive'. (1) Whereas, I wholly agree with David Boxer that the term 'primitive' is derogatory and particularly inappropriate to categorising our self-taught artists. I would suggest further that it is wholly inappropriate when used to discuss any art created outside of a Western art historical framework. As I have written elsewhere:
[Intuitive] ... is a term which is enjoying greater credence in Jamaica and elsewhere as an alternative to misnomers such as 'primitive' or 'naive', which apart from being pejorative, are still not appropriate descriptors for the work of these artists. David Boxer, curator of the exhibition, 'Fifteen Intuitives', has suggested that the term 'intuitive' makes an important distinction between the term 'primitive', as it relates to the tribal arts of Africa, Oceania and pre-Colombian America, and the self-taught artists of Jamaica who, despite being African descendants and manifesting certain forms of African retention in their work, ought not to be viewed as merely a type of neo-African artist.
Whereas one would agree that the term 'primitive' is unfortunate, whether in terms of Africa, Jamaica or any other context, it is true that the work of Jamaica's intuitives offers an experience of the world which cannot be credited to a mere 're-collective' memory of Africa. Although there is no one style which distinguishes the intuitives of Jamaica, they do share characteristics of working from an inner vision of reality which they record through skills they have developed without formal artistic training. (2)
The discussion surrounding usage of the term 'primitive' in Jamaica has been somewhat misleading since it has been limited to an opposition of two words 'primitive' and 'intuitive'. The discussion needs to be broadened to examine the judgement and implications that are placed on all artists once they are labelled as 'primitive'. Additionally, it seems unfair, that we in Jamaica should go so far in challenging the term 'primitive' to the end of merely extricating our own artist from the morass. By maintaining the term as a reference to artists and artifacts from other cultures such as Africa, we are merely 'piggybacking' on notions misconstrued by Western art historians. It is far more useful to analyse and deconstruct the term once and for all, on behalf of all the peoples who might be ill-defined by it. And, as Colin Rhodes has so succinctly written, "Primitivism is an entirely Western event", therefore it must be viewed entirely within that context.
The discipline of art history was nurtured in the eighteenth century and although more idealist than rationalist, its articulation of the artistic bowed to the scientific by drawing on the same resources for language. It is within this context that the term 'Primitivism' must be placed, an anthropological construct translated to the field of aesthetics, concerned with the artistic products of what were assumed to be people of inferior skills. The term from its inception implied hierarchy, and like its first cousin, anthropology, operated on an assumption of superiority. By the nineteenth century, 'Primitivism', as an art historical concern, was an essentially Western exercise designed to rationalise and describe the creative products of other societies and cultures from the premise that nineteenth century Western man was the arbiter of civilisation and had a monopoly over what was considered to be a a rational aesthetic. (3)
In the high gloss exhibition catalogue "Primitivism" in 20th Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal And Modern, Museum of Modern Art, 1984 edited by William Rubin the term 'Primitive' is capitalised and placed between inverted commas in an effort employed by many others of his ilk to cover up their lack of will in coming to grips with the underlying inadequacy of the word.
In contrast writers who have contributed to Third Text, a contemporary publication which offers 'Third World' perspectives on contemporary art and culture, have provided a much needed alternative critique of mainstream European art criticism and its uneasy relationship with marginal groupings, inclusive of blacks and feminists. Unfortunately, this work tends to preoccupy itself with existing biases and its triumphs are therefore limited. The assumption of the existence of 'the Primitive' and hence 'Primitivism' is the major fallacy that this paper contests. The 'Primitive' does not, and never did, exist and a substitute word, however tasteful, would not make the narrative figure any more real or accessible. Rather, like the 'other', the 'Primitive' was designed to be oppositional or complementary to the Western rational 'I'. It was a label coined and conferred by nineteenth-century Western 'man', in an act of self-definition. It was the projection of a very real colonial process whereby he could establish the notions of superiority by placing inferior status on others. Yet, to identify the 'Primitive' as a victim would again merely validate that which exists and play out fairy tale dramas of good and evil. Instead, to view this process through the eyes of the 'other', is to recognise the one-sidedness of this labelling, wherein there exists only the self and its actions. The duality perceived exists within the act 'to primitivise'. Hence, this study will refer only to the 'Primitivised', rather than the 'Primitive'. This substitution redirects the focus of attention from outwards (subject to object) to inwards (subject to subject).
This shift brings a new awareness how relationships with 'others' are perceived and articulated. It challenges the normative codes of definition, which involve a type of splitting-off and self-aggrandisement and suggests a new code which is introspective and self critical. Too much time has been spent by concerned critics battling over the terms 'Primitive' and 'Primitivism' when they have been diversionary. It is the 'Primitiviser' who must be examined as creator and perpetuator of 'Primitivism'.