One of the classes I’m taking this semester is about art since around 1900, from Post-Impressionism to Contemporary Art. As a class at the University of Toronto or any traditional institution, the class is taught from a very Eurocentric point of view. However, many European artworks from this time were starting to gain influences from other parts of the world. We start to see interests in art from Asia, Oceania, and Africa appear in Western modern art. But of course, with this interest and appreciation for other cultures also comes appropriation.
Of course, I do genuinely appreciate the art I’ll be criticizing so harshly; these European artists are highly skilled in their own right; their ingenuity helped develop several important Art History movements and took part in the creation of Contemporary Art. Obviously, these white artists are widely celebrated – but what about the art and artists from other cultures whose styles they appropriated? Academia acknowledges the inspiration of these so called “Primitive” art styles on these movements. However, not enough people address the harmful reality of the appropriation of non-European art in this period. In this post, I will highlight the impact these other cultures’ Art had on Modern Art; the insulting and oversimplifying nature of Primitivism; and of course, the harm we have done in appropriating these styles and failing to give credit where it’s deserved.
Where did the appropriation of non-Western art begin? Besides the theft of countless artworks and artifacts from various continents to museums in Europe and North America, when did the appropriation of artistic style become so prominent?
It’s difficult to pinpoint the beginnings of this practice. Cultural appropriation of non-European culture has always been present, and Europeans (and their descendants) still appropriate BIPOC culture today. European artists were using non-Western art for a while, to provide new and exotic perspectives to the European public. Think Orientalism, another racist period of modern art history that deserves its own post, which occurred a century or so earlier than what we’ll be focusing on today. Or Japonisme, a popular French style influenced by East Asian art. Interestingly, we notice a sudden spark in interest towards these previously unfamiliar cultures in this time. Why was this?
We see a rise from the Enlightenment to the 19th century in tourism, usually in the form of Bildungreisen or “educational journeys” completed by scholarly-minded members of the middle and upper class. Railways, sea travel, and new technological developments enabled more people to gain access to these places. Besides this, many places, such as Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Islands had already been colonized for several centuries, so these were no longer uncharted lands to Europeans. Furthermore, artists began to see the usefulness of these cultures to their art. Modern anxiety towards development of technology and industrialization made these apparently simple lifestyles appealing to these people. Additionally, these cultures’ art’s distance from the Western academic canon was usurped to develop avant-garde and untraditional styles.
Here we see the development of Primitivism, the aesthetic idealization of or attempt to copy or recreate “primitive experience” – namely, anything non-European. In the age of empire, Europeans were “discovering” more and more countries and cultures, appropriating and rejecting aspects of these cultures as they wished. This movement was inherently appropriative and pejorative towards the cultures it was “inspired” by.
A great example of this is Paul Gauguin. A Post-Impressionist, Gauguin was influenced by Impressionism but developed his style using bold, unnatural colors, flat, synthesized, and nearly abstracted, simplified form. His style was impacted by European contemporaies, but we see the most noticeable influences from Tahitian subjects and motifs in his art.
Gauguin lived in Paris initially, but he wanted a simpler life, so he moved to Brittany, and then to Tahiti. Tahiti, in particular, was idealized by Gauguin as a utopia “untouched by culture” (that is, modern European culture). Here, he believed, people lived simple lives, as opposed to the complicated city life he was used to. We can see Gauguin’s idealized version of Tahiti in Mahana no atua. However, the Tahiti Gauguin experienced was not exactly how he’d imagined it to be. He arrived to find. The island was already affected by colonization, people were wearing European dress, many cultural practices were banned, and missionaries were converting people to Christianity.
But even after seeing the effects of colonization on Tahiti, Gauguin ignored this in his art. Instead, he stuck to his imagined ideal world, and failing to paint it in an accurate light. In doing so, Gauguin ignored the harm colonization brought to Tahiti and other Polynesian islands. Gauguin ignored the diseases Europeans brought, killing so many Polynesian people. He also ignored the European erasure of these people’s culture, religion, traditions and identity. Finally, in using Tahitian motifs in his art, he played on European stereotypes of these people being “savage” or “exotic”. In doing this, he sexualized, dehumanized, and stereotyped Tahitian and Polynesian people for his own artistic and monetary gain.
Gauguin’s style was one of the major influences of Fauvism, another French movement of Modern Art. The Fauves (Wild Beasts) strived to challenge the traditional ideals of art, as did their German contemporary, the Die Brücke (Bridge) group. Many of these artists also took inspiration from non-European art, and here we see a focus on African art. Artists like Maurice de Vlaminck, André Derain, and Henri Matisse used motifs from African and Oceania in their art.
It’s extremely important to remember the prominence of racism in Europe at this time, especially against African people. People thought of African people as uneducated, dangerous, hyper-sexual, and aggressive. Many did not see them as human. We also see an interest in the exhibition culture, which largely exploited non-Western cultures and people in inhumane ways. For example, human zoos, often hosted at world fairs. These exhibitions were popular, gaining thousands and thousands of spectators, promoting and supporting these inhumane events.
This image is from the same time these African styles became prominent in art, having inspired so many modern artists. While white artists profited off these cultures and aesthetics, they were exploiting and dehumanizing the very people who created them.
Let’s look at Matisse’s Blue Nude, which was painted just one year after the above photograph was taken.
Here we see a nude, in the Odalisque format in content and composition, but so very different in style. Its unnatural, bright colors, and stylized, unattractive figure, paint a very untraditional nude. We see African stylistic influences as well, and its sexualized nature echoes the dehumanizing stereotypes Europeans set on Africans. This picture was an important, though uncharacteristic, Fauvist work, and an inspiration to the Cubist movement which would soon follow. It gained a great deal of attention at its first exhibition, and was very negatively received by critics, but many artists were inspired by the work. (I’ve spoken more on this painting in another post on nudes, if you want to check that out!) At this point, Picasso gained interest in Matisse and Blue Nude specifically, and we can see how this painting inspired in his art.
The work inspired Picasso so much he went on to complete Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. We can see the resemblance to Blue Nude in the forms and style with which he depicts the women (who are prostitutes from Barcelona’s red-light district, Carrer d’Avinyó). The work and its style was also inspired by older Iberian statuary, and of course, African art.
Again, this picture was met with controversy. Its female figures are aggressive and intimidating, and the abstraction and difference of style in each of their faces was shocking to viewers. This piece was also one of the first Cubist artworks, the first of many examples of Picasso’s distinct style. (And again, like Blue Nude, the use of African styles to depict overly sexual, aggressive female figures seems like an interesting coincidence…)
But Picasso did not invent this style himself, and the African influence on many of his works is quite obvious. We know he frequently studied African totem art, as well as masks and statuary in his early years, having studied African artifacts at the Louvre. We also know that he had several artifacts in his own collection, some of which he studied for his own works. But in later life, Picasso denied any African influences, highlighting his native Iberian influences instead.
In doing so, Picasso failed to give African art the credit it deserved, which would have extremely negative repercussions. Like Gauguin and other European artists, Picasso gained economic success and artistic renown for these works. Neither crediting African art nor promoting and valuing it was an act of racism and irresponsibility on his part. And because of this, many assume Picasso developed this style on his own, a credit he does not deserve. In fact, white critics have compared several African artists’ work to Picasso’s. Contemporary Ugandan artist Francis Nnaggenda spoke out on this: “People tell me my work looks like Picasso, but they have it wrong. It is Picasso who looks like me, like Africa.”
Disclaimer: I don’t deny these artists have made a huge impact on Modern Art, and were extremely talented in their own rights. However, the issues surrounding Primitivism and appropriation of non-Western styles in European art must be addressed. Failing to acknowledge and give credit to these cultures is incredibly damaging; it dehumanizes, oversimplifies, and perpetuates negative stereotypes, while refusing to honour these important cultures and their influence on Modern art. Without Africa, without Asia, without Oceania, we would never have seen these styles, or these movements in Art History. If these artists had not experienced these cultures, they likely would have never gained the artistic success and fame we they have today.
As always, if you have any questions or think I should have added anything, leave a comment!
