The genre of Primitivism in art emerged, most problematically, as an aesthetic that benefited from the lives, experiences, and value systems of groups of people who were viewed as “exotic”, “oriental”, or “ethnic”.
During the Western-European Age of Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, the reference to indigenous cultures and groups of non-traditional “civilized” people were seen as rhetorical devices.
According to Giambattista Vico, an Italian historian, juror, and philosopher, indigenous and remote societies were viewed as more “modern” than the perceived Western modern man.
One of the most pivotal innovations that paved the way forward for Primitivism was the development of the camera. The introduction of the photographic camera naturally influenced the fine arts sphere and gave rise to the development of Realism.
Another important development was the expansion of mathematics, which had the most profound impact when it came to artists realizing that there was more than one way of, quite literally, looking at the world.
Primitivism was inherently flawed in its conception. Many historians would describe the style and preference as a rebellion against the then-current dogmatic approaches to art in the West.
One of the primary modes of how art specialists characterized primitive art was through the presence of other mediums that were not regarded as “sophisticated” or traditional mediums.
Color pigments that were produced naturally via minerals, vegetables, and animals were considered remnants of the past and not viewed through a formal visual arts perspective.
Neo-Primitivism began to take shape. Neo-Primitivism had its origins in Russia and was influenced by folk art and artifacts from prehistory that fell under the Russian Empire.
The dynamic conversations that occur between the spheres of politics, culture, and the arts have proposed questions about the repatriation of artwork once considered “primitive”.