The trend of modern painting prevailing in France from 1898 to 1908. Although there is no clear theory and program, it is the result of a certain number of painters' active activities in a certain period, so it can also be regarded as a painting school. Fauvism painters are keen on using bright and heavy colors, and often use pigments directly extruded from paint tubes to create strong picture effects with straightforward and extensive brushstrokes, which fully shows the expressionist tendency of pursuing emotional expression. Fauvism was named after 1905 Paris Autumn Salon Exhibition. At that time, the works of a group of avant-garde artists headed by Matisse were exhibited in the same room, which caused an uproar. Some people vividly call these paintings "a can of paint in front of the public." And "Jill?" Louis, a reporter from Brass Magazine? On the other hand, Vossel suddenly came up with a suitable name. He found a small bronze statue of Renaissance style made by Ma Erkai in the center of the exhibition hall where the stabbed object was noisy in color. He couldn't help exclaiming, "Donatello is locked in a cage!" Donatello was an outstanding sculptor in the Italian Renaissance: author's note. Soon, this one-liners in Jill? Brass magazine was published, and the name of "Fauvism" was quickly widely recognized. The following year, when they built a nest, the "beast" in this "cage" held one amazing exhibition after another, and the influence of bestiality increased greatly, and the momentum was high. At first, the ironic name gradually lost its derogatory meaning.

The representatives of early impressionism were Monet and Manet in France. Monet and other young painters once formed the "Unknown Painters Association" and held an exhibition in Paris, which caused a great sensation. Among them, Monet's painting Sunrise? The impression is even more remarkable. This painting shows the instant impression of seeing the rising sun through the morning fog on a foggy morning in le havre Harbor. After seeing the exhibition, a critic wrote an article mocking the painting, saying that Monet and other painters were a group of "impressionists". I didn't expect the name "Impressionism" to be established in the painting world. "Sunrise? Impression became the symbol of this painting school. Manet's paintings pay attention to the relationship between light and color, with bright colors and clear and bright light. His masterpiece is Lunch on the Grass. The painter wants to show the contrast between the human body and the color block in the external light. This painting caused a heated debate at that time.

Social background of neoclassical art: Neoclassical art came into being in France at the end of18th century19th century, which was related to the bourgeois revolution. 18 At the end of 2009, French society was in turmoil. With the arrival of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the bourgeoisie opposed the stale artistic style under the old system, and they needed art to become a powerful weapon to publicize the revolution and advocate freedom, equality and harmony. In order to cultivate people's struggle courage and establish heroic spirit with art, they pursued the heroic spirit of ancient Greece and Rome, and neoclassical art came into being.

Its basic characteristics are: adopting classical form, embodying rationality and new system, choosing more historical and mythical themes of ancient Greece and Rome, and the characters are full of heroic spirit of striving for freedom and harmony; The painting style is simple, solemn and elegant, paying attention to sketch, emphasizing the clarity and accuracy of lines and pursuing perfection in form.

In this complex period, which we call the Renaissance, the status of art remains the same as before. A prominent feature of this period is the revival of classical humanism, which is definitely a prominent feature of non-Christ kl's ideal. We can call it the humanitarianism of Christ. For example, the lyric style in Angelico's Francesco works illustrates this point. However, what we call paganism in the Renaissance is a religion almost the same as Christianity. In other words, Renaissance artists, like primitive wizards and Christian artists, regarded his art as a tool to serve their own ideals when expressing classical humanistic ideals.

In16th century and17th century, humanism lost its ideal elements. Civilization is becoming more and more materialistic. Finally, in the18th century, artists either became slaves to the materialistic society or became their own masters. The status of artists in the future is not better than that of the original artists. He just replaced another fear with one fear. In the latter case, we freely ask a question: If an artist who is "kind, great, lovely, beautiful and free" only relies on his own feelings, not on the feelings of the masses and traditional ideals, can he create works comparable to the great works of religious art?

Since then, the status of primitive art has been gradually consolidated, and its aesthetic and shopping mall value has also been affirmed by the mainstream society. By the middle of the 20th century (1954), the "Primitive Art Museum" was established in new york. Primitive art was finally no longer just an anthropological or ethnological specimen attached to the Natural History Museum, but was able to squeeze into the world art stage and keep pace with the "works of art" in the western world. No wonder some people think that this "discovery" has also rewritten the research history of human art, making it possible for the "interesting" philosophical research of "aesthetic anthropology" to appear in the research topic of artistic anthropology.

However, it must be clarified that anthropologists never doubt that people have common aesthetic tastes and experiences. They just don't want to establish universal aesthetic principles and standards, but think that only by going deep into the unique historical context of various social groups or cultural life can we understand and discuss the aesthetic experience and standards of non-western art.

Before the end of World War II, anthropological art research was quite rare, and the general impression of primitive art was aesthetic form and commercialization, rather than ethnographic concept that emphasized context, function and significance. It was not until the 1950- 1960' s that non-western aesthetic research of anthropology began to appear. However, the following basic questions have never been solved, such as: Can "art" be defined? Does "art" equal "beauty"? Is it mainly based on the form, content and meaning of expression, or just because it is called "art"? Is cross-cultural "aesthetics" possible? And, how to distinguish between art and non-art, according to external views or internal views? ..... and so on. (McEviolley， 1989)。 It is precisely because the essence and definition of art are full of fuzziness and uncertainty that anthropologists are reluctant to touch on this issue from the beginning. Some say from the beginning that the persistent problem in the "essence of art" is the fundamental factor that anthropologists have been less engaged in artistic research and their achievements have not been effectively displayed. Therefore, for a long time, the study of artistic theme has always been unable to rule out this marginal nature in the anthropological category.

Secondly, there is a question about the essence of art. Some scholars believe that from the perspective and standpoint of social science, researchers should first try to get rid of their own feelings and persistence in aesthetics, because it is actually like a "religious" sacred and perceptual rhetoric, and only in this way can we achieve "objectivity". Moreover, anthropologists' research emphasizes the function and significance of art, rather than the independent power of "beauty" (coote &; Sheldon, 1922).

/kloc-After the 1970s, anthropological research works on art or aesthetics increased greatly. One of the Americans, G. Blocker, firmly believes that cross-cultural "aesthetics" is possible for primitive art, but only when both subjective and objective factors are taken into account. That is, it needs to include: the "subjective" view of form and aesthetics emphasized by artists, collectors and aestheticians, and the "objective" view of exploring the context, function and meaning with experience and field work advocated by anthropologists and sociologists. Because the contrast between aesthetics and function, or form and meaning, is not a question of which comes first or which comes later in the study of primitive art, but a concept that exists at the same time and is equally important, he thinks that a work should not have the truth that "artists say it is art and anthropologists say it is not art".

When it comes to aesthetic experience, both orientals and westerners are always interested in "primitive" things that are more distant in time or space. However, when there is real opposition, there will often be a mixture of surprise and accident, a "primitive" feeling aroused by dissidents and hidden in the deep heart. Any culture is natural, and people have the instinct to distinguish and integrate "self" and "other" in their thinking. The more you can't understand and control things, the more attractive they are; Things that cannot be brought into the normal state for a while may be marginalized, regarded as inferior and excluded; But it is also possible that in some cases, this group will be given a strong emotional identity, accept and produce the so-called "sanctification" effect. This classification of "normal" and "extraordinary" and the coexistence of polarization psychology in treating "other things" make people either accept, sanctify, avoid or abandon it, which is a common phenomenon, whether in uncivilized or civilized society, past or present society.

/kloc-at the end of 0/9 century, European anthropologists noticed an interesting phenomenon when they were engaged in the study of primitive religious beliefs in tribal societies with different cultures. The word "mana" in Porini's West Asian and Melanesian languages means that people there are convinced of the spiritual power or extraordinary power contained in "things". In addition, in the Indian language of the west coast of North America, the word "totem" generally refers to a symbolic object (natural thing) with extraordinary power, sacredness and taboo, and full of myths and legends, also known as "totem". It is taken out in the interaction between man and the natural environment, and then personified, sanctified and visualized. This is a symbol representing a social group or a basic element in its artistic style, and there is a relationship between this group and its totem called "totem belief" or "totem aesthetics" (Zheng, 1992).

The function and operational relationship between the appearance of "totem" and its belief cannot be explained here. In short, people will pay special attention to an object (whether natural or man-made) because it has extraordinary power and the nature of both good and evil. At the same time, because of the constant observation and contemplation of people and the blending of self and object, I will forget myself again and enter a spiritual world without good and evil. Generally speaking, the existence of totem belief or the appearance of primitive art, as well as the experience process of judging beauty in it, are all processes from secular to extraordinary, from self-projection to integration with other things, which is called the process of interaction after internalization and externalization.

For viewers, the first contact with aesthetic experience or artistic appreciation, whether the content of the object is ancient or modern, whether it is their own culture or foreign culture, whether it is exquisite or barbaric, whether it is modern or primitive, is based on intuition, through seeing or interacting with other senses, according to their previous cognition and background experience. So it is strange to say that some works or objects will naturally lead the viewer into the "beautiful" spiritual world, while others are completely insulated. The audience may also divide the aesthetic degree or nature of the works into different levels according to their personal tastes, such as noble, vulgar and barbaric. However, of course, every cross-cultural and time-space aesthetic needs to be based on an equal and relative position and foundation. The key point is that each group or individual has its own special artistic style, aesthetic standards and symbolic significance in its social and historical context. Even if the standards of beauty are different due to different times, nationalities and social and cultural contexts, as long as people acknowledge the equality of value, respect others and empathize with them, they can stimulate the interactive experience of "beauty" across time and space between viewers and works. On the other hand, if we don't stand on the standpoint of equality and empathy, it is bound to be difficult to affirm or appreciate each other's "beauty" because beauty is a kind of value recognition. Anyone who has a standard deficit in the "beauty" recognized by a specific group, or who has likes and dislikes because of his unique "taste", will make different judgments, and some will even completely deny it as a low-level barbaric taste, not beauty.

At the beginning of the 20th century, when artists in Paris marveled at the beauty of primitive art (referring to masks and statues in Africa), a kind of aesthetics was also popular in this society. Many people think that "black people" are born with certain characteristics, including vitality, rhythm, emotion and witchcraft power, which are manifested in their sculptures, music and dances (Halle, 65438+). But this is a kind of racial imagination and view, which not only appears in modern European artists who regard African primitive art as "art", but also proves that in the whole western society, people always look at foreign non-western art or primitive art from the aesthetic angle of their own culture.

For more than a century, the original works of art that have been selected, appreciated and affirmed by westerners can actually sum up some typical styles that meet their cultural standards. For example, S.S. Erlington, 1994) pointed out that the so-called "authentic primitive art" in the eyes of westerners is actually considered to be the art by real primitive people without the interference of western civilization. They all have their own internal uses and are by no means artifacts made for sale to outsiders. However, this interpretation and view of the authenticity of primitive art has been widely questioned. Especially in 1987, when the Museum of Modern Art held the special exhibition "Primitism in 20th Century Art", it caused quite a response (Rubin,1984; Price,1989; Torgovnick， 1990).

About "What is the real primitive art in the eyes of westerners?" S. Errington found that since the beginning of this century, the preferences of modern artists, aestheticians, collectors, art historians or museum librarians all intersect in the form of "optical naturalism" based on western aesthetic training, that is, works that can identify image content are the most popular. What they choose, represented by the figurative sculptures of people or animals with sacrificial function, is called "advanced primitive art" and "masterpiece". Secondly, some "decorative artworks" have decorative patterns, but they can't identify symbolic content or imitations, and some items have no pattern or decorative significance at all. Those selected for exhibition purposes are regarded by ordinary people as "primitive art"

Moreover, it is obvious that the favor of primitive art in western society, or the influence of primitive art on the West, is actually based on the aesthetic style of the works. In addition, because they believe in the "spirit" of the original works of art, modern artists learn from the modeling expression of the original art and turn it into the source of inspiration for the expression of personal creative ideas; This practice is like learning from ancient Greek and Roman culture during the Renaissance. Furthermore, according to the analysis of some experts, the styles and characteristics of various schools of modern European art can be found in the original works of art of the tribe, such as realism, surrealism, expressionism and naturalism. In other words, people can learn how to appreciate some features of "primitive art" through the creation of some modern artists or the works of so-called modern primitivism (Goldwater, 1969).

At the beginning of the 20th century, European painters admired primitive society and held wishful romantic ideas about primitive art. They thought that primitive society contained infinite freedom, beauty and creativity, but they didn't know that primitive artists were also restricted and bound by their social and cultural traditions. By World War II, Europeans' interest gradually extended from purely figurative aesthetics to simpler and more abstract artistic modeling. So that the original works of art are sometimes appreciated as surreal works; Not because of its beauty, but because it believes in the "magic" hidden inside. But truly speaking, these modernist artists never thought of further exploring the social and cultural context and symbolic significance of these primitive works of art. Recently, scholars have repeatedly pointed out that the manipulation and aesthetic skills of scholars and experts in this process are the main reasons for influencing or determining what forms and types are shaped into works of art because the works of art in primitive or tribal societies are selected, occupied and searched by the outside world, and are displayed, explained and copied.

But how are these primitive works of art treated in their primitive tribal society? Is there a concept of "art" like ours that can distinguish what is pure art and what is artifact? How to define the "value" of art (including aesthetic and functional aspects)? And for tribal members, do the above questions make sense?

Frankly speaking, to answer the above questions, perhaps we can only turn to sociologists who think that art phenomenon is a "social fact" and that art is a part of the whole society, so that these scholars and experts who emphasize social and cultural context, artistic function and symbolic significance can make empirical explanations with more in-depth field data and comprehensive cultural views.

"Primitivism" refers to a certain "primitive" tendency of artistic creation attitude and style; Because it can't fix or represent any particular era, faction or style in the history of art, it is difficult to define an arbitrary feature. Similar styles or features can be found in modern western art in the 2nd/kloc-0th century, in primitive art in tribal society (past or present), in folk art, in children's art, in simple art, or in works of art of mental patients (Wentick, 1979).

R. Goldwater, 1938), in his book Primitivism in Modern Art, made a detailed analysis of the relationship between the creative style of modern western artists and the primitive art in traditional tribal society. He pointed out that the primitive art shown by tribal society could not be described uniformly in form or composition. Modern artists are influenced by primitive art in tribal society, and the "primitivism" in their creations can be roughly divided into the following four categories, including romantic primitivism, emotional primitivism, rational primitivism and subconscious primitivism. However, the author thinks that there is still room for discussion on the sampling, description and analysis of various representative artists and their works in this book, but because it belongs to the category of art history, I will not elaborate here. But basically, it is agreed that the common ground of primitivism shown in art is to reveal the common ground of * * * lurking in human psychology, more precisely, it is the common ground of * * * shown by people from the subconscious. Moreover, such "primitivism" can really break through the alienation and differences between cultures and understand and communicate with each other from the perspective of artistic appreciation and aesthetics.

What people's instinct and * * * have in common is: by dividing "different selves" (taking them as the origin), strengthening self-awareness to shape themselves; How to treat "different self" is also reflected in its shaping, construction and expression of "self" (Shiller, 199 1).

From the above discussion of "primitiveness", "primitive art" and "primitivism", we can see that this is the egocentric selfish departmentalism of Europeans in recent hundred years, which has influenced the artistic value, aesthetic viewpoint and artistic development trend of the whole world. Primitivism is the self-construction and reappearance under the western ideology. In the early days, under the colonial history and imperialist mentality, primitive art was judged to be barbaric and weird, and gradually became an important corner of ethnography or natural history anthropology (evidence of cultural evolution). Then, it was discovered by European artists and became a magical "beautiful" object (Clifford, 1988). In this whole process, westerners continue to pursue "primitive" imagination in their own cultural traditions and artistic creation while constructing their own "primitive art".

Facts show that the admiration of primitive works of art in some areas or types under the western aesthetic values will naturally lead to the cultural inheritance and changes of various tribes, and even affect their artistic creation or the production and performance of the art industry. From today's modern products that are constantly changing their forms for sightseeing or business, we can easily find that many nationalities and tribes around the world also have a modern crisis of "self-positioning and identity" (Torgovnick, 1990). We would like to know how tribal members view their past or present "primitivism" in art.

The more people can feel or care about what others think of them, the more they should actively construct and express themselves. Judging from the present situation, some tribal members have high ethnic consciousness and actively pursue and construct self-identity internally and externally. Theoretically, this will inevitably lead to their new deviation from "primitivism" in contemporary art; However, where to draw nourishment from, is it the cultural tradition of the self or the increasingly globalized surrounding environment? How did the artistic tradition passed down in the past tribal society continue, or conversely, how did the emerging primitivism spread in contemporary society? In short, will non-western and western, intra-ethnic and non-ethnic, traditional and modern, and post-modern form another new and utopian style in future art? Will it be the homogeneity of connotation and personality, the unity of form reproduction, or something else?

People always disagree about what is excellent art, so it is impossible to distinguish between religious art and individualistic art. Even so, it is ok to agree with one or two opinions on this issue. First of all, it is obvious that no artist can succeed without the feelings of the audience. The theory that art is self-expression can't stand long-term scrutiny, because people will ask, what is the "self" shown? You mean subconscious fantasies? This may be a common answer to this question. However, what is the value of these fantasies (different from the formal aesthetic value of other arts)? We know little about subconscious fantasy, but by definition, we can't see any value related to the world view that distinguishes civilized people from primitive ancestors. The purpose of art is to convey, rely on or use feelings to achieve the goal. Therefore, there is no reason why art does not need to convey a sense of value. Can great art exist without relying on religion? To answer this question, we should take our value scale as the basis. Court trials will depend on social groups sooner or later. Therefore, to a certain extent, artists must turn to social groups if they want to create great works. So far, the highest form of expressing the feelings of social groups has always been religion. For those artists who deny that there is a necessary connection between art and religion, it is necessary to find an equivalent form of social group feelings to ensure the historical continuity of non-religious art.