What do you think?
Rate this book
Primitive Art
Boas' definitive study analyzes the fundamental traits of primitive art, examining the symbolism and style of objects as well as that of literature, music, and dance. It features more than 300 photographs, drawings, and diagrams of totem poles, baskets, masks, and other decorated items created by Native Americans of the Northwest Coast.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1927
17 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
About the author
Franz Boas
357 books91 followersFranz Uri Boas was a German-American anthropologist and a pioneer of modern anthropology who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology". His work is associated with the movements known as historical particularism and cultural relativism.
Studying in Germany, Boas was awarded a doctorate in 1881 in physics while also studying geography. He then participated in a geographical expedition to northern Canada, where he became fascinated with the culture and language of the Baffin Island Inuit. He went on to do field work with the indigenous cultures and languages of the Pacific Northwest. In 1887 he emigrated to the United States, where he first worked as a museum curator at the Smithsonian, and in 1899 became a professor of anthropology at Columbia University, where he remained for the rest of his career. Through his students, many of whom went on to found anthropology departments and research programmes inspired by their mentor, Boas profoundly influenced the development of American anthropology. Among his many significant students were Alfred Louis Kroeber, Alexander Goldenweiser, Ruth Benedict, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Zora Neale Hurston, and Gilberto Freyre.
Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then-popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics. In a series of groundbreaking studies of skeletal anatomy, he showed that cranial shape and size was highly malleable depending on environmental factors such as health and nutrition, in contrast to the claims by racial anthropologists of the day that held head shape to be a stable racial trait. Boas also worked to demonstrate that differences in human behavior are not primarily determined by innate biological dispositions but are largely the result of cultural differences acquired through social learning. In this way, Boas introduced culture as the primary concept for describing differences in behavior between human groups, and as the central analytical concept of anthropology.
Among Boas's main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then-popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas and that consequently there was no process towards continuously "higher" cultural forms. This insight led Boas to reject the "stage"-based organization of ethnological museums, instead preferring to order items on display based on the affinity and proximity of the cultural groups in question.
Boas also introduced the idea of cultural relativism, which holds that cultures cannot be objectively ranked as higher or lower, or better or more correct, but that all humans see the world through the lens of their own culture, and judge it according to their own culturally acquired norms. For Boas, the object of anthropology was to understand the way in which culture conditioned people to understand and interact with the world in different ways and to do this it was necessary to gain an understanding of the language and cultural practices of the people studied. By uniting the disciplines of archaeology, the study of material culture and history, and physical anthropology, the study of variation in human anatomy, with ethnology, the study of cultural variation of customs, and descriptive linguistics, the study of unwritten indigenous languages, Boas created the four-field subdivision of anthropology which became prominent in American anthropology in the 20th century.
Studying in Germany, Boas was awarded a doctorate in 1881 in physics while also studying geography. He then participated in a geographical expedition to northern Canada, where he became fascinated with the culture and language of the Baffin Island Inuit. He went on to do field work with the indigenous cultures and languages of the Pacific Northwest. In 1887 he emigrated to the United States, where he first worked as a museum curator at the Smithsonian, and in 1899 became a professor of anthropology at Columbia University, where he remained for the rest of his career. Through his students, many of whom went on to found anthropology departments and research programmes inspired by their mentor, Boas profoundly influenced the development of American anthropology. Among his many significant students were Alfred Louis Kroeber, Alexander Goldenweiser, Ruth Benedict, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Zora Neale Hurston, and Gilberto Freyre.
Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then-popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics. In a series of groundbreaking studies of skeletal anatomy, he showed that cranial shape and size was highly malleable depending on environmental factors such as health and nutrition, in contrast to the claims by racial anthropologists of the day that held head shape to be a stable racial trait. Boas also worked to demonstrate that differences in human behavior are not primarily determined by innate biological dispositions but are largely the result of cultural differences acquired through social learning. In this way, Boas introduced culture as the primary concept for describing differences in behavior between human groups, and as the central analytical concept of anthropology.
Among Boas's main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then-popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas and that consequently there was no process towards continuously "higher" cultural forms. This insight led Boas to reject the "stage"-based organization of ethnological museums, instead preferring to order items on display based on the affinity and proximity of the cultural groups in question.
Boas also introduced the idea of cultural relativism, which holds that cultures cannot be objectively ranked as higher or lower, or better or more correct, but that all humans see the world through the lens of their own culture, and judge it according to their own culturally acquired norms. For Boas, the object of anthropology was to understand the way in which culture conditioned people to understand and interact with the world in different ways and to do this it was necessary to gain an understanding of the language and cultural practices of the people studied. By uniting the disciplines of archaeology, the study of material culture and history, and physical anthropology, the study of variation in human anatomy, with ethnology, the study of cultural variation of customs, and descriptive linguistics, the study of unwritten indigenous languages, Boas created the four-field subdivision of anthropology which became prominent in American anthropology in the 20th century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Read
October 16, 2025Who knows if there’s a way to succinctly define what it means to be human. But if there is, it can only be communicated in what we leave behind. We are our artifacts, we are fated, doomed to become them. We are one of the only creatures that stretches and repeats our lives through the creation of symbols. The creation of those symbols is largely what we can point to as the defining characteristic of Homo sapiens.
As long as there have been modern humans there has been evidence of the art they’ve left behind. Art is the first example we have to point to that helps us understand that, since we first showed up, the software may have changed but the hardware is the exact same. The processing power and abstraction ability of old H. sapiens staring deadeyed into a phone or computer is the same as it was 300,000 years ago when we were staring deadeyed into basketry and cave walls. How fitting that the loom and its automation ended up as the blueprint for the digital abstraction layer of our lives when there’s good evidence to suggest that’s largely where our reasoning and pattern recognition ability first got applied.
How did ancient humans spend their time? Well, probably the same way that we spend our time today: farting around. Except, for primitive peoples (forgive the book’s use of a term that could probably be updated if I gave it some more thought—I promise that I use it as a term of far more respect than, say, “modern”) the result of that farting around was, well….something. A thing. People in the present and the past who are unfortunate enough not to be swept into the anxious cyclone of “modern life” spend large amounts of their time decorating objects. That means both in the crafting of the object and its design. The amount of long form attention and detail such a task requires almost short circuits the modern brain. “What do you mean they spent weeks on end using their free time to chisel a story into a club instead of angrily reading New York Times notifications? Weren’t they bored?” And of course the answer is that they were likely engaged in a way that few of us get the privilege of experiencing today.
This of course runs a parallel track right next to the whole “noble savage” supposed fallacy. But before we jump from our horses onto that locomotive it’s worth considering the context in which this book was written and perhaps thinking a bit about its eccentric author. Despite finding this volume in a used bookstore, knowing nothing about it or its author, and shamelessly buying it because of its simple title and cool cover design, I’ve now spent a good amount of time reading Franz Boas-adjacent Wikipedia pages. The result of that pseudo-research is the tagline I’ve been telling people who ask me about the book: “From what I can tell he was the only German-born late nineteenth century anthropologist who didn’t become racist when he read Darwin.” If today you find yourself explaining to a child the difference between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution (no the giraffe did not evolve because over generations it had some long con goal of someday makin it up to that high leaf!) you can thank Boas for disseminating the proper ideas that Darwin was trying to convey, and for realizing that evolution does not imply a linear progression, it implies random mutation and a beautiful explosion of diversity that might result in, say, a near infinite pool of cultural art.
What Boas did highlight was the intense care that every piece of primitive art had at its core. He was able to demonstrate the trancelike state of mind that would require such art to be built and crafted so carefully. It might take multiple generations to make some of this art. That was and is both conceivable and celebrated because ultimately the people who created these artifacts weren’t just decorating things, they were decorating time. Every basket with intricate weaving, complex patterns, and perfect shape represents a person creating something that they know they will use and that their children will use. They made it to last. They made it to marvel at. And they made it to entertain themselves.
Boas also highlights the fact that the only time errors are introduced into these crafting processes is when someone is making these crafts, not for themselves, but for sale or trade to someone outside the community in which they live. Which, if you think about it, is pretty goddamn punk rock. It turns out that the main way to make something shitty is to make it with the express purpose of giving it away for money or even other goods. And hand-in-hand with that, Boas finds that art output is directly proportional to the amount of leisure time that a society has.
So what sort of horrific Fordist hellscape have we found ourselves in when we automate the very fruits of leisure instead of the toil in between leisure? If art comes of leisure and art contains that which makes us human than why in God’s name are we trying to automate its creation? If we want to stay human it seems to me that we have to keep leaving artifacts of ourselves behind, and more than that we need to let the crafting of those objects shape us. Let the patterns and rhythms and meters take root in our attention and let ourselves blend the time of art into the time of the mind.
As long as there have been modern humans there has been evidence of the art they’ve left behind. Art is the first example we have to point to that helps us understand that, since we first showed up, the software may have changed but the hardware is the exact same. The processing power and abstraction ability of old H. sapiens staring deadeyed into a phone or computer is the same as it was 300,000 years ago when we were staring deadeyed into basketry and cave walls. How fitting that the loom and its automation ended up as the blueprint for the digital abstraction layer of our lives when there’s good evidence to suggest that’s largely where our reasoning and pattern recognition ability first got applied.
How did ancient humans spend their time? Well, probably the same way that we spend our time today: farting around. Except, for primitive peoples (forgive the book’s use of a term that could probably be updated if I gave it some more thought—I promise that I use it as a term of far more respect than, say, “modern”) the result of that farting around was, well….something. A thing. People in the present and the past who are unfortunate enough not to be swept into the anxious cyclone of “modern life” spend large amounts of their time decorating objects. That means both in the crafting of the object and its design. The amount of long form attention and detail such a task requires almost short circuits the modern brain. “What do you mean they spent weeks on end using their free time to chisel a story into a club instead of angrily reading New York Times notifications? Weren’t they bored?” And of course the answer is that they were likely engaged in a way that few of us get the privilege of experiencing today.
This of course runs a parallel track right next to the whole “noble savage” supposed fallacy. But before we jump from our horses onto that locomotive it’s worth considering the context in which this book was written and perhaps thinking a bit about its eccentric author. Despite finding this volume in a used bookstore, knowing nothing about it or its author, and shamelessly buying it because of its simple title and cool cover design, I’ve now spent a good amount of time reading Franz Boas-adjacent Wikipedia pages. The result of that pseudo-research is the tagline I’ve been telling people who ask me about the book: “From what I can tell he was the only German-born late nineteenth century anthropologist who didn’t become racist when he read Darwin.” If today you find yourself explaining to a child the difference between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution (no the giraffe did not evolve because over generations it had some long con goal of someday makin it up to that high leaf!) you can thank Boas for disseminating the proper ideas that Darwin was trying to convey, and for realizing that evolution does not imply a linear progression, it implies random mutation and a beautiful explosion of diversity that might result in, say, a near infinite pool of cultural art.
What Boas did highlight was the intense care that every piece of primitive art had at its core. He was able to demonstrate the trancelike state of mind that would require such art to be built and crafted so carefully. It might take multiple generations to make some of this art. That was and is both conceivable and celebrated because ultimately the people who created these artifacts weren’t just decorating things, they were decorating time. Every basket with intricate weaving, complex patterns, and perfect shape represents a person creating something that they know they will use and that their children will use. They made it to last. They made it to marvel at. And they made it to entertain themselves.
Boas also highlights the fact that the only time errors are introduced into these crafting processes is when someone is making these crafts, not for themselves, but for sale or trade to someone outside the community in which they live. Which, if you think about it, is pretty goddamn punk rock. It turns out that the main way to make something shitty is to make it with the express purpose of giving it away for money or even other goods. And hand-in-hand with that, Boas finds that art output is directly proportional to the amount of leisure time that a society has.
So what sort of horrific Fordist hellscape have we found ourselves in when we automate the very fruits of leisure instead of the toil in between leisure? If art comes of leisure and art contains that which makes us human than why in God’s name are we trying to automate its creation? If we want to stay human it seems to me that we have to keep leaving artifacts of ourselves behind, and more than that we need to let the crafting of those objects shape us. Let the patterns and rhythms and meters take root in our attention and let ourselves blend the time of art into the time of the mind.
December 24, 2021
Sanatın ilkel diye adlandırılan kültürlerde, plastik ve grafik alandaki dinamikleri üzerine güzel bir kitap. Gerçekçi betimlemenin ve geometrik dizaynların kullanılış kökenleri , sanatın teknik ustalık ve duygu/düşünce ifadesine dayalı kaynakları , simgesel sanatın yeri konusundaki açıklama ve yorumları ufuk açıcı. Özellikle ilkel öngörülen kültürlerin sanata yaklaşımlarındaki zihinsel durumun , uygar denilen toplumlar ile farklı olmayıp sadece deneyim farklılığı olduğunu ifade eden ve aslında ilkel denilen toplumların yaşamsal kaygı ve meşguliyetleri dikkate alındığında , yaşamı güzelleştirmek için uygar denilenlerden daha fazla emek sarfettiklerini gösteren son bölüm , doğru bir analizi ortaya koyuyor . Son dönemde, karanlık diye adlandırılan ortaçağ ile ilgili önyargıların değişmesine benzer bir durum.
Sanatla ilgili okur için iyi bir kitap olmakla birlikte bahsedilen analizler kitabın sonundaki edebiyat , şiir ve sonuç bölümlerinde. Bu sonuçlara varmak için uzun bir süsleme sanatları farklılıkları bölümü var ancak bu Kuzey Amerika kızılderili kabilelerinin farklılıklarına odaklandığı için simgesel sanat , grafik , biçim ve süsleme ile ilgili olmayanlar için ağır bölüm. Ayrıca kitabın başlığının ilkel sanat olup , bir iki değinme dışında kızılderili sanatı haricine çok girmemesi , başlıktan doğan beklenti nedeniyle biraz hayal kırıklığı yaratıyor. Belki önce sonuç bölümünü okuyup , o çerçeveyi akılda tutarak diğer bölümleri okumak iyi bir yöntem olabilir.
Sanatla ilgili okur için iyi bir kitap olmakla birlikte bahsedilen analizler kitabın sonundaki edebiyat , şiir ve sonuç bölümlerinde. Bu sonuçlara varmak için uzun bir süsleme sanatları farklılıkları bölümü var ancak bu Kuzey Amerika kızılderili kabilelerinin farklılıklarına odaklandığı için simgesel sanat , grafik , biçim ve süsleme ile ilgili olmayanlar için ağır bölüm. Ayrıca kitabın başlığının ilkel sanat olup , bir iki değinme dışında kızılderili sanatı haricine çok girmemesi , başlıktan doğan beklenti nedeniyle biraz hayal kırıklığı yaratıyor. Belki önce sonuç bölümünü okuyup , o çerçeveyi akılda tutarak diğer bölümleri okumak iyi bir yöntem olabilir.
August 26, 2009
This classical work of aesthetics among primitive peoples concentrates on the North Pacific Indians of Washington, Canada, and Alaska -- which is exactly why I read it. I am about to go to Canada and view hundreds of totem poles and other works of art in Vancouver, Duncan, and Seattle. I wanted to get a better feeling for how rigidly the native artists adhered to their systems of symbols; and fortunately, Boas covers this in great detail.
This is not an easy work to read if you are intent of wringing every bit of meaning from it: There are hundreds of references back and forth to line drawing illustrations scattered throughout the work. Many times I just skimmed on ahead rather than learn how the body of a killer whale is distorted to show the dorsal fin, tail, and facial features to fit the requirements of the medium being used.
Still, I am glad I read this work. Written over 80 years ago, it is one of the pioneering works of anthropology and well deserves its reputation. I do not recall ever seeing it out of print at any time during the last 40 years or so.
This is not an easy work to read if you are intent of wringing every bit of meaning from it: There are hundreds of references back and forth to line drawing illustrations scattered throughout the work. Many times I just skimmed on ahead rather than learn how the body of a killer whale is distorted to show the dorsal fin, tail, and facial features to fit the requirements of the medium being used.
Still, I am glad I read this work. Written over 80 years ago, it is one of the pioneering works of anthropology and well deserves its reputation. I do not recall ever seeing it out of print at any time during the last 40 years or so.
July 11, 2017
It's age might make it easy to lose focus sometimes, but as a classic work by the grandfather of anthropology, this is a must-read for anyone interested in the subject.
August 29, 2025
I know this book and Boas are extremely important to the field of anthropology - that’s why it gets two stars instead of negative five. I’m sure there are great insights contained within (my professor says so and he’s smarter than me) but this is the driest, most dense book that I’ve been forced to consume.
November 19, 2023
"𝘚𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘐 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘴"
I have mixed feelings about Boas. This book is very revolutionary for his time, in going against Evolutionism, and indicating that Indigenous people have the same cognitive capacities and that they aren't equivalent to Pleistocene, or "Primitive" people. But Franz Boas as a museum curator wasn't right...and believed that Indigenous people were going to be extinct, same as many anthropologists of those times...
✶ Art for Boas:
"𝘈𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘹𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵. 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘯𝘫𝘰𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮"
[ Photo mine, originally published in my bookstagram ᛒᚠ @booksfromfaeries Instagram ]
I have mixed feelings about Boas. This book is very revolutionary for his time, in going against Evolutionism, and indicating that Indigenous people have the same cognitive capacities and that they aren't equivalent to Pleistocene, or "Primitive" people. But Franz Boas as a museum curator wasn't right...and believed that Indigenous people were going to be extinct, same as many anthropologists of those times...
✶ Art for Boas:
"𝘈𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘹𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵. 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘯𝘫𝘰𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮"
[ Photo mine, originally published in my bookstagram ᛒᚠ @booksfromfaeries Instagram ]
November 13, 2014
C'est un grand plaidoyer d'un des plus grands ethnologues de tous les temps en faveur du genie des artistes indiens du nord-oeust pacifique. Avec une methodolgie impeccable, une rigueur intellectuelle extraordinaire, et une erudition enorme Boas, le grand ami, de Levi-Strauss demontre que l'art des indiennes du nord-ouest pacifique aurait ete digne de n'importe quelle civilisation moderne.
C'est a lire absolument.
C'est a lire absolument.
October 24, 2007
nice compact survey of pacific northwest native art. no longer sure about it as a work of anthropology. don't think it's used in class anymore.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews