Errington article

Errington's article discusses the controversial politics and the trends of Primitive art in the 20th century.  "Primitive art" which gained acceptance in the 20th century also precludes a clash of ideologies in what constitutes art.  Furthermore, the acceptance of "primitive art" can only cause a mystique of the "other" when seen in the from the cultural context of Modern-Western and Kantian thought.    

In the West we view art almost as what can be put in a frame.  It is not reality but a representation of reality which can include potential for abstract thought and later be sold.  Traders in the 20th century have always looked for primitive art that is authentic and untouched by westerners.  However in the 1920's primitive art was picked at so only the hard pieces remained and today artifacts are placed in altered environments so they will endure.  Today Dreamings are framed and sold at exorbitant prices.  So we see friction in that art is sought after which was used for authentic cultural practices unknown to the western eye  but is subconsciously reframed into and is actually portrayed in western notions of art- (priced, showcased, long lasting). And the objects that are called primitive have meaning already in the culture that they are used and are utilitarian or intended for other reasons rather than art.  The act of preserving primitive art is not authentic and is emblematic of an ideology take over.  Artifact collecting is a Western idea that comes from our belief in the stability of civilizations until they fall marking changes in thought.  The dialogue is of western versus primitive because western ideologies are used to assess primitive art.   

collecting authentic art which was intended not for art--> appropriating to make it intentional art --> by way of showing and making into an artifact that situates people in time other than how they view time and history and meaning. 

When applying art in the sand to paintings, will the ritual component be reduced?