By classifying a culture, or it's art, as primitive it insinuates that the culture lacks intelligence and complexity. The use of the word primitive is so problematic because of the negative connotations that arise the second a person uses the word. In The Anthropology Of Art Layton denounces the use of the word primitive in the context of modern societies, on the pretense that different cultures have different art styles and movements that have evolved as their society evolves, thereby illustrating the cultures complexity. Dissanyake takes a similar view in What is Art For? to the extent that she recognizes the negative connotations of the word, yet does not use it for implications of inferiority of other cultures, but mainly in a descriptive sense to refer to a society's placement on a theoretical spectrum.
Personally I feel, that from an anthropological perspective, usage of the word primitive only provokes close mindedness when dealing with a culture different from your own. By referring to a culture as primitive you go in thinking of them as an inferior form of human, and to me that really keeps you from assimilating to the culture and opening up your mind to see the world from their perspective, as opposed to making them see the world from your perspective. In a way using the word primitive puts up a wall that makes it harder to truly see a culture as they see themselves.
