In complex projective geometry, we have a specified Kähler class $\omega$ and we have a Lefschetz operator $L:H^i(X,\mathbb{C})\to H^{i+2}(X,\mathbb{C})$ given by $L(\eta)=\omega\wedge \eta$. We then define primitive cohomology $P^{n-k}(X,\mathbb{C})=\ker(L^{k+1}:H^{n-k}(X)\to H^{n+k+2}(X))$, and we even have a nice theorem, the Lefschetz decomposition, that says $H^m(X,\mathbb{C})=\oplus\_k L^kP^{n-2k}$. Often, in papers, people just prove their result for primitive classes, as they seem to be easier to work with.


So, what exactly ARE primitive classes? Sure, they're things that some power of $\omega$ kills, but what's the intuition? Why are they an interesting distinguished class? Is there a good reason to expect this decomposition?



Intuition for Primitive Cohomology
The primitive classes are the highest weight vectors.


Hard Lefschetz says that the operator $L$ (which algebraic geometers know as intersecting with a hyperplane) is the "lowering operator" $\rho(F)$ in a representation $\rho 
\colon \mathfrak{sl}\_2(\mathbb{C})\to End (H^\ast(X;\mathbb{C}))$. The raising operator $\rho(E)$ is $\Lambda$, the restriction to the harmonic forms of the the formal adjoint of $\omega \wedge \cdot$ acting on forms. The weight operator $\rho(H)$ has $H^{n-k}(X;\mathbb{C})$ as an eigenspace (= weight space), with eigenvalue (=weight) $k$. 


The usual picture of an irreducible representation of $\mathfrak{sl}\_2(\mathbb{C})$ is of a string of beads (weight spaces) with $\rho(F)$ moving you down the string and decreasing the weight by 2, and $\rho(E)$ going in the opposite direction. The highest weight is an integer $k$, the lowest weight $-k$.


From this picture, it's clear that the space of highest weight vectors in a (reducible) representation is $\ker \rho(E)$. It's also clear that, of the vectors of weight $k$, those which are highest weights are the ones in $\ker \rho(F)^{k+1}$. So the highest weight vectors in $H^{n-k}(X; \mathbb{C})$ are those in $\ker L^{k+1}$.


Of course, all this ignores the rather subtle question of how to explain in an invariant way what this $\mathfrak{sl}\_2(\mathbb{C})$, or its corresponding Lie group, really is.


**Added**, slipping Mariano an envelope. But here's what that group is. Algebraic geometers, brace yourselves. Fix $x\in X$, and let $O\_x = O(T\_x X\otimes \mathbb{C})\cong O(4n,\mathbb{C})$. Then $O\_x$ acts projectively on $\Lambda^\bullet (T\_x X\otimes \mathbb{C})$ via the spinor representation (which lives inside the Clifford action). The holonomy group $Hol\_x\cong U(n)$ also acts on complex forms at $x$, and the "Lefschetz group" $\mathcal{L}$ is the centralizer of $Hol\_x$ in $O\_x$. One proves that $\mathcal{L}\cong GL(\mathbb{C}\oplus \mathbb{C})$. Not only is this the right group, but its Lie algebra comes with a standard basis, coming from the splitting $T\_x X \otimes\mathbb{C} = T^{1,0} \oplus T^{0,1}$. Now, $\mathcal{L}$ acts on complex forms on $X$, by parallel transporting them from $y$ to $x$, acting, and transporting back to $y$. Check next that the action commutes with $d$ and $\*$, hence with the Laplacian, and so descends to harmonic forms = cohomology. Finally, check that the action of $\mathcal{L}$ exponentiates the standard action of $\mathfrak{gl}\_2$ where the centre acts by scaling. (This explanation is Graeme Segal's, via Ivan Smith.)


