The reading this week is pretty interesting stuff. The main argument of the essay is that art is universal, and that we as humans recognize beauty from instinct instead of from our society. On page 18, it says “‘Disinterest’ implied that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or cultures far removed from their own, whether or not they understood the meaning the works had for the people who made and used them. In this sense, art was ‘universal.'” I think this is the biggest concept of the reading, and the only real concept from the video. Art isn’t a social or learned appreciation, it comes from our instincts or our humanness. In the video, it showed that even before we had language, prehistoric humans appreciated shapes and “art” of their own. Now that we do have a modern society, and that we have evolved to understand art and appreciate it in many different ways, there are social “types” or methods of creating art that each country or culture has, but it all boils down to the same instinctual appreciation that the prehistoric humans had. In the reading, it says that we became concerned with aesthetics, which is defined as “a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of fine art” (17). So as we have grown as a society, so has our taste for “fine art.” Our appreciation has evolved and developed, but we always had that appreciation to begin with.
Art is so different between cultures and countries, and they emphasize different things with different styles. It is easy to recognize traditional Japanese or Chinese art compared to American art, for example. I think it’s great that we have developed the different styles of art so fully. It is just important to remember that they all came from the same basic instincts.
Your post discusses and explains the main points for the week well. My post overlaps with your post in more ways than one. We both highlight the part in the video when Dutton explains how prehistoric humans appreciated shapes before language. Another point you make about the reading is also hinted at in the video. The part were humans became concerned with aesthetics is similar to what is mentioned in the video how humans find beauty in something done well. This is also mentioned on page 17 when the example of fine art is mentioned. Many appreciations have developed, but humans still have an appreciation for fine art. Personally, improving aesthetics can greatly improve a piece. The question I would ask you is what other similarities do you see between the reading and the video presentation? One of the things I like about Art is how different it can be, which includes all the cultures and countries styles as you mentioned. Good work!
Hi, Tianyi. I agree with you that “Art isn’t a social or learned appreciation, it comes from our instincts or our humanness”. There is no official standards to judge or appreciate artworks, everyone can have different opinion or perspectives to look at art based on personal experience. You mentioned that art is different in different cultures and countries and I think it is because one meaning of art is to express the human society. As Dissanayake argues, “that it include all human societies (i.e. is anthropological or cross cultural)” (15). Every country or culture has own specific history so their society are different. One question that I want to ask you is – do you think art is essential for human’s survival? In other words, without art, can we still be alive? For this question, I think we can still live in the Earth without art but the quality of our life will be decreased. How do you think about this question?
Thank you both for reading! I think that the reading and the video overlap in some ways, but they focus on different aspects of art. The reading focused more on history and styles of art, and the video focused on how art came to be, and why we have art in a historical context. I think both have value. I think that humans would be alright without art, but we would be less driven. For example, classic art like paintings wouldn’t be around so our walls would be bare, or they would be filled with other things. But we also wouldn’t have movies, music, or maybe not even video games if art wasn’t a priority. All of these things are their own forms of art, and they are very important in today’s society, so without them I think that yes, the quality of life would decrease. I wouldn’t say that art is essential for human survival, but it is important for sure.
I really enjoyed your post on the reading assignment this week. I too believe that the concept of “art” being considered “universal” was the main point that was brought across both in the article by Dissanayake and in the Denis Dutton video.
I am a little confused, however, when you state that “art isn’t a social or learned appreciation”, but then later on comment on the fact that over the years we humans have gained a better appreciation for art as other countries and cultures have developed new or different social “methods” in the creation of art. Although this article seems to consistently hammer in the concept of how, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species”, can’t art be a learned appreciation rather than instinctual appreciation too? (Dissanayake, p.15).
For example, when I studied abroad in Italy this past summer I visited a museum that had all sorts of fascinating paintings and art-works, but I didn’t fully understand and appreciate it until I had someone explain the historical background of what made each item a special work of art.