What is Art For
This article was written by Ellen Dissanayake to emphasize people’s view of art and the development of art. Based on her past experience of living in another culture, she realized difference people’s beliefs might be different from one’s own. She came to approach a thought that “art as a kind of behavior that developed as they evolved, to help them survive” (2). From medieval times to modernize Eighteenth Century, people’s beliefs change as the environment they live in is changing. I would ask myself, what art really is? From the perspective of most people, they consider all professional drawing, ancient sculptures or old-times music record in the historical museum are art. However, is this really what art is, we can only see art in a museum?
Different people might have various understanding of art. To myself, I recognize art if I think something is special to me. It might be art for me because I think it is special. There is no way for others to believe what I believed is art. It is only in the eye of myself what is or isn’t art, and it is difficult for other to understand and to think if one is art in the same way as I did. Art is everywhere and it is embedded into the culture. This is why she was exercising a different understanding of art while she was traveling around. Ellen did not give a specific definition of art, because art is everywhere ay any time. In fact, everything that is alive or that is still could all be considered as art. This depends on how we believe or define one thing. I really like the way she concluded at the end, “art is normal and necessary behaviors of human beings that like talking, exercising, playing, working, socializing, learning, loving and nurturing should be encouraged and developed in everyone” (11).
October 18th, 2013 at 11:17 AM
I think you are right about art being a completely subjective experience, and I think that Dissayunake agrees with that statement. She defines art as “transform[ing] the ordinary into the extra-ordinary” (10), and it seems that you are arguing that that transformation can take place just in perspective. That if one looks at an ordinary thing and finds it extraordinary, then it is art. There is always a desire for people to come up with an objective definition of something, and in this case, the inclination would be to try to define what extraordinary is. But I agree, that maybe we do not have to.
In contrast, Dissayunake does bring up the role of critics in art (6), and I think that they do play an important role. Talent should be recognized and admired. Creativity and imagination within art are also things that trained professionals can extract that it are harder to see by the untrained eye. Even if I do not like something, I can still recognize that it is art. But it is important to me that I have the ability to judge for myself, through my opinions whether I like something or not.
October 20th, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Thank you for your comment. I think you were right about she does bring up the role of critics in art. Art is important in our life, but I think people really define and understand art in different ways. Talents, creativity and imagination within art are the characteristics that help people to see thing in different perspective. I was trying to explain the fact that people views about art change along with the time. In fact, everything that is alive or that is still could all be considered as art. Something is or is not art can be defined by one person himself. Like you said, even if you do not like something, you can still recognize that it is art. I think it is possible in general, and I do not mean to say someone think something is not art means art is not important in his or her life. Probably he or she will consider something else as art. Human beings are free to value art.
October 19th, 2013 at 12:06 AM
After I read your blog, I feel like we all feel in a similar way. At least, I do believe that are is a subjective experience, as Dylan and Ellen did.
But, at the meanwhile, I also got a question. You said “Different people might have various understanding of art. To myself, I recognize art if I think something is special to me”. And my question is that how do you define “special”? Unique? Or different? At my point of view, the subjective experience is an experience that I would accept and agree. People would not consider something art if they hate them from the deep of their heart. For example, would you consider the photo of Beatles crossing the street as art? I would, but they are not special to me, I don’t really know about them. But I accept the culture and feeling it brings to me.
As the saying goes “Art is everywhere”. I don’t think art can only be saw in a museum. But I also don’t think art it literally “everywhere”. You see what I’m try to say here? I mean art is everywhere, but we still need to find them and if art is really everywhere. Wouldn’t it be too cheap.
In conclusion, I think art is a subjective experience which I would accept.