In this weeks reading What is art for?, the author introduced that to her, art is “palaeoantropsychobiological” (Dissanayake, 15). To me this was very interesting because the word he used when broken down means pertaining (-ical) to the ideas of paleoecology (palaeo-), anthropology (anthro-), psychology (psycho-), and biology (biolog-). He then goes on to explain that is suggest that the idea of art includes all of human history whether it’s Paleolithic or earlier, that it includes all human societies meaning anthropological, and that it needs and has a emotional and psychological effect on it’s viewers (Dissanayake, 15). During Fall 2013, I took an AAD 252: Art and Gender course which really broadened my view on art because it taught me that art can be anything made by any human. Something doesn’t have to be made with the intension of being art, some forms of art were accidentally made but as long as it evokes some type of emotion from its view; it’s considered art. I would agree that my view on art, is the same as Dissanayake which is what she foreseen, “Most people would probably agree that their personal “idea of art” includes all these things…” (15). Everyone has their own take on art and there is no correct definition because it depends on the eye of the beholder. However, these are present day definitions or art whereas back in the Paleolithic or pre-modern times the definition of art was extremely different.
Moreover Dissanayake explains that during the medieval times “arts were in the service of religion, as they have always been, but were not regarded ‘aesthetically’ (16). Although I obviously was not there during this time I know that society as a whole had completely different values from the society we live in today. Everyone was so much more conservative and religion was a big part of everyone’s lives. No one really cared about aesthetics, like today’s society.
There’s a drastic change in how people describe art over the years but overall, I don’t think any definition of art is wrong whether it’s what people in the medieval times thought or today’s people. I believe that there is no exact definition of art because everyone has different point of views. Anything can be considered “art” as long as it evokes some type of thought or emotion.
I really enjoyed how you broke down Dissankayakes definition of “palaeoantropsychobiological.” With it broken down like that you are really able to fully understand what the author considers art to be and how it came to be. I never thought of everyone having artistic abilities but I began to view this idea differently once I began to understand Dissankayakes idea that we are all genetically predisposed to have the ability to create art in any way shape or form. “Art must be viewed as an inherit universal (or biological) trait of the human species”(Dissankayake,15).
From your post, I am curious if you think art always represent emotion like you said? Even if something was made by accident with no significant meaning nor with it stemming from a feeling or emotion, can something still be considered art? Also if someone did not put any thought into something but instead it turned out as a result of a mistake is this still considered a piece of art? Who is it up to, to decide what is considered art? Does it solely depend on how the viewer interprets it? Dissankayake describes art as pretty much anything. How much of art do you consider to be thought out and pieced together with precision and understanding of the intended outcome?
Thank you for your comment. Ever since I took HPHY 211: Medical Terminology, I’ve developed this habit of breaking down words whenever I can to better understand it’s meaning.
However pertaining to your questions…
Now I think about it, I guess not all artwork always represents or evokes an emotion from the viewer. Some people will look at an artwork and feel all sorts of different things while others that look at that same artwork and not feel anything. I guess it really just depends on the viewer and whether the make some type of connection with the piece of art. Yes, I do believe that art that is made accidentally or without any feeling/emotion intention… is still art. I’m sure there are many pieces out there that were made accidentally because art is a way of expression, sometimes a person could let loose and create a beautiful piece of art without the intentions of it. Also, with that same idea not all artwork is made with a set feeling or emotion that it is supposed to evoke because all viewers will have his or her own personal point of view about the art anyways.
I really don’t believe that there is anyone who could decide whether something is considered art or not. Art is an expression from the artists, to share with the world. For someone to tell him or her or decide that his or her work is not “art” is really rude and wrong. I guess, I would leave it to the viewer to decide what they think or feel about the artwork but just because a piece doesn’t speak to them – it doesn’t not make it art, it just means that the viewer and the artwork didn’t make a connection.
I would infer that majority pieces of art are planned to be artworks but because feelings, expression, and thoughts always change – I believe that artwork results aren’t what they were planned to be. As far as accidental artworks, I don’t think these arise frequently.