Art has many interpretations and perceptions built into it, but in the article, Art for Life’s Sake”, Ellen Dissanayake, the author described art as “paleoanthropsychobiological” which has many roots. This word that Ellen uses as an adjective can be broken down in pertaining to paleo meaning old or history, anthro-human, psych-mind and bio-life. But in the text, paleoanthropsychobiological is defined as “First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human hisotry; second, that it includes all human societies; and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects” (1). The author describes that over time, the interpretation of art has changed. I’m wondering, what the reason was for art to be innovated? Back in history, the Westerns, mainly focused on the Greeks and medieval period, art was recognized as the five unprecedented changes which were “a gradual secularization of society, the rise of science, the social or interpersonal changes, emphasis on reason and the great political revolutions between America and France” (2-3). During this time, Ellen claims that Western art in the past was not necessarily considered artsy, but was focused more generally on the beauty and excellence of the Renaissance era. But since art back then was only focused on the Greeks and the medievals, would this kind of art be universally accepted as art?
Dissanayake only talks about the Western side of the globe throughout her entire article, I want to know more about why she only discusses the Western region’s perspective on art and what the other regions’ perspectives are. For example, the art history in Asia. Or was there only the discovery of art and art interpretations in the West? She also discusses in the text, “Art had become if not a religion, an ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them” (4). Does this mean only those with an education about art, knew how to interpret art?
I did think you bring a very significant point regarding to this article. As you said, Dissanayake mainly focused on the Western side of the world in the evolution history of art interpretation. I hold the opinion that this evolution is quite another story in the rest of the world. For example, as most of its art history is before camera invented, paintings were very much still the representation of the real world. However, different from the western world which art was God-centered in mediaeval, Chinese art in different dynasties seldom had religious themes. While some artists work for the royal families, many artist paint to express their own emotions. For example, some artists painted to articulate the grand mountains and the beautiful nature. Some artists painted long stories to condemn an old regime. Some artists painted to record the prosperous civic life. Some artists painted to articulate famous poems. Although these paintings were created to represent the real world, they were not the “camera shot”. The artists used exquisite painting skills to articulate the art world and to convey the allergically meanings behind the painting. As we can see that east art and western art are so different that only focusing on the art history of western world is not comprehensive in analyzing what is art for.
Hello. The first thing that stuck out to me in your blog post for this week is where you question why art is innovated over time. I’m not an expert in the field of art, but I think that the reason why art continues to change and be innovated is that artists styles and technological abilities evolves over time. What I mean by that is artists todays are less likely to paint a picture similar to the “Last Supper”, and also they have more tools available to them than before that create new styles of art, or even change the way an older style is made.
In your second paragraph, you did notice something I did not in the reading in which Dissanayake seems to only discuss Western art and not art from other places. I would guess that this is because it is the style of art she’s always been around, or that it is the easiest to study and create a deeper understanding of. Lastly, the quote you included from the text when Dissanayake describes the possible challenge of those who may not understand art was interesting. Personally, I believe anybody can appreciate art, but I agree with the author in that those who have more of a background in art are more likely to develop a better understand and appreciate of it.