What Is Art For?

Reading “What is Art For” by Dissanayake in conjunction with the Ted Talk by Dennis Dutton give an encompassing view of art in early humanity and the necessity of art for survival. Dissanayake and Dutton both view art as part of evolution but see its importance in different ways.

Dissanayake sees rituals as the first steps to what we see as “art” in modern day. Rituals were a process of “unification, passing on cultural knowledge – individuals in human societies where ceremonies were performed would survive better and leave more offspring than those who did not. And being crucial and intrinsic to ritual ceremonies, the arts were crucial and intrinsic to human survival – art for life’s sake” (Dissanayake 10). Dissanayake brings home the point that art was a way of passing down valuable knowledge as well as a way to bring people together. She believes that art was developed as a cultural necessity. The use of rituals and ceremonies allowed for groups to create and maintain meaning. These events were special and brought together humanity as a group. Rituals built a sense of camaraderie and companionship.

Dutton also sees art “for lifes sake” (as Dissanayake would say). However, Dutton believes art held more meaning for the individual versus the group. Dutton discusses the use of art in the creation of hand axes. These hand axes were used as primitive markers of optimal mates. The men who could create the best hand axe demonstrated intelligence, a steady hand, and skills in being able to plan ahead. Just as a peahen chooses a peacock with the fullest plume human females would choose the men with the best hand axes and so the less artistic men wouldn’t survive.

I believe that Dutton and Dissanayake both have valid points. Dissanayake believes that art arose from the necessity to bring people together. Art as seen through ritual acted as a catalyst to build relationships and pass knowledge. Dutton sees art as a way to pass genetics. The better the art the more chance for genetic survival (natural selection).

In the modern age the necessity for survival has shifted. We no longer need to pass down our knowledge through dance and we don’t have to craft our own rocks to attract women. However, art still exists everywhere we look and I feel it still has a lot of the same purposes. People are naturally attracted to someone who can play an instrument beautifully, paint a masterpiece, or be highly knowledgeable in a field. Art will always be important to us. It is engrained in who we are and a lot of that can be attributed to its importance in our evolution.

Published by

aharman@uoregon.edu

Hi everyone, my name is Andrew Harman. I'm a senior at University of Oregon studying Journalism with an emphasis in Advertising and double minoring in Business Administration and Economics. I'm from San Diego, CA and I'm writing this blog for my AAD 250 class.

3 thoughts on “What Is Art For?”

  1. Andrew,

    Your comparison of the two perspectives enhances the understanding of both. The part of your blog that I found particularly intriguing was that of Dissanayake’s explanation of art for survival’s sake and your consideration of our current individualistic Western society. It brings up the strong role that art has always had in the development of communities. When Dissanayake says that art is “a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects,” it makes makes me wonder how our individualistic society may be affected by a lack of the ritualistic art that you discuss. Perhaps I have a negative view of our society, but I find it’s hard for people in our society to truly connect with other people. One place that I’ve found this art alive in our society is in church ceremonies. They are really one of the only settings in which I have observed -a seemingly unnatural – natural way of expression that involves group members and enhances their experience. Although I am not very religious, this uninhibited expression drew me in. Was it the spirituality that I’ve missed? Or is it the art and the connections it initiates?

    I am also really interested in how

  2. Vander, you make a very good point about our individualistic society and I do definitely feel we have drifted a bit away from a ceremonial dominant society. I agree that we have less ceremonies and rituals than our ancestors. However, I do feel that there are many ways in which we still can draw connections through ritual besides church. Church is a great example because there is a lot of power in that space. Everybody going to church shares the same faith and a lot of the same values so immediately there is community there and they can bond with one another through their artistic expression of their faith. It might not be like the rituals of old but I believe there is a lot of artistic expression in sports. Whether you are on a team or cheering on your favorite one you are coming together with a group of people to express yourself. A team on the field has their pre-game rituals and during the match if they’re really in synch on the field you can tell and it really is an art. So in a sense we still can find those rituals Dissanayake speaks of they’ve just evolved and changed with us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *