In the article “Art for Life’s Sake,” Ellen Dissanayake dives into explaining the complexity behind what exactly art is and why it matters. Dissanayake goes through different stages of defining art that arose in distinct time periods. During the medieval times art was used for the sake of religion. Creativity and the accomplishments of the artists were not noted and artwork was not created as a canvas for man to express his conscious awareness but instead was made to encompass God himself. Then came the 18th century where modernity became relevant followed by the 19th century where new unique and creative styles started to emerge, private galleries began, shifting away from uniformity to a sort of new and unveiled individuality also known as aesthetics. I believe understanding and living in a time where art is very prevalent and is always changing requires an open mind when it comes to different techniques and styles. Because art has expanded to be almost anything you want it to be, it requires you to have a freeing and open mind that lets you accept and respect every kind of art imaginable. This is because it does not matter what the artist is presenting. What is important is how the artists experiences make them feel which is then portrayed in their artwork. Dissanayake describes this when she says “Still another was the idea of art for art’s sake (or even life for art’s sake), suggesting that art has no purpose but to “be” and to provide opportunities for enjoying an aesthetic experience that was its own reward, and that one could have no higher calling than to open oneself to these heightened moments”( Dissanayake ,18). I agree with Dissanayake when she says this and it directly relates to what I said about art being the artists subjective portrayal of their own emotions and experiences. The author also describes that when she says,“no matter how strange they looked or unskilled they seemed to be-were conduits of transcendent meaning, of truths from the unconscious, expressions or revelations of universal human concerns that the art was unique endowed to apprehend and transmit”( Dissanayake, 18). I really liked this phrase because of her truly realistic interpretation to describing how no matter, what art is art. Whether it is considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ whether it makes sense to viewers or not, it is the artist who gets the opportunity to transmit the truths and universal human concerns in his or her own unique and distinct way. Lastly, the overarching theme to this article embodies the idea that art is EVERYTHING and comes from ANY source possible. Whether it be happiness, loneliness, relationships, confusion, love, sex, death, religion..anything can be an inspiration for art and art will always be a paradigm with varying forms.
I want to push back on the idea that “no matter what, art is art”. I think that context is immensely important in determining what, or even better when something is art. Dissanayake claims that art is integral to the human experience, so much so that it is biological. That is an incredibly strong statement. Dissanayake is saying that art is literally in our DNA, but she isn’t necessarily saying that art is always art. If the Mona Lisa was being used to prop open a door, is it acting as “art”? I would say no. I believe that it is art when we as humans appreciate it for more than just the sum of it’s part. That is to say, only when we look past the wood frame, canvas, and oil paints to see the work as a whole, do we recognize it as art. In the same way, a sword that was intended (and possibly used) in some ancient battle, but has some really beautiful carvings on the handle or etching on the blade may never had intended to be seen as a piece of art by the maker or the user. That doesn’t mean, however, that society can’t see that sword as a work of art in a certain context (e.g. a historical museum). If it wasn’t intended to be art, is it art? If it is, when does it become art?