What is Art For?
As I started the week’s readings, I was trying to think of a thought-provoking question that applied to this unit topic and main ideas of the unit. However, every time I tried to justify a question I always came back and thought the most appropriate question had to be the title of the authors book, “What is art for?” What reason do people create art? Why do people study it? Is art created for enjoyment or is art created for the personal use of the artist as a way to reflect on life or culture? When I tried to answer this question I thought of all of these things. I was lead astray and confused when the author said, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species.” Why must art be a universal trait of the human species? I know many people that are not interested in art what so ever. Does this mean that they do not possess this “inherent universal trait”? Or do they still have this trait but choose not to exercise it? Remember the main question that needs to be asked and answered is ”What is art for?”
For argument sake, say that everyone does possess the “inherent universal trait” and view art in this manner. If this were true then wouldn’t everyone view art in the same manner? It seems that there would be only one way to view the piece of art. I think that most people can agree that this is false and people view and see art differently. It all depends on the person. I think the only answer to the question “What is art for?” is that it depends. It depends on the person, it depends on the piece of art, and it depends on what style the piece of art was created in.
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:25 pm
Your post is really thought-provoking to me. For the Dissanayake’s argument, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species”, I think it means everyone have the ability to create art after we born because art is our natural trait. We do not need to have the professional exercise of art because it is our inherent ability even though some of our ‘artworks’ would not be acknowledged by others. You said the answer of question “what is art for?” is depends. I agree with you. However, overall, I believe that the answer must be included by three aspects, “First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human nature (i.e. as far back as the Paleolithic or even earlier); second, that it include all human societies (i.e. is anthropological or cross cultural); and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects” (Dissanayake 15).
January 24th, 2015 at 10:58 pm
Hi Adam. I wanted to comment on the “for argument sake” section of your blog post. I agree that not everyone views every piece of art the same way, because everyone has different opinions and values that could affect their view on specific pieces of art. But in the video presentation around 7 minutes in, the speaker talks about landscapes and how they are depicted on calendar pages, on postcards, in pictures on people’s walls in their homes, and in golf courses and public parks. These landscapes could vary from sunsets, beaches, snowy mountains, forests, grassy field with flowers, etc. I think scenery like this is very beautiful and attractive to the majority of people in the world and in many cultures. Therefore I think beautiful landscapes and sceneries do fall under the “inherent universal trait” where people view this art in the same manner: as attractive and magnetizing. This connects to how the majority of people in the majority of cultures know what a beautiful person looks like, so they are attracted to that person which can lead to “art” or beauty being a survival trait.
January 25th, 2015 at 7:21 pm
I believe your misconception with “art must be viewed as an inherent universal trait of the human species” begins with what the author is suggesting. I believe what the author is saying is that in order for everyone to appreciate art, everyone must understand it. It’s the idea that you can view a painting in China and appreciate it just as much as the Eiffel Tower. Yes, everyone has a different view about certain pieces of art, but the idea of having that inherent universal trait means you can appreciate the work and detail it went to creating these masterpieces. I think your closing statement is right, it depends what art is for. It depends on the person, the piece of art and what you are interested in. But no matter who you are, everyone can adopt this universal trait of appreciating the different pieces of art from different cultures and societies.
January 31st, 2015 at 3:24 pm
In my view, I think that if we think art is a universal trait and thus being a universal trait it should be thought by everyone in a similar manner. However, if such is true than other universal trait such as taste for things such as food, sexual partners, and most importantly belief in universal religion should be another truth of out society. Sad but true our universal traits such as taste, sexual preferences and belief so differ. Thus, it is not necessarily necessary for out universal trait of arts to be considered not universal because its not viewed by everyone in a similar manner. I believe that art is universal, if not artistically than culturally or socially but its present in us is some manner. Thought, I believe that this is true; I do also believe that there are a lot of confusing aspect associated with arts not limited to but including the very definition of art. Finally, I do think art differ in perceptive but is thus practice or appreciate by every one, every culture, and every race which, I would identify as a Universal trait.