AAD250

1. The term paleoanthropsychobiological was coined by Ellen Dissanayake. The term is used as a way to depict humankind’s history through both psychological and biological perspectives or viewpoints.

2. When Dissanayake mentioned the phrase “making special” she meant that over time as humans evolved mentally and physically they were able to institute a way to recognize the things, events or humans that were so-called “special”.

3. Western Europe was home to many different theories/movement/periods of art. Dissanayake mentions several different theories of art that exemplify Western Euopean art. Some of the time periods were the Renaissance, Post-Impressionist, and Postmodernism. The Renaissance time period was an era where instead of being a society centered on religion it was going to be centered on science and reason. The art during this time was realistic and tried to create “recognizable world”. During the early Twentieth Century the next dominate art theory was Post-Impressionist. According to Dissanayake, this era of art theory focused on possessing preexisting knowledge or ability to view art. The art during this time moved away from naturalist artwork that reflected the real world. The last art theory came, which occurred in late Twentieth Century, was Postmodernism. The theory and art associated with Postmodernism became an outlet or way to represent the view of the worldwide elite of Western European. There was a sense that art during this time period no longer were movements or be called “ism”.

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.