After reading Dissanayake’s perspective about art, my question is does “art” get devalued when people look at an item as art? When I think of art, I think of the Renaissance, where sculptures were create and cities and nature was build upon the fact to showcase their knowledge and skill during that era. Nowadays, art is considered an interpretation of one’s mind upon a black canvas. That being said however, I feel that the word “art” is demeaning and devaluing the exotic nature of cultural activity. “There is no known society that does not practice at least one of what in the West we call ‘the arts’” (Dissanayake 21). This article relates to me well as I was born and raised in India before my family decided to move here. My parents are very cultural and they bestowed their values and ideologies to me; so I know a lot of our own history and its significance. I feel that labeling culture as art is insulting because it makes it seem that our ancestors were just prancing around and designing items to be a showpiece to others. I know for a fact that my ancestors, the Indo-Aryans, had their way of living and brought upon a lot of tools and technologies that wasn’t discovered and utilized till after hundreds of years and thousands of generations. I guess it just depends on interpretation, but I feel that we don’t appreciate the work of our ancestors enough when we just take their struggles and accomplishments for granted and use them as a showpiece for our entertainment. “ I find it significant that the word ‘art’ acquired its modern meaning and its existence as a concept as the arts themselves became practiced and appreciated by fewer and fewer members of society” (Dissanayake 21). I believe that our ancestor’s and other culture’s work may be artistic in which their significance behind their work was tremendous. Appreciating the dances and cultural activities of others as artistic is acceptable; but by just labeling it as art devalues the history of our world to an extent. What Leonardo da Vinci did was art, what Michelangelo had done was art, but what the Indians, Chinese and other cultures performed in their past isn’t just art, although their livelihood and significance to us today is just as beautiful.
I don’t think labeling a “culture” as art is anything to be ashamed of, as Dissanayake said; art is being a appreciated beyond its cultural heritage. As it stand by itself as an object to be answered by those who view it. Sure some criticism against one’s culture could be insulting, but really it is the process of understanding the rational of one’s own, or another’s culture that makes labeling something as art a spiritual experience. It is the “assumption that interpretation is indispensable to appreciating and even identifying artworks” (p.19) something that should not be a process of shame and cowardice. It is something that should be embrace regardless of what could be said, for what’s worse is that idea of censorship that that happens due to those fears. How a culture proceeded to represent itself is a type of art form, just as how individuals do that same as well.
Ankit, I found your post very interesting to read. I agree with your statement about how art reminds you about Renaissance era, as that same connection clicks with me as well, especially when it was more appreciated and apparent by people. The author says, “Renaissance artist replace God-centered with man-centered concerns, but their works continued to portray a recognizable world, whether actual or “ideal”…” (Dissanayake 2). So in order to answer your question, I would argue that art does not devalued when people look at art as an item. Art I believe is in more than just items, but also in our environment and culture that we are surrounded by.
According to the dictionary, to be technical, ‘Art’ is defined as ” the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. So to argue that art is devalued would be futile, because of art being in numerous aspects. My question to you, do you believe that art will evolve/change in the coming future? If so, in which ways?
To add on, I do like how you provide some insight from how you view art personally and your culture.