1. The author, Ellen Dissanayake, coined the term paleoanthropsychobiological. Dissanayake says that this word describes art and she tells her readers what it means when she writes, “First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human history; second, that it includes all human societies; and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or eDissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.motional effects” (Dissanayake 1). After reading this definition, the author created this phrase in hopes of having an adjective that encompasses all aspects of art. The author has to create such a term because art cannot be narrowly defined by the definition of one word.

2. When the author refers to “making special” on page 8 and 9, she is talking about things that are different from everyday tasks. She refers to “making special” as, “things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” (Dissanayake 8). The author mentions that in the hunting and gathering stage of humanity, humans used to have certain rituals and taboos that they would follow because they felt like it gave them a better chance of succeeding in their goals. These rituals and taboos were very special to them because if they were to fail in something such as hunting, they could all die of starvation. They were considered much more serious than their everyday tasks. I personally believe that many of these rituals could be seen as art. If a warrior had to put special carving in his spear or perform a dance before the hunt, this would be considered a form of art.

3. Ellen Dissanayake talks about an “institutional” theory that occurred in the modernism time period (late 19th and early 20th century). This theory suggests that in order for a piece of art to be considered art, the “artworld” would have to either “buy and sell the piece of art, write about it, or display it, otherwise it would not be recognized as art” (4). Unlike today where anything can be considered art, based off of this theory, “artists made candidates for appreciation” until the artworld did one of the above tasks (4). Furthermore, it goes on to say that one of these tasks perhaps could be more important than the work of art itself. The author then discusses postmodernism, which is a late 20th century movement, when she describes says, “identifying artworks has opened a Pandora’s box that is now called postmodernism, a point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumption about the elite and special nature of art” (5). The people of this movement believed that this was the last movement. Postmodernism discusses that art can been seen and created by everyone and that there is no right or wrong interpretations of art. Also in the reading, the author discusses the medieval times which lasted from the 5th to 15th century. During this time period “the artists were in the service of religion” (2). You can conclude from what they author wrote, that during this time period, artists main focus was regarding God. They did not have nearly the same level of free flowing art that we see today.

Reference
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

One thing that was difficult for me to comprehend was when the author was talking about abstract art in history and said, “Because these values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity, requiring an apprenticeship and dedication not unlike that of the artist” (Dissanayake 4). This seemed crazy to me because I never thought of art as something that you needed to be educated in to appreciate. Although someone who is majoring in art might be able to critique a piece of art better than the average person, that does not mean that the art is any less important to either one of them. I would not consider myself very “skillful” in examining art but I still appreciate going to museums and having artwork in my home. I would also be curious on how someone defined art during this time period. Today I feel like art is freer flowing and someone could make an argument that everything we see is a form of art. I wonder if it was the same way back then?

However, the part of the article that I connected with the most was when the author started talking about living abroad and how it changed her life. Dissanayake said, “Living in a non-western country permits, indeed demands that you look afresh at all the cultural truths and beliefs that you have grown up with and taken for granted. Among these of course was my idea of art” (Dissanayake 1). The reason that I found this so interesting was because I just finished studying abroad for the past four months in Hong Kong. Although I had traveled out of the country before, this was my first time going anywhere as exotic as Asia. This was also my first time ever living abroad. Since this experience has been so recent and this is my first term back in Oregon since, I have been thinking a lot lately about how my experience has changed many of my beliefs and truths that I grew up believing in. While in Hong Kong, I would see new buildings being created and even though it is a modern place, they still used bamboo scaffolding while the buildings are under construction. For me, that was art and I loved to look at it. I found it fascinating and beautiful. Before studying abroad I do not think I would have ever considered something such as scaffolding to be a form of art.

Source:
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.