Category: Unit 03

Ellen Dissanayake coined the term paleoanthropsychobiological as an adjective to describe the multiple aspects of art. “Paleo” describes how art is inclusive to all of human history. “Anthro” relates art to human cultures. “Psycho” demonstrates art as an emotional need with  psychological effects. The “biological” part of this word  describes that art is connected to an overruling  habitual  trait of our human species that is natural and comfortable.

Dissanayake uses the example of ‘making something special’ by incorporating it into the important section of our lives. Being important   describes a “fundamental human productivity or need.” This is a characteristic that humans natural place value on and Dissanayake explains how art is incorporated into one of these needs. When someone makes something special it is an action that wouldn’t normally have taken place on an everyday basis. Keeping this in mind, creating art takes effort and skill that people don’t necessarily partake in regularly. No art piece will be exactly the same or take the same amount of time, effort, or ingenuity.

The movement of art through time is categorized into to different eras and movements. Dissanayake describes that in medieval times, the arts were kept connected only to religion and not for aesthetic purposes. It wasn’t until The Renaissance that these religious values were replaced with techniques that displayed “beauty, harmony, and excellence. Modernism was the next biggest movement and change that took place in the eighteenth century. It developed a new definition of aesthetics in which artists could distinguish “principles such as taste and beauty.” In the mid twentieth century another standard of art was founded called abstract expressionism. I think this is still the most art that we see today being sold and displayed. To Dissanayake , Abstract expressionism is a more elaborate abstract practice of art where artists tended to use words such as “Flatness, Purity, and picture plane.” This shows how art was becoming more specific and in a sense more special. We gave multiple aspects to a word and behavior that started out as a simple act in religions. Art is still growing and changing which makes me curious to what new paths art is going to take in the future.

The article, “What Is Art For?” Does a great job at re-describing the meaning and value  behind the word “Art.” It brings art back to early stages of  human development and compares our current basic societal view of art to a more complex and holistic approach. Although this approach seems wholesome and just, I do have a couple thoughts that challenge Dissanayake writings. Dissanayake explains that “Although behavior made special need not be aesthetic or artistic, when one exerts control, takes pains, and uses care and contrivance to one’s best the result is usually called artistic or aesthetic”(23) I think this definition can be applied to almost everything that we consider to be art.

However I do question what we consider a picture or image taken from a camera or online as, being art. Is it the act of taking a photo in a specific place and time that gives the definition of art? Or is it the subjects or images the photo is composed of that gives it a definition of art? For example, if someone were to take a picture of an Italian sports car with a backdrop of a beautiful sunset, would the car get the appreciation of art because of the time, care, and pain spent building it? Or would the fact that the photographer took time to capture that specific image of the car and sunset be the reason of credible artistic value. Also keeping in mind that an italian sports car alone to most viewers would probably be considered a work of art and craftsmanship. I don’t know if this picture’s association with being artistic could be granted to both aspects, but then again how does a simple picture of a beach seem more beautiful and artistic. Maybe there are more emotional ties to art than we think. The fact that we can appreciate a picture that simply captures a piece of nature in time makes me think that art is in a way almost impossible to define further than biological human interests and satisfactions.