Art and Accessibility
January 22, 2014
One of the most interesting aspects of Dissanayake’s (1991) article is the parallel drawn between the movement towards modernism and the elitism of art. Dissanayake states, “Because these values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity…”. In an art history class taken earlier in my college career I learned that art, and original art, was once appreciated and purchased by most individuals in society regardless of class. This does not hold today, as art now requires its own historical context and language, like that of fine wine tastings.
Further, Dissanayake states that the “artworld” is defined just as much by the art itself as it is by the critics of art. This is reminiscent of independent and foreign film, another “high culture” interest. Sundance Film Festival and many others across the nation support an industry of counter-culture films appreciated by an audience that considers the movies art rather than entertainment. This world has created esteem for critics for whose movie choices would otherwise not be popularly supported. Many individuals, in fact, are willing to go out of their way to see a movie they wouldn’t otherwise be interested in to stay relevant.
Postmodernism is attempting to move away from elitism to create a more accessible art world. Dissanayake states “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way…” (1991). Although I agree with the movement to take the intimidation out of art appreciation, I think the abstract nature of some postmodernist art is a deterrent for the general community. General education on art in public schools from a young age could help familiarize individuals with different forms of art, and therefore give people the confidence to appreciate it. Without inclusive education, art will continue to feel inaccessible.
3 Responses to “Art and Accessibility”
January 24th, 2014 at 4:59 pm
I enjoyed the comparison that you made with the sundance film festival in the way that people will go out of the way to see a film that they originally would have never seen just to stay relevant. It worked well with the idea that Dissanayake discussed “Because these values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity.” The comparison worked well together when speaking about the idea of art. We as humans take the word of others to make our own opinions when our opinions should be what we follow. That is how our society runs, whether it’s movie recommendations, food, or art. We appreciate and look deeper into the idea of what “acclaimed” movie critics, food critics, or art critics say and we will base off our own notions on what they said because of they specialize in that specific topic. As Dissanayake mentions “ Art is not confined to a small coterie of geniuses, visionaries, cranks, and charlatans.”
Dissanayake mentions the idea of “ The role of the critic became not only helpful but integral to the reception of works of art.” You mention that general education on art in public schools would help familiarize students to different ideas of art, while I agree with you that public schools should have continue to support art, how would that notion differ from the idea in the reading that was mentioned earlier? How would students learn to appreciate different ways of art if a teacher is guiding them such as a critic would. While it would show them to look at different art, would students really appreciate the way in which art can be presented if they cannot form an opinion of art themselves? How can the movement of intimidation out of art appreciation be removed if some students have no way in connecting to art, because of the way a student might understand said art. Dissanayake wrote “ Art had become if not a religion, an ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them.” Does this idea not continue in our said time, art should be universal but when comparing different socioeconomics and cultures that could make the intimidation for art appreciation that much harder for all forms of art, even in the public school system.
January 26th, 2014 at 4:42 pm
I appreciate your point on how the formalized education of “art” as a subject is similar to listening to reviews of an esteemed art critic. I agree with you that the way art is discussed in a classroom can be just as intimidating for students as the way art is discussed in the high culture world. Dissanayake (1991) supports more of an innate understanding and appreciation of art. He believes it is something people naturally have the ability to create and understand art, stating, “The species-centered view of art…claims that there is valid and intrinsic association between humans have always found to be important, and certain ways-called the arts- that they have found to manifest, reinforce, and grasp this importance”. His argument is that art is at the center of human connection and therefore should not only feel accessible but should be a necessary part of daily life. This comes from taking a more grassroots perspective of art. For example, believing that everyone is capable of, and everyone does make art.
January 24th, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Hi, Cjb
Your title really caught my eyes at the first glance: Art and Accessibility. Art and accessibility is a really interesting topic. When I was young, I have the thought of the art could only be played with rich people, poor people can barely have the access to the art world. That is not true, the definition of art is that “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature (15)” by Dissanayake. Thus, we always have the access to the art, but it depends on how we interpret the art and whether you understand it. However, I do agree with your last statement “Without inclusive education, art will continue to feel inaccessible”. The key point is not how we access art, but how to understand the art. The inclusive education will provide you enough basic knowledge for understanding art, and then people will find accesses to arts are everywhere. For example, if you see the Acheulian hand axes, people who do not consider the Acheulian hand axes as a work of art, there is no value to them since that is just a rock. On the other hand, if you understand these hand axes, you will find out some amazing historical and art value of the hand axes. In conclusion, if you have not learned art systemically, it is hard to understand art and art will mean nothing to you. Any famous paintings and sculptures are not art to you, but papers with color and rocks with special shapes. One more advice: a good way to develop the sense of art is going to the art museum to meet people with the same interests.