In the article, Ellen Dissanayake describes how art is an essential part of human culture. She claims that art is normal and necessary in order for society to exist. However, like society, art is relative to the time period. As time has progressed, we have begun to look at art in a different respect. In the postmodernist age that we live in today, art is judged based on its monetary value compared to its beauty. Dissanayake brings up the point that art is now a commercial good, instead of a work that embodies a culture. No longer used in religious or ceremonial practices, art has instead “became [a necessity] to please the public – multiform, faceless, swayed as today by hype and novelty – in what was to become an art market” (17). I believe that art, in today’s society, has become corrupted by greed. Instead of appreciating the beauty and emotions brought up by the visual we see, we rely on others to tell us what each piece means. I disagree with this behavior. I do not agree with the fact that Dissanayake claims that art need interpreters so they can “explain to the public what made an artwork good, bad or even what a work ‘meant’” (18). Like the post-modernism art philosophy that art is relative to the viewer, I do not agree with Dissanayake’s claim that “there is no appreciation of art without interpretation” (19). I believe that art should not need to have a meaning, but rather that it can just be a way for an individual to release emotions. I feel that as our society becomes more and more technologically evolved, the population as a whole looks at art as more of a luxury compared to a necessity. This causes a price to be attached to the art piece, where the worth of the art work is relative to the price, not the value and meaning behind it. Although I agree that postmodernism is smarter in saying that what someone takes away from an art piece is relative to the emotions evoked by the piece, I do not agree with the modernism ways where art needs to have an interpretation that is given to us by others in order for it to be appreciated; I feel that anyone can appreciate art without having to know the “deeper” meaning or having an interest in art without a monetary incentive.
Hi dmichael, it is very interesting to read your post. First of all, I think you have pretty sharp opinion about nowadays’ art market. I agree with you that art shouldn’t be priced and exchanged for other things besides art. What I mean is that people could communicate by using art work, and I think that is the soul of doing art. Everyone should have right to make or get art. Sometimes I feel like people are getting lost on art because it seems art is defined as “something that normal people don’t understand”. Those so called artist sales a piece of blank paper for thousands of dollars and still lots of people say that is art. So I am not sure if I get if when you say you believe that “art should not need to have a meaning, but rather that it can just be a way for an individual to release emotions.” How do you feel about a blank paper as the way that individual release emotion? I would love to discuss more about this with you.
You bring up a good point with the example, is a blank piece of paper considered art? In my opinion, I do not understand why people see this as art. I feel that art analysts make up a meaning in order to justify why they put such a high price tag on a piece of work that may just be a blank sheet of paper, or a piece of paper with one dot on it. This makes me somewhat resent today’s postmodern art because I feel people are only creating pieces that conform to what the art analysts seem to favor in order to get a larger profit for selling their piece. This is why commercially I do no feel that a piece of white paper with a tiny mark on it should be considered “art”. However, maybe when the artist created the single dot on the blank piece of paper they were just angry and that represented their anger. I guess I feel that a blank piece of paper could be used to release emotion, but I do not feel this should be sold as art.
In your post, the argument I saw was that “art” could be appreciated via by its visual stimulation, even without knowing the monetary price or “interpretation”. Although I agree that art should invoke emotions; and quite possibly, it could be able to do this using only its visual effects. But often times, many other factors are taken into consideration that will affect our emotional response to the artwork. When I view art, of course I can interpret it only visually, but by knowing the history, the artist, or the artist’s intentions, I am better able to become immersed in the artwork, and stimulate deeper emotions. For example, not every little kid (actually most) are going to be very good visual drawers or artists. But whenever they draw a picture for their parents; in their parents’ eyes, it could be most “beautiful” piece of art. They think it’s beautiful, not because of the visual stimulation, but because they know their child put love and time into it; it was made special, and according to Dissanayake, this quantified as “art”.