Category: Unit 03

Paleoanthropsychobiological is a term coined by Ellen Dissanayake meaning that art includes human history as well as human societies and that art itself is a natural psychological need and is such a natural trait of the human species.

 

When Dissanayake mentioned the phrase “make special” she was referring to the natural ability humans have to view things of high importance, or with an outcome that is significant as special. More specifically the intuitive knowledge that “something that is “special” is different from the mundane, the everyday, the ordinary” (Dissanayake 22), which she claims is an ability that animals have that aids in survival. The beginning of a behavior of art Dissanayake offers is the ability to recognize that something is special as well as be able to be able to make something special.

 

In Art for Life’s Sake by Ellen Dissanayake she identifies a variety of different theories, movements and periods of art in Western European history. In the medieval times art was “in the service of religion, as they have always been, but were not regarded “aesthetically,” if this means separately from their revelation of the Divine” (Dissanayake 16), meaning the look of the piece of art was a lower priority than the religious significance of the artwork. During the Renaissance period the art became less religiously focused and transitioned to “man-centered concerns, but their works continued to portray a recognizable world” (Dissanayake 16), which meant that the art accurately represented the subject matter whether it is ideal or not. During the eighteenth century the “modernity” trend arose bringing with this trend “was a subject that came to be called “aesthetics”- a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) art” (Dissanayake 17). This was a time when art reached a level of such appreciation that it was believed that a certain attitude was required so that the art could be appreciated separate from a person’s personal, social and religious beliefs.

The reading for this week addressed how different times in history as well as locations around the world have approached the topic of art and the different ways it is practiced and taught. The author’s claim that “there was a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art-a “disinterested” attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the object” (Dissanayake 17), makes a good point because this attitude allows a variety of viewers to appreciate art without knowing the artist’s purpose for creating the work of art. This claim made me wonder why people who study pieces of art spend so much time analyzing the events that occurred in history when certain pieces were created if it is not detrimental to the enjoyment of the art whether the viewer knows the actual purpose and reason behind the artist’s work.  I believe that Dissanayake had the same thought when she wrote that another idea popular in the art world was “art for art’s sake, suggesting that art had no purpose but to “be” and to provide opportunities for enjoying an aesthetic experience that was it’s own reward” (18), I believe that there are many examples of works of art that were created just for their aesthetic appeal and don’t intend to tell a story or elicit a specific emotion. Another point made by the reader that also addresses the role of viewer’s in how art is perceived was that “the critic became not only helpful but integral to the reception of works of art” (Dissanayake 18), implying that since comprehending “high art” required a certain level of education, uneducated individuals could not fully understand or enjoy art without being told what the intention of the artist was. Dissanayake goes further by including George Dickie and Arthur Danto’s idea that “an artworld composed of critics, dealers, gallery owners, museum directors, curators, art magazine editors, and so forth, was the source of conferring the status “work of art” onto objects” (19), which would also imply that the artists themselves were powerless to how their art would be perceived and that it’s status or acceptance in the world of art depended on the artworld’s acceptance of their art.