Week 3 – What is art for?
In her article about “What is art for?” Ellen Dissanayake talks about art’s role in society and also gives a history of the differing styles of art over the years. She starts by introducing her idea that art is not only a part of the human species, but a necessary part. Calling her view palaeoanthropsychobiological, a made up word to describe the complexity and necessity of art in our culture and species. She goes on to talk about the movements of different styles of art, from renaissance to the “romantic rebellion” to modernism and eventually to post modernism. Talking about the change from God centered art to secular art and the idea that art is now more species focused art.
The part of her article that struck me the most was this palaeoanthropsychobiological viewpoint of hers. The idea that “art must be viewed as an inherent universal trait of the human species, as normal and as natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any other characteristics of human nature.” (p.1) The idea really brings the question, is art a natural reaction? Given a society that has no influences, will art still be a part of society like these other characteristics?
Ellen points out “even nomadic people without permanent dwellings and few material possessions usually have elaborate poetic languages or dance styles.” (p.7) I think that this is probably her strongest argument, in that it shows that regardless of the influences art is still a huge part of culture and history. Art has a very broad definition, so I believe that one could argue that specific styles of art could not be necessary independently. In whole, however, art can really be seen as an inherent trait for the human species. With even more proof coming in the fact that “there is no known society that does not practice at least one of what in the West we call ‘the arts.’”
1 comment so far
12:30 pm - 1-24-2014
I too found Dissanayake’s paleoanthropsychobiological view of art to be intriguing. I never believed art to be a necessary component to life, but as I thought about it further I saw how much we as humans really need it. Early humans such as the Aztecs and Mayans used hieroglyphics to depict their everyday life and record stories and events as they happened. During this time period, their method of writing was through the use of pictures versus the alphanumerical system that is seen and used today.
In response to your question, I believe that art was a natural reaction in the way that it was the only form of communication and recording history. Especially at the earliest stages of the development of a universal writing system such as the one created by the early Aztecs and Mayans. I believe that bouncing off of this event, a society with no influences would still be forced into including art as a part of their society in order to create formal records of particular events and in order to pass down their traditions and stories to the later generations.
However, over time art as a language began to transform into art for leisure and evolved through the stages that Dissanayake described such as post-impressionists and postmodernists to the point when “paintings became less and less like mirrors held up to nature” (Dissanayake 18). This begs the question, is new art that is being created today, that holds no historical value, beneficial to the humans? Dissanayake points out that “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” (Dissanayake 18). This meant that art had gone from a tradition of being appreciated for its representation to being a piece to be analyzed by only those educated enough to understand. With this, does art any longer hold value the way that it had in the past?