1) Describe the term paleoanthropsychobiological. Who coined this term?

-In “What Is Art For?”,  Ellen Dissanayake coins the idea of a palaeoanthropsychobiological view. This view is that when looking at a human, art is an inherent trait that needs to be expressed much like social ability and other characteristics of human nature.

2) What does Dissanayake mean by the phrase “making special”? How does it relate to art and to human survival?

-In the article Ellen discusses the idea of “making special” and how it looks in human society. The notion is the act of perceiving an event, time, or place as more important or special so people change their behaviors and actions accordingly. People change their clothes, make special meals, or even say things in a more refined or “special” way. People do this to make an occasion even more special or sometimes out of excitement for something that might not really deserve the attention in itself. For art, people express themselves in a more “special way” for some exhibits or events. But for human survival this shows itself in different ways. People are making more and more out of sometimes little things, which can make them more and more meaningful to the individuals. The added stress and preparation completely change the way life is lived in human society.

3) Name three different theories of art that Dissanayake mentions in her essay. Identify the time period when each theory developed and was prominent. Provide a brief description of the philosophies and ideas that define each theory/movement/period of art.

-“Renaissance Art” – 18^th Century – Renaissance artist were usually known for the way they began to “replace God-centered with man-centered concerns.” (p.2) They transferred thoughts away from “divine” and instead portrayed more of the recognizable world and using “standards of beauty , harmony, and excellence.”

-“Modernist Movement” – Late 18^th Century – The Modernist idea mostly centered around a “special frame of mind for appreciating art.”(p.2) This idea is that people must separate themselves from their own personal interests to be able to fully enjoy the artwork. “Paintings became less like mirrors held up to nature, so that viewers could no longer decipher or natively admire them.” (p.3) This caused a stigma to art that it could only be appreciated by the higher classes that could spend the money and take the time that it took to be trained.
-“Postmodernism” – Late 20^th Century – Postmodernism is mostly based on the interpretation of a viewer. This was a almost direct opposite reaction to the modernist movement, because it contrasts the idea that only the elite can appreciate art. The one issue for post modernism is that “aesthetics troubled and inadequate when it proclaims that there are a multiplicity of individual realities.” (p.6)

Reference

Dissanayake. E(1991),What is art for? In K.C. Caroll(Ed.) Key note adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention) (pp, 15-16)

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.’”