After reading “What is Art For?” by Ellen Dissanayake. You can see how art including the definition, has evolved through out the centuries. As she states on page 25; as human life evolved and became more complex, so did art.
She starts off from Aristotle and Plato times where art included any activity where somebody had a correct understanding of the principles to present time where there is defined good and bad art with critic that were considered “elite”.
Something I found interesting in this paper was how trough out the years more and more rules got added on to what was good art and what was bad art. There became schools where you would learn about fine art and there are even critics to judge the arts quality. Ellen made a comment that the more art became what it is now defined as, the less people there are to appreciate it. Based on how many rules there are and how there is only certain people that are dedicated and smart (the elite) that are judges of art. It seems to me that artists and critics kind of shut others out of the “group”. There may be less people here to appreciate the art because there are so many rules to who can “properly” judge the art. Which I do not agree with at all and I believe this was referring to the fine arts and not necessarily all art.
On Page 18, Ellen says “Disinterest implied that viewers could appreciate any art”. The statement boggled me, making me read the paragraph before and after the sentence many times. I don’t understand how if you aren’t interested in the art then how does that make you appreciate any type of art? I feel that this is backwards from her later comment; “There is not appreciation of art without interpretation.” (pg.19) This statement makes more sense in that you need to look at the art, be interested and make your own judgments in order to appreciate the art.
Let me know what you think of these two statements!
reference:
Jocelynb,
I had the same thought when I first read through Dissanayake’s article, What is Art For. I was having trouble comprehending why you would have to be “disinterested” in order to appreciate and understand art. After thinking about her statement a little further, I came to the conclusion that what she could have been pointing to is that we need to set our personal opinions aside when reviewing and critiquing art. This is actually very hard to do, but in order to be objective and give each art piece an equal chance it is important to set aside our own bias when appreciating artwork. This way we will be giving an equal opportunity to different types of art. While I see where the author is coming from I do not agree with the statement “art is universal” (Dissanayake 18). To me this shows that every person will consider pieces of art in a similar manner, which is not the case. Each individual will always have their own opinion on artwork and our personal opinions and interest is what makes an individuals critique important. Interpretation of art will always be backed by some sort of personal beliefs no matter how hard we try to take out our views. A person’s interpretation of art based on their beliefs is almost more intriguing and valuable than someone trying to take a “disinterested” approach. It still is important to be able to accept works of art from different eras that do not pertain to us, but it is okay to still have personal beliefs in an interpretation. Would you agree with this also or do you have a different take on the topic?
ges@uoregon.edu,
I’m curious if the autho meant “disinterest” in another sense. My definition of disinterest that I was thinking of when reading it was to not like or enjoy something, to not be interested in it. I looked up the definition of disinterest and got two definitions. The first one being “lack of interest, indifference”, which is basically my personal definition and then the second definition was “freedom from bias or involvement.” (dictionary.com) So I believe you are correct in that the author is referencing that if people are not biased then they can appreciate art. I was simply thinking of the wrong definition of disinterest so thank you it makes sense now! However I do not really agree with the statement. I believe that it is perfectly okay to have personal beliefs in an interpretation. Ive always learned that its important to understand what the artist is trying to get you to understand with their piece. But the viewers interpretation can be just as important and can make you appreciate the work of art the same if not more.
As for the statement ellen made: “art is universal” (Dissanayake 18), I actually do have a different take than you. I do agree that every one has their own personal opinion on art pieces. I don’t believe she meant that every person would consider pieces of art in a similar matter though. This would be completely false if she did. I believe her statement referred to how art is made throughout the world. It is human instinct to creat things. It is a type of language even. Ellen states on page 21: “There is no known society in the world that doesn’t practice a type of art. This maes art universal. Before language even existed humans created art to communicate. You can see art that is from a different country but still appreciate it.
reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinterest?s=t
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Hi Jocelyn,
You commented on my post earlier and after reading your post (and thank you for your thoughtful and inspiring comment, by the way!), I feel compelled to further explain my thoughts on Dissanayake’s “paleoanthropsychobiological” theory. I mentioned how altogether I summed up her theory as art being something to experience. My post certainly does not reveal everything I took from Dissanayake, but I feel my main point about experience is really relevant to your question about the “disinterested” point that Dissanayake makes. I think that Dissanayake is emphasizing the importance of experiencing art even when not naturally drawn to it. I believe she is saying that in order to grow as an individual (and appreciator of art), to further meet that basic need that art provides, one must allow themselves to part with their own interests and preferences.
A round-about example: a person would not know that they like crab if they had never experienced eating it. Perhaps the person never had seafood. It may take a little more than one exposure and one form of preparation in order to truly appreciate crab. Maybe this person will learn to experience this new taste (maybe even experience learning about the technique of crabbing, various preparations, etc.) and perhaps benefit from this process of exploration.
I think that Dissanayake is explaining disinterest as a trait of reverence for the social, cultural, physical, emotional and intellectual influences that shape – and emanate from – a piece of art. I think that part of her point is that one should attempt to experience our species through art.
Oh my goodness! I totally got you confused with Ges….sorry! You’d didn’t comment on my post, haha. t hope my post still makes sense.