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

Paleoanthropsychobiological is a term that is a describing word for Ellen Dissanayake’s view of art. Ellen coined this term. It involves several factors to define it. That art is a part of human history even back to the beginning before language existed, also that art is a part of every human being. She states “There is no known society in the world that doesn’t practice a type of art.” (Dissanayake 21) And finally that art is a necessity for humans. It is wired in our brains, our nature. Art is a “trait of the human species (Dissanayake 15).

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

When Dissanayake discusses humans want to “make special” she is talking about the natural instincts of a human being, such as making tools and to be social. To make special is where humans want to create something or do something that is not a typical everyday thing. Ellen states that most animals have the “special” instinct. Where the animal knows if something isn’t normal. This is something that can usually be dangerous so the animal recognizes it and survive. Humans have the special instinct like above for human survival. But also the “make special” instinct, where they make something that is out of the ordinary but in a good way, to please us. This is where art comes in. Art is something that humans can make that is special. It can be something that “one cares deeply about or… has strong personal significance…” (Dissanayake 22)

3.   Dissanayake identifies many different theories/movement/periods of art throughout western European history. Name three different theories of art that Dissanayake mentions in her essay. Identify the time period when it developed and was prominent. Provide a brief description of the philosophies and ideas that define each theory/movement/period of art. Support with quotes from reading.

One period of time was the Greek times. The theory of art was not what we now think of art. Back then art could be general activities or objects, nothing special Ellen say sit meant “having a correct understanding of the principles involved”. (Dissanayake 16)

Another time would be the medieval times. Art in this time period was strictly for the churches. Religious pieces were made like sculpture or interior design in the churches.

The third time period was the 19^th century. This was a crucial point for a change in art. It was no longer made just for churches and religion. “It became necessary to please the public” (Dissanayake 17). An art market was born where people could buy art based on their liking.

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:

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.