1. The word paleoanthropsychobiological was coined by Ellen Dissanayake in her lecture “ Art for Life’s Sake”. Broken down the word can be explained as the study of human history, society and emotion as it relates to art. Dissanayake argues that the idea of art is a complicated mix of all of the above.
2. Dissanayake explains the phrase “making special” as giving something an extraordinary meaning. It could be an act with strong significance, or an object that one cares deeply about. As humans have evolved over time, so have the ‘special’ things. This concept dates back 250,000 years ago when people would color things in red to make them stand out, make them special. The author suggests that when ancestors used to hunt, all the activities and prior preparation tasks were made special so that the hunting would be successful (Dissanayake, 23). Included in preparations, were ritual ceremonies. These are most often recognized as an art form, and crucial for success, therefore made special. These ceremonies were used for various things such as conflict resolution, adverting evil and curing illness, all things necessary for survival.
3. In her lecture, Dissanayake identifies many different theories of art throughout western European history. The first one mentioned was the development of ‘fine art’ and modernity in the eighteenth century. The main ideology surrounding fine art is the “’aesthetics’- a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty” (Dissanayake, 17). There was this new approach to art, that “art had no purpose but to “be” and provide opportunities for enjoying an aesthetic experience” (Dissanayake, 18). Following this period, since art had become free ranged, it became difficult for viewers to critique and understand. So in the early twentieth century, Clive Bell and Roger Fry developed a new ‘formalist’ approach that art had to be articulated by those only by those who “had leisure and education enough” to appreciate it (Dissanayake,18). Later in that century, Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg further enlightened this thought by realizing “values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity” (Dissanayake,18). By removing the invisible boundaries and giving artists more freedom, it became more difficult for viewers to interpret and understand. Following came postmodernism- Art as Interpretation in the later part of the twentieth century. This seemed to be somewhat of a rebellion phase of art, that artists didn’t want their work to be just one thing, but anything. This time questioned all previous traditions about art. The artists during this time believed that art could be interpreted based on each individual, regardless of what the artist actually intended, there is no right or wrong. “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objective truthful way, but rather- like everybody- interpret it according to their own individual and cultural sensibilities” (Dissanayake, 19).
Referenced Text: 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.