After reading this article, the author- Ellen Dissanayake stated that the meaning of the terminology “art” through her experience and an understanding of the different time’s perspectives on art. From her article, I learned that “art (is) as a kind of behavior that developed as they evolved” (Dissanayake, 2). Also, foe modern people, art includes many principles like taste and beauty from the authors’ point, which reminds me whether an artist’s work can be evaluated objectively if each modern people has his own frame of appreciating works like personal preference, interests, and styles. Furthermore, Dissanayake mentioned that “there is no appreciation of art without interpretation” (Dissanayake, 5), does it mean art is an imitation or an interpretation of nature? Or it means you cannot truly appreciate the meaning of the art without other’s interpretation. Moreover, how can we value works of art objectively without personal preference? As we all know, nowadays, many arts of works are being sold with high prices by auction. And the author pointed that 18th century thinkers pay their attention on the term of “aesthetics” ,which can be interpret as taste and beauty (Dissanayake,3). I have a question that according today’s situation about the value of art works, is the monetary value of a work of art important in determining the aesthetic value of the work?
From my perspective of art, I feel many things can be seen as arts according their situation. That is also means “art must be viewed as an inherent universal trait of human species” (Dissanayake, 1). Also, art is not only represent the artists’ creativity, innovation and imagination, and it can stands for one’s belief and understanding of this special or specific things. Arts do not have boundaries; everyone can appreciate them in their different views because each human being has different experience or backgrounds, so we cannot deny others’ understanding of the arts. We should respect each art and use a subjective way to appreciate arts with interpretation.
The idea of art is a funny subject because anymore, art is all about the “new” or what hasn’t been done before. And i guess it has always been that way, whether it is with brush stroke styles or material being used art in this sense will never change. However, you brought up in your response that interpretation as stated in the reading by the author is what basically makes art, art. And this is where art begins to humor me. I have always looked at art in a way where if it is aesthetically pleasing to me than i like it. But artists began putting symbolism and apparent meaning into art which i think is ridiculous. The point i’m trying to get across is that artistry becomes a knowledge and a popularity contest. So to answer your question I believe that the monetary value of a piece of work (“art”, which could literally be a single dot on a white piece of paper) all depends on the reputation and success of the artist. An artist must establish him or herself in the industry and once that occurs everyone jumps on board. So, yes monetary value is important, but what is more important is the reputation of the artist. Because what i have learned and experienced is that a piece of crap and be a piece of work if the right name is stamped on it and therefore automatically has high aesthetic value. It’s just the way that the mind of art connoisseurs’ work.
Thoughtful and engaging post. You mention that Dissanayake says “there can be no art without interpretation”. It’s important to make the distinction that this is not Dissanayake’s personal view, that she is stating that “art as interpretation” is a defining belief of the post-modern theory of art. She’s pointing out that post-modernists believe the value of art is subjective, that is up to each individuals personal and cultural interpretation. I just want to make sure that everyone in class understands that Dissanayake’s essay is included in this course not to provide anyone specific view of art but to introduce that there are many views of art through out historyas well as cultures.
I love your question about whether monetary value has any relationship to aesthetic value. Looking forward to reading what others think.
“there is no appreciation of art without interpretation”
This is a quote from Dissanayake’s article that I found myself particularly agreeing with. It is hard to just take a glance at art and appreciate it if you don’t take the time to think about it and ‘interpret’ it. For example, I love the outdoors and loving exploring hikes and searching for new views. When I get to the top of a hike or a viewpoint, there is usually a beautiful view. However, when I’m looking at this view I like to think about it and how it makes me feel so that I can truly appreciate the view. While yes, the view may be natural beauty, I enjoy looking at it and seeing what emotions the view can evoke.