Oct
2014
“What is art for?” {Discussion}
This article had a lot going on in it. I had to read it a couple times just to make sure I understood what points she was trying to tell us. There was a lot to follow and comprehend. However, I want to take a moment to bring up a thought I talked about last week, which was how the definition of values was not very concrete so it made talking about values difficult. I believe the same thing happens here with art…
Ellen Dissanayke talks about many different subjects in this paper, but the most important part for me was her definition of art. She takes the “conceptual” part of art away. Instead she suggests “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (pg.15). She believes that along with all the other behavioral traits we inherit, there was also a trait “to ‘make special’” (pg. 22). Therefore, she argues that art is instead an act: to make something special. This means “something that is ‘special’ is different from the mundane, the everyday, the ordinary. It is extra-ordinary”(pg. 22). I cannot completely agree more with her argument. I have always been struggling to determine what art is, and I believe her definition is the best argument I’ve heard so far. Usually when one thinks about art, a painting comes to mind, or maybe a sculpture. But what makes that art? Isn’t it just colors on a piece of paper? Or a shape in a rock? What makes it art, is it is special. The shape is special, unique, artistic. The colors on the piece of paper are organized in such a particular manor to make it look unified. Therefore, art can be anything one makes special. Quick example: When your 5 year-old daughter holds up a painting she drew with her water colors at the kitchen table, it’s a piece of art, because it is special. It’s different than the ordinary, unique.
Courteney
October 17, 2014 at 7:03 pm (10 years ago)In my opinion there is no true definition of art. Art can be the skills needed to make something, a masterpiece created by a famous artist, or something someone created out of enjoyment. There is no set definition of art, due to everyone having their own artistic ability. “Art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (pg.15). All human species are unique, and all unique species have different views on art and opinions. Stated above you discussed what makes it art? To me, art is something created by an individual. Art can be many things, art is unique to all human species due to the different opinions on the subject. “Art is not confined to a small concrete of geniuses, visionaries, cranks, and charlatans”(26). In no way is art confined, art is very broad and differs from person to person. I agree with your post, and I agree with this weeks reading and the opinion the author has on art.
mjones6
October 18, 2014 at 11:30 am (10 years ago)When you mention “art can be many things, art is unique to all human species due to the different opinions on the subject”, I think you mean since there is no one true definition of art, it cannot be confined to be one thing, therefore it is unique to each person since each person has their own definition. Maybe what you’re trying to get at is art is a very broad subject and many different definitions can fall under that category. This reminds me of your post on beauty: “Beauty is not found in the eye of the beholder, beauty comes from within each individual”(your blog post: What is art for?). To me it seems like all these broad definitions lead to that category, whether it be art or beauty, meaning something different to each individual but it is somehow still shaped by our society. For example, society tells us certain things are pieces of art, but then we decide for ourselves whether it’s beautiful or not.
yutingw@uoregon.edu
October 19, 2014 at 11:00 pm (10 years ago)I have same feeling as you about Dissanayke’s definition for art. I personally don’t have a good explanation for art, but I am not sure if her definition is perfect. I agree that the form and content for a piece of work is not important to make it as an art work, instead, the most important thing is that if it can make other people feel something. Happy or sad, excited or relaxed, it has to have some feelings to others, in another words, to let other people feel it is special. If there is only one person who is the creator of this work thinks it is very special, I am not sure if it could be called as art. Although art is difficult to define, it doesn’t mean there is no limit for things to be art. For example, I have heard some one sale his blank paper for hundreds of money because he is great artist. I have to think who would pay me for more than 1 dollar for a piece of blank paper. The difference is now about the people, the artist or a normal person. When art is not differing from work itself but form who does it, I think it is getting lost from the true meaning of art. What do you think about it? I would love to discuss it later.
sabrina
October 20, 2014 at 12:27 am (10 years ago)Yes, Madison. We are on the same track of the the definition of art. As the author mentioned in the reading art is to make things special, reflecting the emotion and cultural inheritance. Art can be anything from any ideas. And from the perspective of the postmodernism, art is being as interpretation, which can explain the definition better that “rather than assuming art reflects a unique and privileged kind of knowledge…art is interpreted according to individual and cultural sensibilities” (p.5). besides, I am thinking that art itself is special and it can be the fountain for creating others. And we may think how we can make our life more artistic, no matter the sake of performance and daily life.