1) The term paleoanthropsychobiological was coined by Ellen Dissanayake and is basically a lot of little sub words put into one to make it one big idea (if that even makes sense). The word means that art is something that goes far back to the paleolithic era, is something that can be traced across cultures, and that art is something that is biologically embedded in humans.

2) When Dissanayake uses the phrase “making special,” she is describing making something different from the ordinary, or “not normal.”  She claims that making something special (the action) is the definition of art.  She also claims that the act of “making special” was crucial to human survival. She used the examples of ritual ceremonies that were unique and special ways of communicating and socializing with the community.  She argued that this act of making the ceremonies special unified the community and made it to where communities that held these rituals would have more surviving offspring than those who did not.  This act of “making special” is art itself so therefore, art is essential to human survival.

3) The first period of art that Dissanayake points out is medieval times.  During this period art was considered the “service of religion”(16).  Art was not thought of as “‘aesthetically,’ if this means separately from their revelation of the Divine”(16).  This meant that art was not thought of for its beauty or for personal pleasure unless it was enjoyed from a Divine perspective (an experience through religion).

The second period I would like to address is during the 18th century: Modernism.  This is when art was beginning to be thought of aesthetically.  During this period, there emerged the idea of “disinterest” which meant “[an] attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the objet, its utility, or its social or religious ramifications”(17).  This meant that art was being looked at by stepping out of one’s own opinions and looking at it from a non bias viewpoint.  Almost from a different perspective.  This “disinterested attitude” allowed viewers to appreciate art from a different time period because it didn’t matter if they “understood” what was physically in the painting, but rather the beauty of the painting as a whole.

The third, and final, period I would like to touch on is postmodernism.  This viewpoint emphasized the interpretation of the artwork rather than the artwork itself: “…assumption that interpretation is indispensable to appreciating and even identifying artworks…”(19).  They suggest that individuals’ interpretation of an artwork comes from their own point of view and is unique to each individual: “…any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view — a ‘representation’ that comes to us mediated and conditioned by our language, our social institutions, the assumptions that characterize individuals…”(19).  Postmodernists also believe that “art is not universal”(19).  They believe art is relative to each individual and it is “conceptually constructed by individuals whose perceptions are necessarily limited and parochial” (19).

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.