“Along with control of one’s behavior… would go making important tools and implements special, showing one’s investment in their working properly, one’s regard for their importance,” writes Dissanayake as she articulates that an investment of effort is a notable quality of art (p. 9). Similarly, Dutton explains that “doing something well” and “skilled performances” are qualities that have defined art for millions of years (Dutton, 2010). In agreement, I see this quality as an example of a possible characteristic of what we consider art today. In addition to investment of effort, dedication of time seems to be an associated quality, but to a lesser extent. Take, for example, throwing on the wheel in the art of ceramics. Perhaps one is skilled enough to create a set of nesting bowls in less than a half hour – beginners would probably need closer to a week to master this task. But, these bowls are perfectly shaped and fit one within another without uneven ridge widths or an unbalanced foot. Investment of time was not required to make such a beautiful set of dishware, but the effort put forth to learn that skill was quite the investment.
Regardless, it is this idea of actively seeking to make something “special” that transforms an object as art.
Dissanayake continues, “The reasons that we find a work accessible, striking, resonant, and satisfying are biologically endowed as well as culturally acquired” (p. 10). Although satisfaction may be a feeling that is unique to the individual, it is an innate sense of beauty, based in biological characteristics and cultural influences, that forms a universal sense of what is and what is not art. I agree with this explanation, and find that it explains timely shifts in the eras of “artworld”. Advanced biological adaptations, along with diverging social ideas and practices, contributed to different definitions of art.
Sources:
Dissanayake, Ellen. (1991). What is art for? In K.C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (p. 15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Dutton, Denis. A Darwinian theory of beauty. TED Talk. Nov 2010. Accessed: January 21, 2015.
I enjoyed reading this post and do agree with your mentioning of beauty insight within the artist. I do have to ask though, would you say art is still challenging for those who make steady-shaped pieces, such as ceramic bowls in your example above? Based on personal beliefs and challenges faced, I find it extremely difficult to produce the same piece of art more than once. Without crude measurements, wouldn’t the piece be at least a little unique every time, just with a slight change of hand motion in any given second?
Yes, everyone has the ability to create a ceramic bowl in their own certain style, but on a day-to-day basis it is almost impossible to position one’s hands in the same manner for the same allotted time frame, thus producing virtually the same design. Does “making something special” still apply to the same general design, yet with an added marking, color, or material?
Dissanayake, Ellen. (1991). What is art for? In K.C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (p. 15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Thanks for contributing to my post! I certainly agree that human error is still present in this example of throwing on the wheel, and I think you have valid points in your comments. Overall, I think we agree, but some clarification may be relevant. I think that the “specialness” of an object – nesting bowls in this example – resides in all efforts put forth in creating a piece. In my example, even though the professional is able to create a set of bowls in a short period of time, there was still a great expenditure of time and effort dedicated to learning the craft prior to mastery. I think that it would still be a challenging task to make a matching set, but to a lesser degree than if the artist were a beginner. I think a quote from Dissanayake’s piece may help to smooth this conversation: “Yet if art is regarded as a behavior, making things special, emphasis shifts from the object or quality or commodity to the activity (the making or doing and appreciating)…” (p. 10).
Dissanayake, Ellen. (1991). What is art for? In K.C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (p. 15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.