In the reading for this week, Ellen Dissanayake talks about her experiences living abroad for 15 years and how living in non-western countries basically forces you to look at cultural truths and beliefs in a fresh new light and in a way that us westerners have taken for granted while we were growing up. This made Dissanayake, along with myself, wonder how different societies and cultures view art. She mentions that “living in another culture also makes you realize that different as other people’s beliefs may be from one’s own, we are all still recognizably people – and so wonder what is universal” (pg. 16). I understand this as her saying how even though there are so many different cultures and types of societies out in the world, we are all still human beings but each of us appreciate different types of art.
Because of this, I believe that art is a necessary part of any type of culture, no matter where you are from or how you have been raised. Any type of art form created by a specific person shows their beliefs on the world, which is coming from their own culture and society. Ellen mentions how “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species.” (pg. 15) In saying this, I think that she was saying how art is a completely natural behavior for any type of culture, and that whatever art is made by any type of person, should be encouraged and appreciated by anyone in the human species. Since there are so many people in the universe and everyone is raised by different types of societies, imagination and creativity should be the main focus when evaluating art from another region of the earth. You should appreciate art no matter where it is from.
Rachel, you made some strong connections from your beliefs and the reading. I agree with your statement, “there are so many different cultures and types of societies out in the world, we are all still human beings but each of us appreciate different types of art.” I do believe that art is created from people within their own culture and society. In your response you discussed how art is made by any type of person and should be encouraged by anyone. I challenge you to think about different cultures and their beliefs and how that affects their views toward certain pieces of art. Cultures may have different views on society and if you have a piece of art that doesn’t agree with another’s values, you may not appreciate it. America has pieces of art from victories, presidencies, etc, that other countries may not agree with. They may have a different outlook on the event so that would change their idea on the beauty of the artwork. So with this in mind is art, it shows that art is still universal, but is it always encouraged?
Art can be used as a form of unification between people of the same or similar culture. It’s a way in which people can connect to one another not just through paintings and photographs, but rather life experiences other types of personal phenomenons. Dissanayake states “art is not universal, but conceptually constructed by individuals whoe perceptions are necessarily limited and parochial.” She expresses the point that people from different parts of the world form their own personal cultures that impacts their views on art, and although these views might be different from others, it’s the technique of that is similar. She goes on to say “to claim that one can appreciate works from alien cultures is an imperialistic act of appropriation.” It’s human nature to accept your own views before the views of someone from another culture, and takes time to come to understand the notion of someone else’s interpretations.
Seadler, you said, “Art can be used as a form of unification between people of the same or similar culture,” but you also went on to acknowledge that, as Dissanayake says, “to claim that one can appreciate works from alien cultures is an imperialistic act of appropriation.”
Rachel, you also brought up an important point: “Since there are so many people in the universe and everyone is raised by different types of societies, imagination and creativity should be the main focus when evaluating art from another region of the earth. You should appreciate art no matter where it is from.”
These ideas are connected, and I would say the summation of them is that as human beings from one culture, we not only should try to understand the art of a culture that is completely different, but that it can also be a form of understanding or communication when language is a barrier. What do we all think of this? Could this be true? Is art a form of universal communication?
I think the answer is complex and certainly controversial. On the one hand, to claim understanding of something we have no background knowledge of is, as Dissanayake says, cultural appropriation. But on the other hand, I can think of several experiences in which music was a sole way of communicating with people whom I knew nothing about, nor spoke their language.
But then again, that is still just Western European music… would such deep understanding and “communication” be possible between groups whose music is so vastly different – such as Javanese Gamelan music (which uses a completely different scale system and collection of tones than Western Classical music).
I would love to think that art and music are the bridges that fill the gaps between so many of us around the world, but is that just the easy way out? Or is there some merit to this? I’d love to know what you all think.
Rachel this is great insight. I liked how you started with Dissanayake’s cultural background and went from there. As for your argument, I like how you used Ellen’s time abroad to give her a special lens of how to see people’s perspective. Particularly, how people who are abroad from non-western cultures are kind of forced to see cultures in a new light. Coincidentally, although there are many different types of cultures and types of societies, we are all humans and appreciate art in our own way and in different forms.
Also, another good point Rachel is when you talk about when Dissanayake says, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (Dissanayake 15). This is especially important because it speaks to the fact that art is a rudimentary part of our genetic makeup, therefore we are destined to create art and we find it in just about any area of any society. This also presents you with a good opportunity to talk about what Dissanayake explains art to be. One of the instances in her piece she describes it as, “Conceptual ragbag or casserole full of the most incompatible and confusing notions”(Dissanayake 15). Dissanayake does a great job of expressing something that is difficult to make understandable. All in all I thought you did a great job interpreting the reading and I feel like I learned more about it from reading your post.