Ellen Dissanayake explores the ever-changing meaning of art through history and explains her “paleoanthropsychobiological” view of art. She points out that art was originally an expression of importance, or as she puts it, “…making special…” and “transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary” (p. 10). Dissanayake explains that in some ways art has become a dictatorship lead by a collection of individuals that interpret the meaning of art (often incorrectly) and deem what is and is not art.
Of all the points Dissanayake brought up in her piece, I believe the idea that art has become overly dependent on critics is the most interesting. During my time as a student I have often heard the phrase that you cannot grade art, yet that is exactly what we as a society enable a select few to do. According to Dissanayake, art is the action of expressing importance or specialness. How can someone else tell another individual, society, or culture what is or is not important to them? An individual’s values dictate what is important to him/her. Art is a means of expressing what is important or deeming something to be special. In many ways this expression can be shared with those close to you or with similar beliefs and values. However, I believe that Dissanayake failed to point out that art is also inherently personal because of what it reveals about the artist. It reveals the artist’s values.
I think Dissanayake definition of art is a much more holistic interpretation. She explains that art is essential to human survival or “art for life’s sake” (p. 4). We read earlier in the term that it is impossible to live a full life without values. Values dictate what is important and what individuals “make special” through art. Therefore art is essential to survival, or in this case, a full life.
I really appreciate that you were able to make a connection between art, individual values, and survival from this week’s reading by stating that, “values dictate what is important and what individuals “make special” through art”. When looking at your post, I realize that while reading it myself I got so caught up in the writer’s point of art as a universal behavior that I didn’t really stop to think about how art mirrors our different individual values. I also appreciate that you were able to expand upon the point that art is “overly dependant on critics” to determine the value of a piece, because I also find this to be very interesting. I would like to respond to your question, “How can someone else tell another individual, society, or culture what is or is not important to them?”, by providing my opinion on people grading others’ works of art. Art is a means of expressing what is important to you personally, and others may not necessarily agree on what you find to be “special” due to conflicting values. That being said I think it is extremely crucial to focus on the work that was put into a piece of art, versus the quality of it, when critiquing pieces of art. In terms of evaluating art, the effort is more important than the end result and is more reliable to determine if the piece is in fact meaningful or not; that way critics are not judging the value of the work, with the bias of their own preferences, but instead are focusing on the “making or doing and appreciating” of art.
Hi Alexa,
I think you brought up a good point that it is important to consider the work that was put into a piece of art. I think often times the process of creating a given piece of art can be as telling and insightful as the piece of art itself. I have seen paintings that were created by throwing or flinging paint on to a canvas. The artist applied the paint in a sort of aggressive manner and the outcome mirrored the emotion and effort that went into creating the painting. Having said that, I’m not sure I agree that the effort is more important than the end result. I would argue that the intention, not the effort, is more important. For instance, I think that an artist’s intention or what they are trying to portray (their message) is the most important thing. His/her ability to create art or the effort applied may limit the outcome but the intention is always the same.
-Sam
I like how you brought to attention Dissanayke’s consideration of art to be the process of “making special.” I found this to be a major theme in the text from her book. “Making special” is, in other words setting apart. When writing my post about the text, I asked myself how I would define art in my own words and I found it difficult to come up with a short and straightforward definition. In your post you discuss how critics of art can be suppressing. I think this is true if the art wasn’t made to be critiqued. For example, a piece someone made as a creative outlet for some built up emotions. If art is a representation of an individual’s values, it is almost wrong to critique it. That being said, I believe challenging people’s values can sometimes be useful. Having a respectful debate or discussion about why something is important to you among people who disagree can be very useful in not only providing an alternate perspective for them, but reaffirming your own beliefs. When taking lightly, critiques can be very beneficial to an individual’s growth and success in life.