Category: Unit 03

Dissanayake coined the term paleoanthropsychobiological in her piece about Art. It means that art exists in all of human history (paleo), societies/cultures (antho) and is emotionally and physically (psycho/biological) necessary for human life. Dissanayake also uses the phrase, “making special”, in her discussion of art. She uses the phrase to explain that humans use art to convey importance or values such that art is the process of “making special”. She argued that “making special” was part of a human need to express the importance of individual and societal values to such an extent that it was a fundamental part of life.

 

In her piece on art, Dissanayake identifies several periods of art with different theories and understandings. The medieval times, from the 5^th to the 15^th century, was a period in which most art was rooted in religion. During this period art was a service and expression of religion. Art was evaluated more on its divine content than the aesthetic nature of its appearance. 18^th century modernism viewed art as its own universal ideology more concerned with the “…taste and beauty that goven all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) art” (p. 3). Finally, postmodernism became prominent in the late 1900’s. This movement evaluated art beyond its appearance and considered the perspective and intention of the artist. Dissanayake wrote that, “artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather – like everybody- interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities” (p. 5).

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.