Art is a symbol that can be disguised as many things in life. Music, singing, and dancing are just a few channels of art that are embedded not only in the American culture, but in every culture across the globe. For centuries, art has been a means to express personal emotions, religious viewpoints, and political force. It has over time become a common factor in everyone’s lives, whether or not someone doesn’t like art. Personally, I don’t find interested in paintings, drawings, or any channels of art that are similar to those. I do however find great interest and pleasure in music. Whether someone’s interest lies in drawings, paintings, music, or dancing, “art must be viewed as an internal universal trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any other characteristics of human nature” (1).
As universal and accepting art may seem today, it was not always the case in previous periods of time. Modernism in the 18th century marked a time where artistic understanding only stemmed from the interpretation of scholars. People who were educated enough in understanding the true value and understanding of art were thought to have ‘disinterest’, where the viewer could appreciate any form of art, regardless of the type and period it came from. The modernity idea that art could only be appreciated and understood by none other than scholars and the sufficiently educated is in direct opposition to the theory that art is and should be universal. It bothers me greatly to think that in the 18th century you had to be a scholar to understand, appreciate, and value the universal form of our own human nature. This same philosophy spilled into the 20th century as well, with many people believing that newly developed art forms such as ‘abstract expressionism’ were too difficult to understand without the proper education. As difficult as art might be to interpret to the naked eye, any interpretation is the right interpretation. If art is truly the universal language and should be as natural as sociability or aggression, there is no need for proper education or scholarly knowledge to interpret and to enjoy art. Art is a beauty that comes from the way we interpret and express it ourselves.
suji@uoregon.edu: 
Singasong: 
Singasong: 
sliu3@uoregon.edu: 
taewoong@uoregon.edu: 
sliu3@uoregon.edu: 
Han: 
Singasong: 
UO Technology Service Desk:
2. I do quite agree with your idea that everyone has their point of view to interpret art and beauty in their own way. Like you say, you enjoy music much more than paintings, while as for me, I love both of them but have less interest in opera and sculpture. Moreover, I am trying to understand your point of view of the second paragraph, which is about the necessity with proper knowledge to understand arts. You said that “If art is truly the universal language and should be as natural as sociability or aggression, there is no need for proper education or scholarly knowledge to interpret and to enjoy art.” I agree with that art is kind of universal; however, some kind of art is difficult to understand if the audiences do not have some basic background knowledge about that, like Gothic, De Stijl, even some performance arts. Therefore it hard to say if it is necessary to be well educated to understand art.