1.Paleoanthrosychobiological is a term coined by the author Dissanayake in her article for the purpose to describe her views of art. This term indicates that art is related to human history, cultures and psychology in a very broad way. That is to say art is a universal need for all human beings just “as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature”(Dissanayake 15). Art is related to all human history, reflected from human societies, and need people to have emotional effects to response to it. By beginning with this term in her article, the author can continue describe how Western art was formed and how both modernism and postmodernism related to one concept-human behavior.

2.“Making special” describes one human behavior to make things that “one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” (Dissanayake 22). This phrase is related to the author’s view of art as” species-centered”, according to modemism, art is a priority value of human with heightened personal experience. According to postmodemism, art belongs to everyone. Both claims refer art as a natural human behavior and we need to make this behavior “special. This term also relates to human survival that we make things different from ordinary and used in a good way. For instance, human can use language, make tools and join with each other for mutual endeavor for the purpose of human survival. Different from animals, human also can make this special into intelligence, mental complexity, and make a significance in human history than “simply alertness to possible danger”(Dissanayake 22).

3.

One theory of art is from Greek and medieval period. This theory of art indicates that ordinary people’s views of art are different from the art of artists. In addition, art is used to as service of religion. The author indicates that during that period of time, art means “ having a correct understanding of the principles involved” (Dissanayake 17), rather than the ways we think of what “art” is.

One theory of art is modernism, which refers to art as ideology. This theory was brought up around 18-19 century. The theory refers art as “aesthetics”, which indicates principles such as “ taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply painting or status, but examples of fine art”(Dissanayake 17). Art in the modernism is related to important personal experience of human beings and a supreme value of human nature. Art should be viewed as a universal need of human and “disinterest”, since people all have the chance to view art in a unbiased way.

One theory of art is postmodernism and refers art as interpretation. This theory was prominent around 20th century. This theory challenges the entire “modemist ideology” that art can be the intrinsic of everybody and can be seen anywhere in our daily life. It challenges the aura of religiosity of museum. The theory also indicates that artiest are normal people and without any priority or privilege when viewing objects. Artiest like everybody “interprets art according to their individual and cultural sensibilities”(Dissanayake 20).

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 18^th 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 18^th 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 20^th 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.