Is art really universal to all human beings? In “Art For Life’s Sake”, Ellen Dissanayake defines art as a type of human instinct, or a universal trait for every individual in the world. She explains this in perspectives, and two of them give me the most impressions. One is that art is appreciated “whether or not they understand the meaning the works had for the people who make them” (p.2).
The other one is that art has been present in prehistoric era when humans started to do things to make special (dancing, decorating etc.), which proves that art is universal. Although Dissanayake’s reasoning is quite convincing, I still have my doubts of art being universal. In the article, Dissanayake criticized the modern wave of “fine” art which is exclusive to people with high education or knowledge to appreciate or acknowledge its true meaning. She thinks art is supposed to be appreciated by all human beings without education or knowledge barriers. However, in my opinion, some art might not be universal.
For example, an artist draws a painting with a complicated meaning behind it which requires great knowledge of history or religion background to understand and appreciate. In this case, a person without those knowledge could still appreciate the art, but they only acquire the values imagined by themselves which is very subjective or personal, and certainly less valuable than the true meaning that the author intends to have. In this case, to say appreciating the art is universal is somehow no correct because without certain knowledge or background, one cannot acquire the maximum value of the art’s true meaning. Therefore, I think whether art is universal or not is a subjective opinion rather than a objective view because acquiring a meaning or simply appreciating an art would not be the same for people from different backgrounds.
Hi, I agree that art is not necessarily universal. I am a huge lover of art—but not all art. Some art I just don’t “get”. Perhaps it’s because I’m older, but in particular, I find contemporary art to be a bit of a head scratcher. It may be a generational thing as well as a cultural thing. As you said, needing some knowledge or background may be necessary in gaining meaning from a piece of art that was created by someone with completely different experiences and understandings. I sometimes, however, may not grasp the meaning of an artwork, but can appreciate the skill, talent, imagination that went into it. I found it particularly interesting when Dissanayake wrote about the idea of disinterest or “detached aesthetic experience” implying “that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or cultures far removed from their own, whether or not they understood the meaning the works had for the people who made and used them” (p. 19). This disinterest being a universal vehicle for appreciating art smacks of the elite swooning over a piece of art that they’re supposed to understand, yet don’t, so they pretend to (that’s just my vision when I read that).
Really interesting response. Best to you!
Oh… and your text didn’t format to the page…it just went off the right side. I was able to select it, copy and paste it to a Word document to read it, though.
Hi, I just read your post and I have some different thoughts with you. You think some art might not be universal because some art works need certain background knowledge to understand. I agree with you that some art works indeed need some specialized knowledge to understand author’s meaning. However, appreciating an art work is a subjective activity so there is no true or false in appreciating art. You argue that “they only acquire the values imagined by themselves which is very subjective or personal, and certainly less valuable than the true meaning that the author intends to have”. Indeed, the understanding of some people who do not know the background of art work is different with the people who with the background knowledge but you cannot say whose understanding is better. Just because the understanding to art is very subjective. So I think the art is universal to everyone.
Hi Chan, thank you for replying me and I appreciate your comment. After reading your response I think your viewpoint that “However, appreciating an art work is a subjective activity so there is no true or false in appreciating art.” also makes sense to me. As Dissanayake indicates “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” (p.1) 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 Western culture, but in every culture across the globe. 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. Thanks again for the response, hope can hear from you again!
You make a good conclusion of Dissanayake’s article. You focus the definition of art, the appreciation of art, “making special” and whether art is universal or not. I kind of agree with your point that “appreciating the art is universal is somehow no correct because without certain knowledge or background, one cannot acquire the maximum value of the art’s true meaning”. Sometimes we need some backgrounds to help us understand the artists and artworks better. However, I still believe how people viewing and appreciating art is not decided by the education or knowledge, but more by experience and emotion. Sometimes artists create the art works due to his or her experience or emotion. Moreover, education may mislead people to some kind of universal agreement. We are taught by our textbooks some piece of artwork is created under certain situation, which may cause the fixed opinion towards the artwork. Then we cannot view the artworks free and express our own understandings.