In Ellen Dissanayak’s article “What is art for”, she gives her definition of art, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature” (15). As she says, art is associated with any of the characteristics of human nature. It relates to our history, culture and society. Also, she briefly introduces the timeline of Western art. In the section of “Postmodernism: Art as Interpretation”, Dissanayak points out that postmodernists think “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singular privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather – like everybody – interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities” (19). It seems that they think art has its own characteristics for different individuals.
“Art is not universal, but conceptually constructed by individuals whose perceptions are necessarily limited and parochial” (19). I agree that individuals’ perceptions are “limited” and “parochial”, but I don’t think art is not universal. As the author mentions in her definition of art, she claims “art must be viewed as an inherent universal trait of human species”. Art cannot be simply considered as an individual thing because it is associated with many aspects around world. For example, people explore history by analyzing paintings in different ages. Otherwise, art can represent culture and religion of a group of people or a region. Therefore, we cannot say it is individual. Instead, I think art is a universal property that can be appreciated by individuals in their own ways. In the article, the author also indicates, “’high’ art is then to the postmodernists view a canon of works that represent the worldview of elite” (19). That is to say, art can be divided into different levels. “High art” represents the ideas and perspectives of elite. Compared with “high art”, there should be “low art” that relates to ordinary people or grassroots. No matter what kind of art is, it is a universal thing that can be interpreted in many different ways.
Hi Siyang,
I am not sure if I am wrongly interpreting the quote “Art is universal” . I do agree with you that different people interpret art differently. You say that is what makes art universal, but wouldn’t that make art not universal since people interpret it differently? How I interpret the quote is, if art were universal, then everyone would interpret “art” the same as one another because it is a universal meaning that everyone understands. Thus by art being not universal, it is “interpreted in many different ways”.
Either way, the main point is that I believe art to be subjective because its interpretations are mostly based on the perspective of the viewer. I can’t tell if that you feel exactly the same because you say “Art cannot be simply considered as an individual thing because it is associated with many aspects around world”, but then at the end of your post you say “no matter what art is…it can be interpreted in many different ways” by different people.
Thank you for sharing your idea with us, Siyang. I saw you mentioned that you dont’t consider art is not universal because art can be appreciated by individuals in their own ways. Personality, I total agree with your idea. Art is not belong to some people, every body should have right to enjoy art. There’s no standard for art, every one can have their own opinion about art. In the final part of your article, you mentioned that two form of idea of art,“low art” and “high art”. Although I do not for sure, but I think art should not to classified. For my understanding, every people have their right to create their artwork. People cannot justify their artwork use their background or education. Artists express their emotion directly on their artworks. People might say they admire one artwork or not rather than say which artwork belong to high art which belong low art.