In the article “What is Art for”, Dissanayake coined the term “paleoanthropsychobiological”. “Paleoanthropsychobiological” is an adjective that is quite literally stunning. It is associated with human history, human societies and it accounts that “art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional” (15).

According to Dissanayake, “make special” means “one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” (22). She also points out that “special” is extra-ordinary, and “special” could take on importance that was more than simply alertness to possible danger. It relates to the beginning of a behavior of art. She gives an example of using red color to make special in 250,000 years ago. Also, in hunting society, “behavior made special is as much a part of preparation for the hunt as readying spears or arrows” (23). Art, as a behavior of making special, refers to objects such as paintings, pictures, dances, musical compositions. They are the result of artistic behavior.

Dissanayak identifies several different theories of art throughout western European history. The first theory is “Modernism”. It was developed in 18^th century. Modernism refers to “a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art”, which is a “disinterested” attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the object. The second theory is “Postmodernism”.  It is “a point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumptions about the elite and special nature of art” (19). People can interpret one’s gender, nation, religion, class and profession through art objects. The last one is “Art for life’s sake”, which is her paleoanthropsychobiological view. She thinks art is a universal need and propensity of the human species.

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.