In this reading, Dissanayake outlines the progression of art from the beginning of human expression into postmodernism. In primitive societies, art acted as “a galvanizer of group oneheartedness, art-conjoined-with-ritual is essential to group survival – quite literally art for life’s sake” (Dissanayake, 1991, p. 7). Examples often involve hunting, reproduction, and survival in general. Early expressions of art demonstrated a human desire to make otherwise mundane activities or objects “special”. This made basic tasks more pleasurable to perform, promoted emotional bonding, standardized the task, and helped give early humans a sense of control over the outcome of the activity.
As art has changed over time, it has served many purposes. At a time, art was made to replicate nature and the things around us. As any objective observer could see what was being expressed, more abstract forms of art served a way for those at a higher place in society to demonstrate their knowledge of what constitutes as art. Postmodernism has attempted to break down barriers between the “statuses” of art, instead looking objectively at a piece attempting to determine the historical, cultural, economic, and philosophical context of a piece of art. Dissanayake (1991) urges us to adopt a “species-centered” view of art, which “allows us to better appreciate the continuity of ourselves and our artmaking with nature” (p. 11). Since the beginning of our species, art has been a necessary expression of our higher understanding of our place in the world. Instead of dismissing a piece of art for failing to appeal to our own definition of “artistic”, a defining characteristic of the human race is that we are able to look objectively at the work of another individual, culture, or group to determine the context of their form of expression. This has lifted the elitist idea of art found in the modernist movement, and has made it an accessible form of expression for all.
Citation:
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
First I want to start off by saying that I agree with almost everything you have to say about Ellen Dissanayake’s article. One of the things that I really liked that you included was the issue of making more of a species centered view art. She really stresses that this is where art is facing and it is also where is should be headed. This was something that I found very interesting because it was something that I think most people, including myself, do not notice when they think of art as a whole. The one thing I question in your view of Ellen’s article is that she argues that in her palaeoanthropsychobiological view that “art must be viewed as an inherent universal trait of the human species.” If it is truly an inherent universal trait can postmodernism really make it a more accessible form of expression? I think it can change the viewpoint but based on her idea of art’s necessity in our lives it can never really be inaccessible.
Stephanie, I tend to agree that art serves many valuable roles in the lives of humans, and it has clearly evolved over time just as we have. I noticed that you believe that humans are able to “look objectively at the work of another… to determine the context of their form of expression”. My question to you is, how can we as humans, objectively look at the work of another? Don’t we all have preexisting biases and personal experiences that influence the way we may observe or criticize art, as well as the way we see the expression of others?
I believe that Dissanayake’s use of the adjective “palaeoanthropsychobiological” was very clever and indicates that she was considering key variables that influence art when studying and learning to compare various forms of art. The author teaches us that one cannot separate the subjects of art from human history, societies, emotions, psychology, etc. They are all intertwined and each thing influences the other. Therefore it is true that art is a normal and important part of our lives. So what do you believe to be true? Are you in agreement with the author when she claims that art is a normalized mechanism used to “manifest, reinforce, and grasp” the importance of human values?
To answer your first question, I feel that objectivity is a skill that many (if not most) humans fail to master. Even when the best possible controls are implemented in scientific studies, it is impossible to entirely eliminate the biases of subjects and researchers; it’s human nature. However, an individual viewing a work of art can do their best to be objective in forming their opinion on it. This requires the individual to take into account several factors, the names of which Dissanayake combined to coin the word “palaeoanthropsychobiological”. Maximal objectivity requires the viewer to evaluate the piece’s context in a paleontological, anthropological, psychological, and biological point of view. Since commercialized art is a very recent development in the grand scheme of human history, only educated individuals such as ourselves understand that artistic expression has been of paramount importance since the beginning of history. Those without our knowledge might not even consider activities such as hunting rituals, the remembrance of the dead, or folklore to fit the definition of “art”. So, yes, I do agree that art is intertwined with all aspects of humanity and our history, and also that it is a normalized mechanism to manifest, reinforce, and grasp the importance of human values. However, the layperson fails to see this and cannot view art in an objective, all-encompassing manner as we do.