Topic: What is Art?
Unit Objectives:
- Consider the origins of art
- Explore a brief history of Western Art
- Examine multiple perspectives for evaluating art
Artifact: Art: It’s for Everyone
Ellen Dissanayake coined the term palaeoanthropsychobiological. It describes a unique perspective that challenges the Western idea of art, which fails to see the artistic nature of many human actions. This perspective sees that the idea of art encompasses all of human history, includes all human societies, and that art is a psychological or emotional necessity than has psychological or emotional effects. Dissanayake believes that to truly understand the idea of art and to include all of these intertwined processes, it must be viewed as an inherent or biological trait of the human species.
Although all animals can see the difference between ordinary and extraordinary occurrences, humans are unique in that we consciously seek to transform the ordinary into extraordinary. A normal human characteristic is “the behavior or propensity to ‘make special,’ particularly things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance”. Dissanayake asserts that the emergence of this behavior marks the beginning of art, much earlier than is commonly believed. To make something special demonstrates control over that object or action, which was necessary to the performance of ritual ceremonies (commonly believed to be the beginning of art). Dissanayake states that works of art are the result of “making special”, which causes experience to be heightened or elevated, and to be more memorable and significant. Through use of what we consider to be the arts, the importance of certain objects/actions are manifested, reinforced, and shared.
“The Romantic Rebellion” was a response to the substantial changes in society brought by the Renaissance, marked by the increasing importance of individuals instead of the divine. Science and technology changed society dramatically, breaking feudal ties and encouraging dissent. Individuals became unsure of their place in the world and became alienated from their work and from other people. “It became necessary to please the public – multiform, faceless, swayed as today by hype and novelty – in what was to become an art market” (Dissanayake, 1991, p3). The market structure that required intermediaries like private dealers and galleries gave birth to what we now call Modernism. Concerned with aesthetics, viewers would judge works of art based on their own tastes and idea of beauty. They believed that art could be appreciated whether the meaning was understood or not, providing a special sort of knowledge. Since everyone did not possess this knowledge, Modernists who claimed to understand art essentially interpreted it to the general public. According to Dissanayake, “implicit in this account is a recognition that what is said (or written) about a work is not only necessary to its being art, but is indeed perhaps more important than the work itself” (Dissanayake, 1991, p5). Postmodernists found that “Modernist aesthetics masked chauvinistic, authoritarian, and repressive attitudes towards uneducated, non-Establishment and non-Western people, and towards women” (Dissanayake, 1991, p6). Postmodernists believed that art should belong to everyone, and demonstrated this idea in with pieces that the author described as “puzzling, if not shocking and offensive” (Dissanayake, 1991, p5). They promoted the idea that anyone was capable of producing art, and any piece could be appreciated if interpreted correctly. It’s easy to see why it could be argued that this was not an improvement over Modernism. Though many works of questionable quality were a result of postmodernism, this era was an important step in the democratization of artistic expression.
Reflection:
This artifact serves as an excellent example of the way that my perspective of art changed by reading the article by Dissanayake. Although the term “paleoanthropsychobiological” is purposely long and confusing at first glance, upon further inspection it does a good job of describing the species-centered view of art advocated for by Dissanayake. Central to her argument is the human desire to make things special. Although I have noticed this tendency in myself and others, the reading made me realize that this is the basis of artistic expression. This connection made by Dissanayake dramatically expanded my personal definition of art, and helped me to better understand the similarities between ancient art such as cave paintings and more contemporary examples like the Sistine Chapel.
While I used to assume that the evolution of artistic expression could be clearly defined by time period and specific artists, this unit taught me that it is not so easy. I believe that the transitions between the movements mentioned by Dissanayake were purposely unclear, in order to show that there is no clearly defined moment of transition between prominent theories and styles. This further demonstrates the importance of evaluating art in a paleoanthropsychobiological context, and to minimize personal biases regarding our own personal definition of art.
Learning Goals for the Future:
Now that I have prescribed to a species-centered view of art as described by Dissanayake, I am eager to see how it can be of benefit when evaluating future developments in the world of art. Especially interesting to me is the evolution and growth of the digital arts, which require technical skills quite different than mediums of the past. Despite the difference in skills required to produce art in this medium, digital art is quite similar in purpose and product. It requires a desire to ‘make special’ out of what is otherwise ordinary, and must be evaluated with regard to its place in human history and the human needs that it satisfies.
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.