This reading really challenges the way in which we actually “look” at art. The author, Dissanayake, believes that art is a form of human nature just like eating or sleeping. Art has been used as a means of communication well back into our history. It has not always been seen as an aesthetically pleasing medium but it has been used as language, to enhance religion, as well as many other ways. One question I pondered while reading this excerpt, was “does it take a trained eye to appreciate the arts?” I am currently taking a “History of Hip-Hop” class which recently examined graffiti. I struggled to see the aesthetic appeal. My teacher proceeded to show the artists, tell their story, and had them explain their mission in their “art.” It was not until I understood the message behind the tagging that I began to value it. I feel like the same is with any other form of art. Sometimes I look at pieces of art and think, “I could have done that.” The truth is that it does sometimes take a trained person to truly appreciate the worth of art. I can imagine that now when I see graffiti, I will have a different reaction than seeing vandalism. Dissanayake states that “Artists…do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather…interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities.” I take this to mean that art is not universal, as Dissanayake states throughout the reading. It is up to the individual to decide what is beautiful, what is appealing, and what has meaning. One does not necessarily need to be trained, but it is helpful when a piece of art agrees with one’s culture, religion, or style. This explains why I may have had trouble appreciating graffiti, while people who live in the Bronx see it as aesthetically appeasing. It takes a special viewer to open their mind to the possibility and attraction of a piece that does not align with their previous beliefs.
AAD250 tpeskin
Just another University of Oregon Sites site
I really agree with your idea of who is able to appreciate some art. I too have a difficult time resonating with some art and I’m sure it is because I am not trained in art at all. This summer I travelled through Europe and found that graffiti is everywhere and to me, since it’s somewhat taboo in America, I had a hard time seeing why no one seemed to mind it. It wasn’t until it was explained to me that most of the graffiti had political or social messages that I was able to actually “see” the art and understand some of it. In the article this week, I felt it was accurate when Dissanyake said that a critic was needed to “explain whether and artwork was good or bad” and I think this is a sad truth. It would be impossible to learn about every artist and their story to be able to appreciate their work, so do you think that the type of art is the problem because their “story” isn’t obvious enough, or do you think that art education should be more mandatory and readily available in order to appreciate more art?
I agree with your idea that “ believes that art is a form of human nature just like eating or sleeping.” It could be regard as a language. People can use artworks to communicate with others, since artworks can express the thoughts and ideas of the creators when they create the artworks. I believe art exists in our everyday life, and we all can be an artist to create artworks in our life, no matter how great they are. Singing a song, dancing, dressing up and playing games are all the behavior we have constantly. “Artists, just like everybody else…” (Dissanayake, 5). People may interpret their views of art differently because of their culture, and they may affected by the history and society. “…art is a normal and necessary behavior of human beings that like talking, experience, playing, working, socializing, learning, loving and nurturing should be encouraged and developed in everyone” (Dissanayake, 10). Whatever the objective factors, art is our necessary behavior and can be created by everyone.
I realized the definition of art is subjective, open, and debatable. And there would never be agreement of all. Dissanayake said “art became an elite activity”(4). It is hard to understand a lot of art works, especially abstract art. But I believe there is no wrong answer to the question what the art piece means. I believe it depends on the viewer’s interpretation with open and inquiring mind.
I agree with you when you say you said that at first you didn’t understand meaning behind graffiti. I also took a class where my professor talked about graffiti and described where the history of it came from. It took me a while to understand the meaning behind the tagging’s, but after my teacher showed us a different perspective, my opinion changed. Recently, in New York Banksy was selling some of his expensive his pieces of art for very cheap. I think that is cool that he was able to offer some of his more expensive art pieces to people on the street at a cheaper price. Personally I don’t think I would have purchased any, but he had many people buying his work. I don’t think graffiti wouldn’t be the first to thing that came to mind for many people when thinking of art. However, that is the beauty of art. Not all people are going to look at an “art” piece and have the same opinion. I also agree with what Jun mentioned above, “…art is a normal and necessary behavior of human beings that like talking, experience, playing, working, socializing, learning, loving and nurturing should be encouraged and developed in everyone (Dissanayake, 10).” This is a great way to think about art. Human beings are very curious people and need to have diversity in their lives. Art is a great way for people to step outside of their comfort zone and look at art/life in a different way.