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.
What is Art?
4