Mariah MacGregor
Why Do People Make Art?
June 28, 2010
A white box, a gallery, filled with people holding small clear plastic cups of wine; a puny homage to a Dionysian ideal, so far from this quiet, semi sterile room. These people talk in quiet voices about art, criticize or praise, discuss its place in the linear arc of ‘art history’. But none of these people would be in this room if humans did not have the urge to make art in the first place. How can we spend so much time looking at art, criticizing it and teaching it, if we don’t even know why it is that we make it?
In “What is Art For?” and “Homo Aestheticus,” Ellen Dissanayake argues that art making is an ethnological behavior that has persisted because, like being fast or clever, it has helped humans survive. Dissanayake’s claim can be supported by some of the writings of Freud and John Dewey, as well as research done on the development of art making in children.
The foundation of Dissenayake’s argument that making art is a biological urge, she defines “behavior.” For an ethologist (one who studies animal behavior in its natural environment,) a behavior is something that feels good, time and effort are spent on it, and it is universal. It was found “upon study that the artistic impulse is universal, as strong among children of Korea or Spain or Siam as it is among children of the Americas.” (Kellogg, O’Dell 11)
Though it is not as easy to see how people need art, as opposed to food and water, it is a behavior that has persisted since prehistoric times, which suggests that it is important for survival on some level. Dissanayake’s other important clarifying definition is what she means by “art.” In her books art includes all of the “arts”: literature, dance, music, visual art and sculpture. Dissanayake’ss theory is about art as a behavior, so the focus is on the process of art making, not necessarily in the product. John Dewey touches on this idea when he writes: “ the intelligent mechanic engaged in his job, interested in doing well and fining satisfaction in his work, caring for his materials and tools with genuine affection, is artistically engaged.” (Dewey 297) The process of art making is what “feels good” and requires the time and effort that makes it a universal behavior.
So if art is a behavior, than what does art do? Dissanayake compares art making to play, because it is a behavior that seems frivolous at first, not necessary to survival, but persists. Play, like art making, is unpredictable and a way to experiment. Young animals use play to practice hunting and socializing, humans add to that experimenting with fantasies and identity. Freud thought that both play and art were therapy, a way to live out hidden wishes. “Perhaps we may say that a child at play behaves like an imaginative writer, in that he creates a world of his own… so when a human grows up and ceases to play… he then begins to create phantasy.” (Freud 46) Carl Jung on the other hand, believed that “art expresses emotion arising from the archetypes of the collective unconscious…and personal emotions.” (Kellog 230)
Dissanayake defines what art does as “making special.” Art, like play is an unnecessary activity that enhances life. By performing a play, singing, or engaging in a ritual, the mundane becomes special. Freud says about adult fantasies: “when we hear such phantasies they repel us, or at least leave us cold. But when a man of literary talent presents his plays… we experience great pleasure arising probably from many sources.” (Freud 53-4) Because the “man of literary talent” engages in artistic behavior; what is ordinary or even repellent becomes something more, something special when artistic behavior is acted out.
Dissanayake mentions that there are certain shapes and patterns “visual prototypes” (Dissanayake 55) that are satisfying to us, such as mandalas and crosses. In “The Psychology of Children’s Art” Rhoda Kellogg describes mandalas as the foundation for the rest of drawing. A child begins with mandalas and then “proceeds to draw suns, radials, and, eventually, human figures.” (Kellogg, O’Dell 55) Mandalas appear in many cultures, across centuries. It is one of many visual prototypes that have persisted and have evolved into the Elements and Principles taught in millions of art rooms.
Dewey and Dissanayke say that even though everything might have the potential to be art, not everything is art. There are things we want to make special, and things we do not. The primary things we have made “special” are things that are important to us: “objects and activities that were parts of ceremonies having to do with important transitions, such as birth, puberty, marriage and death…” (Dissanayake 61) Dewey described this transformation of every day occurrences this way: “motor responses are changed into instruments of expression and communication; no longer are they mere means of locomotion and direct reaction.” (Dewey 303) Some examples of important objects made special are the decorated baby carriers of Kenya and Borneo. Also decorative armor and weapons, and even clothing with non utilitarian elements such as pattern and decoration.
If art is a behavior/action then only things that have been acted on by that impulse can be art. For instance, Duchamp’s fountain was not art when it was manufacture, but it did become art when Duchamp exhibited artistic behavior by having an intention and then signing the urinal and placing it out of context. Dissanayake defines the requirements for art as: “aesthetic intention or regard, and secondly, of fashioning in some way- actively making special…” (Dissanayake 59) Duchamp did not fashion the urinal but he modified it by signing it and putting it in a “special” place (the gallery) and he did it with the intention to call it art.
The controversy that Duchamp’s piece created is a symptom of the separation of art from life. Dissanayake says “art actually originated and thrived for most of human history as a communal activity… much art today is rather like the display of a captive, lone peacock vainly performed for human spectators, or the following by baby geese of a bicycle wheel instead of their mother” (Dissanyake 61) Art as understood in the western world is far from Dewey’s assertion that “art is thus prefigured into the very process of living…” (Dewey 303) Art in contemporary western society is something only some people do, and it is only present in specific places (though one could argue that the gallery and museum are places “made special,”) it is not often considered as a natural part of every day activity. Does this push art making behavior into Jung’s Shadow realm, where our darkest and basest impulses live? Is this the reason that body modification and music videos are a large part of youth culture, a socially acceptable way to satisfy the urge towards art, and to participate in an artistic community?
After reading Dissanayake, Freud, Kellog and others I would have to agree that the behavior of art making is a biological urge, if we understand ‘art’ as including body modification, music, dance, visual art and sculpture. Though I would disagree that all art is like the “display of a captive, lone peacock,” I would argue that applies only to the art that is displayed in galleries and museums. Because art is a biological need it will always be present, in community choruses, poetry groups, friends who get together on the weekends and paint outside. Or even, as Dewey suggested, in people who enjoy their work, “ the intelligent mechanic engaged in his job.”
This argument for the biological need to make art is a compelling reason to keep art in schools. As an art teacher, understanding the impulse to create, and how it has evolved within humans makes the classroom experience more meaningful. If an artist is someone who makes art, then not only is there the possibility for everyone to be an artist, everyone is an artist, just as everyone is an eater, and a sleeper. Artistic behavior will not manifest itself the same way in every person, which is why art education should be taught in an open ended, choice based way, and not restrict students to certain methods or materials.
The question that remains is why is art necessary? Like play, it doesn’t obviously help us survive, but as we evolved that inclination has persisted. My own theory is that, like play, the artistic process prepares you for critical moments in life. Thinking creatively makes you more likely to survive, because you can problem solve and innovate. Just like baby animals often play to practice hunting and mating, art lets us practice thinking and acting communally and pro actively. If there was ever an argument to fund art programs it is that art is a survival skill.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
John Dewey. “Art as Experience,” in Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology. Ed. By Steven M. Cahn and Aaron Meskin. Blackwell, 2008
Dissanayake, Ellen. What is Art For? University of Washington Press, 1988
Dissanayake, Ellen. Homo Aestheticus. University of Washington Press, 1992
Freud, Sigmund. On Creativity and the Unconscious. Harper and Row Publishers, 1958
Kellog, Rhoda. Analyzing Children’s Art. National Press Books, 1970
Kellog, Rhoda & O’Dell, Scott. The Psychology of Children’s Art. CRM Inc, 1967
