Reading Response On “The Trouble With Art” By Carolyn Dean
The article “The Trouble with (The Term) Art” which was written by Carolyn Dean in the summer of 2006 works to redefine one’s definition of the word art. After reading this article, I feel as if I have learned a broader definition for what is considered “art”. I feel as if the article was truly thought provoking and provided an interesting main argument.
Carolyn Dean’s main argument worked to express that in today’s world we must pay attention to primitive art by not focusing on the definition of the adjective “primitive, ” but instead focusing on the noun “art. ” The main idea that guided this article led me to ask myself many questions such as how society was able to create the term “art” and what qualifications were necessary to allow an object to be considered “art. ” Her main argument which was presented in the thesis, is backed up throughout the article as she explains the history of two different types of societies. The two societies are different because one society identified visual representations as “art” while the other society did not identify the same objects as “art. ”
Throughout the article, Carolyn Dean led me to think about art history from a colonialists’ point of view. By looking at art history from this perspective one would need to focus on their judgement and logic. The end of the article speaks about how current society focuses on art history. As a society we tend to look over the function and purpose of the object that is considered “art” and only evaluate its value and physical characteristics. Through her use of sources from other articles and art history videos, Carolyn Dean successfully supports the claim that the noun “art” should be the focus rather than its adjective “primitive. ” Carolyn Dean begins the article by placing an emphasis on how art historians who work in the fields of Africa, Oceania, and Americas (the area known as AOA) have similar point of views on the term “art. ” The AOA art historians are able to avoid the issue in regard to the term “art” by neglecting to define it for its definition. Instead, they focus on the function and purpose of the art which has been collected and displayed from the West. Although I never realized until this article, I now realize that we often separate the function of the art and its visual representation into two different categories. I am aware that this is something that happens often, but I feel as if with more attention we can work to avoid doing this. This concern of mine was furthered when the work of Shelly Errington, a well-known anthropologist was cited. The purpose of Shelly Errington’s study was to portray how society views cultural and historical artifacts. In the study she observed how African masks’ that were put on display for the world to view had their original materials removed and replaced. As a result, these African masks which were once a cultural symbol, were simply put on podium and renamed as a “sculpture” of art.
Throughout my life, as I have studied art, I have failed to realize that textbooks do not describe the function of these masks, and instead only explain their detail and beauty. Current day society does not realize that these African masks were not intended to be art. Another example that relates to the concern that Shelly Errington brought up is how Carolyn Dean shows her class a video of an archeologist calling a piece of flint “art. ” In this example, the archeologist does not mention the function of the flint or how the Mayan used it. Instead, he only mentions the value in the art. Personally, I do believe that historical artifacts should be considered “art. ” However, I feel as if the definition should be broadened to include the object’s function as an artifact. The portion of this article that I found most interesting was when Carolyn Dean refers to the Lega people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She explains how the Lega did not use the term “art” for visually attractive objects, but rather termed them as “masengo, ” translating to “heavy things. ” If this term was carried on throughout history, the term “art” could have potentially never developed. Today, we would possibly be calling the Mona Lisa a masterpiece of “heavy things. ” I found this idea to be the most stimulating. This situation could have occurred with any term, not only “art. ” I believe that it is more useful to describe the object for what it is, rather than labeling it with a term that could have potentially meant anything. The term “art” is indeed a label that society has given these notable objects.
Carolyn Dean’s argument throughout her article is relevant because it applies to a common problem amongst many countries around the world. Today, there is no globally accepted definition of art. I agree with Carolyn Dean and her metaphor about the term “art. ” Art is the elephant in the room that no one wants to debate. Although I share similar concerns with Carolyn Dean, I do believe that she has biases that would unfairly prejudice her research. Due to the fact that she is an art historian and a pre-Hispanic Maya visual-culture professor, she teaches classes the history of art on a daily basis and has much knowledge regarding the subject. This entire article relates to our course of Art Appreciation. Our course discusses art, its history, and the ways that society should appreciate it. Overall, the term “art” has been defined differently throughout the various cultures that have inhabited our Earth.
