Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Ellen Dissanayake had some interesting thoughts to share in What is Art? She listed in one portion of her lecture, some historical events and ideas that she thinks have changed and influenced the way that people create art, look at art, and define art. The following quote was written in reference to changes that happened in the 18th century when new “social and intellectual trends” came about and interacted together to create an intense “moderninity” of art.

“Among these trends I will mention—and I hope you will forgive the rather breathtaking oversimplification—five important and unprecedented changes. 1. A gradual secularization of society, whose aim became life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for individuals rather than acquiescence to a humanly unknowable divine plan. 2. The rise of science which not only fostered questioning and dissent but made possible the development of technology and industrialization. 3. The social or interpersonal changes that resulted as the emotional and effective ties of fuedal and kin loyalty were replaced by instrumental relationships based on the exchange of money…”

As I read this, the importance of the statement dawned on me. I have never really thought about the gravity of what it is we say that we are living for, here in America—“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?! While each of those items is deeply important to me as an individual, seeing the phrase typed in the context of the lecture, I rethought about those values. After reading about the history of art being more connected in the past with spirituality and the church, until the rise of a more scientific and individualistic age, suddenly my own personal life, my liberty and the pursuit of my own happiness appeared to be rather shallow and selfish purposes. In this context, I see that we have come far in progress, but for the sake of progress, we as a culture have forsaken community and connection. Instead of living with and for each other as a larger unit, we are pursing life for individuals, in a way that makes each of us happy regardless of or even despite the effects on our neighbor, brother or entire village. Naturally, this would make for a less thematic or universally understandable expression of art, and result in a disjointed, subjective and highly varied new artistic jumble. I do not mean to criticize uniqueness in art, doing something different and never before seen, and expressing the absolutely least understood parts of oneself in a way that cannot be easily grasped by an audience. I have respect and appreciation for all of these things when I make and view art. Still, knowing that the gamut of art out in the world is a direct product of this disconnected, lack of a community that the largely unchurched population live in, I see much of the creativity that flows forth from the people of our times as lonely, selfish, and lacking in the substance that used to bind us as a people.

The author went on to say something that reinforces these nostalgic and disappointed sentiments that have come up for me around the realities of recent artistic expression. What we saw even many years ago showed the experience of solitude that artists and people in general began to live with in the past as all of us live with increasingly today.

“What we now call ‘the Romantic Rebellion’ was a reaction to the goods and evils inherent in these great changes. For example, while individualism became possible and people could be freed from tradition, custom and authority, they also became more alienated from their work and from other people. New possibilities for thought and experience were accompanied by an unprecedented loss of certainty and security about one’s place in the world.”

I wonder how we can keep our unique viewpoints, our newfound independence and individuality and our freedom of expression, while reconnecting with other humans, re-forming traditions with sacred shared beliefs and elevating art with an infusion of enlightened purpose- individuality, unification and community?

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.