The subject matter of this article is about Carolyn Dean’s speech delivered at the 2005 Annual Conference of the College Art Association. In which she discusses the ambiguity of the term ‘art’ and how it is recognized or not recognized in different societies. So many cultures have their own definition and term that it creates subcategories to art. For example different substitute terms describe the alternative terms which fall under the ‘art’ umbrella which can be described as non-European art, European art, urban art, exotic art, ethnic art and many more titles have been created to describe the aesthetics of different pieces of art. She provokes different ideas as she gets further in the topic about how society has affected the term ‘art’…show more content… By analyzing the origin of the art piece the research conducting the analyzation can distinguish whether it's art by appropriation or intention. A lot of sculptures, objects, masks, and materials are excavated from their original location then put in displays and called art. At the same time a lot of sculptures, painting, and other art works were created with the purpose of being art. In the speech Dean talks about these figurines that the Inca’s used to make and also these carved rocks that are associated with the culture. She explains how these two different objects served different purposes and the way she did that was by questioning the origin of the objects. The appropriation that was placed upon these objects but also the true intention and purposes of the figurine or carved rock. Both answers are right anyways because in reality the primary source of these objects isn’t currently alive. As far as I’m concerned the Inca’s never said whether or not this is what those objects were meant to be but it was an interesting notion because the term art has not been described with a definition yet. Instead it makes the word more universal and adds to the inconsistent meaning that’s attached to the term ‘art.’ The art disciplines that were created by the European culture have created a modern sense of what to consider as ‘art.’ Based upon the independent aesthetic values used to…show more content… Carolyn talked about how people are able to reveal these values they see and feel for certain things and describe it as ‘art’ . This is the same for all societies and cultures because it produces this sense of independence and power. This passed down colonized form of thinking has led to empowering people and since it has become something normal for everybody to be able to describe artwork in such a manner. They may not understand the actual values used to composed the artwork but because people are able to visually see artwork and are able to express these feelings about the artwork which they value. Well now everybody has found it normal to add aesthetics to an object, or a visual appeal. Dean quoted Preziosi who stated "Aesthetic standards are conventional and arbitrary and not neutral, absolute, or independent..” What Preziosi is describing is that aesthetics are made up by a standard that serves to describe art. This free-will creates this power that allows the object to be called art. This power can be misconstrued when old artifacts are altered because there’s no origin behind the artifact but it’s being called art and that may not be the purpose it
