Aesthestics

 1. For each video and article list/discuss the key concepts you learned.

In the “Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts” video, I learned how to define the concept of aesthetics and how various philosophers have approached the issue of art and how it has affected human development through the course of history. In “Carta” I learned of the various scientific reasoning behind the idea that art and science are inextricably linked. The CNN article dealt extensively with the science of neuroesthestics which is a fairly new discipline which seeks to explore how “people appreciate art and music” and the qualities which define beauty. Both the videos and the CNN article all seem to agree on several things: aesthetics is a very subjective concept but certain factors are universal to the appreciation of beauty, chief among them being symmetry.

2. Which philosopher's theory on aesthetics do you feel is most important? Be sure to mention the philosophers name, era (time in history), and contribution to the aesthetic theory in your response.

Aristotle, writing during the classical antiquity period, said that “arousing feelings like pity and fear” among the masses using art was not necessarily a bad thing. In this way, he managed to define the concept of aesthetic as that which brings out in us what I would call a visceral, raw reaction. His definition of beauty as that which is characterized by “order, symmetry and definiteness” has stood the test of time making his work Poetics one of the most influential works of literature from his or any period. To understand aesthetics one has to understand, as Aristotle says, the Three Unities: action, time and place. Without these three requirements, art as we know it ceases to exist.

3. What do you think about Changeuex and Ramachandran's scientific view of aesthetics and art? I think both of the speakers are right in saying that the human brain is hardwired to appreciate or notice art. Both of them present evidence to show that the brain is actively stimulated when it is exposed to art. By drawing a connection between art and science, the speakers show that our previous assumptions about how our minds function might need to be drastically revised. What was the most interesting fact you discovered from each speakers lecture? I learned from Changeuex that art and evolution of human intelligence go hand in hand. The genetic connection between our conception of aesthetics and how we define beauty was explained in tandem with our brain functions. Starting with simple tools, which then led to the discovery of symmetry, then onto symbolism and finally on to more artistic composition, man is constantly pushing against the boundaries of his creative limits. Changeuex characterizes art as being distinct from language due to its nonverbal qualities. Art, he says, communicates and transmits various “emotional states, knowledge, and experience with multiplicity of codes” and yet remains constrained by rules or what he calls regies de l'art. His definition of art as “artifacts and human production whose use is specifically geared towards “inter-subjective communication” is at the heart of what we find to be aesthetic. The effectiveness of this aesthetic nature of art is, in his words, “staggering” in its ability to induce in us emotions that are both conscious and unconscious. Changeuex believes, that art is constantly revolving, but only in the sense that only art history is evolving while art itself shows “no apparent progress.” Frankly, I didn't know what to make of that.

Ramachadran's lecture focused on the “science of art” or neuroesterics, He makes the case that what was previously thought of as the two separate and distinct cultures of science of art are not so distinct after all and when they do meet, it is in the human brain. His lecture centers around two questions: are there any artistic universals and how does the brain react to art? Ramachadran says there are indeed universal laws of art that transcend all cultures. He believes these “universals” can be reduced to 8 laws that range from those that make art “binding” to laws that define art as a metaphor. Art, as a universal concept has the ability of “isolating a single cue to optimally excite cortical visual areas', he says. The role of art,he argues,is not to create exact images but rather to distort realism. This is meant to stimulate the brain in order to achieve a solution to what we might perceive as a problem of contradiction. Art creates hyper stimuli and that is how the brain reacts to art, The distortion of reality is not random and but has to follow the 8 universals he lays out. According to him, figuring out this distortion is the “aha!” moment the brain is looking for and ultimately it is what we experience in the form of art appreciation.

4. How do the videos and article relate to the readings in the text?

The common thread is that there is no common thread in our perception of art and yet the reaction we get from art seems to be universal. This suggests to me that all art must have a common origin and that at some point or other there was a divergence that coincided with the various migrations of humans and eventually to the unique art that different cultures enjoy.

5. What is your opinion of the films and article? How do they add depth to understanding of the topics in your reading in the text?

All of them complement each other by reiterating the relationship between science and art by making connections between the two disciplines. With the exception of Changeuex who seemed a little hard to understand, the discussions were very well informed and go a long way into encouraging discussions regarding our perception of art and human development. By framing the issue in scientific terms, we all benefit in our attempts to understand the origins of our thought processes and ultimately move closer into knowing what makes us human and different from other creatures.