Blog Post #2, Module 2

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

When I watched the Aesthetics: Philosophy of the arts, I learned that art and beauty are different things. The key concepts I learned are that art does not necessarily have to be beautiful, and is in turn, subject to the viewer’s on beliefs about beauty. It was interesting to me to see how the philosophy of aesthetics and art has evolved throughout history, and how each philosopher took the past theories and expanded upon them. I also thought it was interesting to see how the time period and art that was being created heavily influenced their theories. For example, Plato focused more on the idea of beauty, rather than art, which he considered popular entertainment, and he believed that all things were beautiful, and art was essentially cutting down that idea by copying the original forms or ideas. During the Renaissance, aesthetics was used very little, as the art that was being created was focused on religious themes and formal qualities. As we moved through the twentieth century, that is when the notion of art itself was questioned by both artists and philosophers

From the lecture given by Changeaux, I learned that as humans evolved, so did our brains and capabilities to produce and understand art and aesthetics. Changeaux defines art as something created by a human, whereas aesthetics are the emotions we feel from said art, to which he states that as we change as societies and humans, our art and our feelings about art also evolve. It was interesting to learn how Changeaux explains how we process art as humans- from visually processing a piece of art from the bottom up, to how our stored memories, object recognition ability and emotions influence how we perceive it.  I think the most interesting part of his lecture, however, was when he spoke about the “rules” of art and how it affects our brains. First, he explains how when the element of surprise is presented to the viewer, our prefrontal cortex is activated, yet when we are bored or experiencing the mundane, the same area of our brain is not activated. His next rule of art was the universal search for harmony, and how when a viewer is presented a piece of art that contains ‘harmony’ to the eye, our brains also react positively. The last rule was the artist’s concept or context that he or she is sharing with the viewer.

During the lecture from Ramachandran, the key concepts I learned were his theories on the universal principles of aesthetics. He explained that there are universal ‘laws’ that govern successful artmaking and how aesthetics influence the how viewer perceives art as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, regardless of their cultural backgrounds. He stated that these principles are: grouping and  symmetry, exaggeration, isolation, problem solving, metaphor as art and unique vantage points. One point Ramachandran made was ‘real art’ versus Kitsch art, and how Kitsch art is not as appealing to the brain because those while Kitsch may embody a few of these principles, the artists have not fully mastered the them, which in itself was interesting to me, as Kitsch has always been considered a ‘lesser’ art.

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

The philosopher’s theory on aesthetics I felt most important was Morris Weitz. In the 20th century, Wietz stated: “what I am arguing then, is that the very expansive, adventurous character of art, its ever-present changes and novel creations, makes it logically impossible to ensure any set of defining properties.” I thought this theory was important because until then, what made something art was heavily reliant on a set of rules or laws. However, Weitz brought attention to the fact that art is not static, and is ever-changing, as are we as a society, and as we change, so will art.

Weitz expanded upon this theory in the center of Dada and Surrealism, which were two movements that pushed the boundaries of the definition of art. Weitz suggested that instead of trying to define art, we should focus more on its role and the kinds of ideas it represents. I think that this theory still holds true today, as our society evolves at a rapid pace, along with the technology we utilize- so does our art.

3. What do you think about Changeux and Ramachandran scientific view of aesthetics and art? What was the most interesting fact you discovered from each speakers lecture?

The most interesting thing I learned from Changeux’s lecture was how viewing art affects us on a scientific and genetic level. It was really awesome to see the brain scans and how specific elements activated the brain- specifically with the element of surprise. I found his lecture engaging, and I really enjoyed learning specifically how the brain reacted with the different pieces of art.

Ramachandran’s lecture was also incredibly engaging. I always thought that one of the biggest influences on feelings about art was cultural influence. While that may one element that affects how we feel about art, I really enjoyed Ramachandran’s point of view on how we perceive art as humans in general. I liked learning about his theory of the universal principles of aesthetics and art, as I feel he kind of put how we perceive art into a new perspective for me. I think the most interesting fact I learned was when he spoke about how the piece that featured a woman under a shower curtain was more visually stimulating than an image of a Playboy model because when we are looking at it, it acts as a problem solving exercise for our brains. It was interesting to learn how scientifically the way that we process art leads to how we feel that art is either pleasing or not based on these recognizable universal rules.

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

The lectures and article both took what I read in chapters 1-3 and expanded upon how we interpret art, yet on a more scientific level. Living With Art defines aesthetics as “the branch of Philosophy concerned with the feelings aroused in us by sensory experiences- experiences we have through sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell. Aesthetics concerns itself with our responses to the natural world and to the world we make, especially the world of art.”  Both Changreaux and Ramachandran explain deeper how our brains interpret art as either pleasing or unpleasing based upon specific elements within the art. I thought this passage from the article further explained how a piece of art could be aesthetically pleasing: “Cavanagh explains that this may mean we are more emotionally engaged when the detail-oriented part of our visual system is distracted, such as in Impressionist works where faces are unrealistically colorful or patchy….the distorted faces of famous artists such as Pablo Picasso and Gustav Klimt may be hyperactivating our neurons and drawing us in, so to speak.” These statements were interesting to me, because in chapters one and two, I read about why artists make art and the importance of creativity. While creativity is something some people exercise more than others, when the viewer is looking at a piece of art, the same parts of their brains are more engaged and they have a responsibility to interpret whether or not the art is aesthetically pleasing. The statements above also further prove that when a piece of art follows the universal rules of art that Ramachandran touched on, it is more pleasing to us, as our nervous system is working to solve a visual problem, thus, feeling more pleasing.

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?

My opinion of the films and article is that they were pretty eye opening. I never really thought about the scientific level of how we perceive visual art, and how natural elements within the art affect my feelings about a specific piece of art. These theories expanded upon what I read in Living With Art in that while artists create art for specific reasons; perhaps for worship, creating tangible images of feelings or emotions, creating places for worship, and so on, whether they know they are or not, they are also creating something that is pleasing (or not pleasing) to us on a scientific level. The article and videos expanded upon what happens on the other side of art, and what happens when a viewer is interpreting a piece, whereas the book more explained the side of the artist’s role in artmaking and aesthetics.