Module 2: Video Review

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

CARTA key concepts:

•  The human production of art is specialized for "inter-subjective" communication. Visual art is a nonverbal form of communication, and it's communicating an emotional state. 
• Art is not a happy accident or a series of "suspicious coincidences", but an actual science. 
• Differences in realism vs. the deliberate distortion to create a pleasing effect. (example was the narrow waist, wide hips, and stance of the Indian sculpture.)
• The concept of "Visual Aesthetics", rather than art. A list of appropriate laws was given with examples to help the audience understand why the brain reacts to different kinds of art in different ways. 

Philosophy of the arts key concepts:

• The evolution of aesthetics. This video takes us through the historical philosophy of art. The way it was defined, viewed, theorized, and how it has been an ever-changing thing even up until now. 
• It is argued what truly defines a work of art as beautiful. Does one need to be educated to properly view art? Are there rules to beauty? Is it scientific? Is the artist's intention the only thing that matters? and so on with these curiosities about the nature of what art is and how/why it effects us. 

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 contribtion to the aesthetic theory in your response.

I feel that Immanuel Kant’s theory on aesthetics is most important, especially for his time in the 18^th century. He was strongly influenced by Baumgarden but developed his own influential theory that the aesthetic experience cannot be governed by moral law or any specific rules. His notion of the genius artist was really important because it leaves more ownership of the idea and overall credit to the creator. Kant’s ideas shaped romanticism and the importance of the artist. Kant’s theories continued to influence future theorists on notions such that you cannot teach someone to create a masterpiece. I’m glad that Kant’s ideas went on to influence further art education because it does take a trained eye to appreciate certain aspects of beauty, but the feeling one gets from experiencing has no rules or guidelines at all. Overall I agree with Kant’s views that the aesthetic experience should not be constrained by moral law and that there is no exact science to beauty. Judgment of the beautiful is not rule bound but judged on the feeling.

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? 

• Changeaux touched base on how art (at least visual) art, is a nonverbal form of communication, and it's communicating an emotional state. This insinuates the intention of art and how the artist is meaning to provoke a certain kind of feeling. He set the stage for Ramachandran by talking about the processing of visual arts and what rules art must follow to be processed subjectively. The coolest part of his speech for me was the part on Subjectivity processing tests and familiarity of something making it "boring" to our brains. It was interesting to see that certain receptors fired when we see something new and that is a pleasant experience. I would love to learn more about this. One of the thoughts I had when he was speaking was something mentioned in the other video about technology somewhat making it harder for our aesthetic experience. With all of the images we now see daily (tv,movies,posters), rarely do we see something truly unique (our subconscious may recognize it if we don't) and because of this perhaps we are missing out on the most pleasant of aesthetic experiences. 
• Contributing to the intention of art, the second speaker Ramachandran elaborated on how art is not a happy accident or a series of "suspicious coincidences", but an actual science. I like how he first pointed out the difference in realism vs. the deliberate distortion on the Indian sculpture. It really made me look at picasso's extreme version of distortion and other similar peices in a different light. Understanding the intention actually makes me appreciate the art itself a little bit more. The concept of "Visual Aesthetics", rather than art was also a really interesting concept to me. His list of laws and examples helped me understand the science behind my admiration for certain kinds of art. I appreciated his argument that the aesthetic experience is neurological, and not necessarily based on opinion. It made me wonder however; even though certain laws in visual aesthetics have scientific evidence proving a pleasurable effect, such as peak and shift, what about the minority? The group of people who look at the same piece and find it discomforting, are their brains wired wrong? I know he didn't declare it an exact science but there has to be a certain amount of subjectivity involved as well, no? I also wondered at the end why he showed the King Kay picture and called it hideous and "kitsch." I agree it's not the most original or inspriring peice but I missed his point on why that painting didn't neurologically accomplish what the monet could. 

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

Both of the videos, as well as the text, focused a strong curiosity on why art gives the reaction it does, and what makes art, art. They all use the Chauvet paintings as proof of creativity and aesthetic awareness long before our recorded time. The evolution and history of art given in the Philosophy of Art video and the text help us understand the grounds for Ramachandran's neurological and scientific arguments. A trend I noticed in both the videos and the text is that art is an ever-evolving subject matter. It appears to me that boththroughout history and in our present day that the definition of what constittues art and the reason for its aesthetically pleasing effect has remained a mysterty. Even putting science behind why certain images please us doesn't explain 

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

I liked both of the films, even with Changeux's accent being really difficult to understand. I liked how neurology was added into the mix of what we've been examining because it gives some ground to stand on. Scientific "evidence" (I use quotes for argument's sake) always adds depth to a topic because it makes theories stronger, more feasible.  Giving examples with this science was even better because neurological science isn't something that's necessarily easy to 'wrap you're head around'. The only components that the videos lacked were a deeper exploration of creativity in the artist. The book really had us examining the qualities of a creative person, what constitutes as creativity, etc. I liked this topic and would have liked to hear more about it.