Week #2

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

·         This week’s supplemental material sets a great foundation for looking at art, by addressing the history of how art is perceived, the evolution of human conception and construction of art. From the CNN Article, What The Brain Draws From Art, explains how different people take the different things away from the same art. The video, Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts, explores the evolution of the standard of how art has been judged over the years with regard to aesthetics. Lastly, and I think most interestingly, in the video, CARTA: Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics, addresses how the human physiology effects the perception of art, and provides insight as to what happens in the human brain that makes us appreciate art.

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

·         I think the philosophical theory of Kant is the most important. Prior to his work in 18^th century Germany, art was meant for a higher class and measured by set standards. Kant believed that art was experienced differently by the individual, and could be appreciated by anyone.

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?

·         I appreciate the neurologic biology behind the appreciation of art.  I found Changeux to be dry. His lecture was scientific, and I liked the beginning when he provided visual evidence of evolution humans and how it correlated with the evolution of art. He lecture was much geared toward the neurology behind interpretation. Ramachandran, was by comparison much more entertaining.  He seemed to focus more on perception of art by giving examples of art and how it was received and perceived by the a person.  I also liked how he addressed and validated the concept that the value of art was very much linked with the perception that someone had of it and not a formal or traditional critique. This is to say that no one can know what the true value of art is, the value exist only in quality and quality by which it is appreciated by people.

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

·         The videos and the article relate to the text by supplementing the information of how humans interact with art. The text primarily explains art through art and artists and the videos and article explain art through the human experience of art.

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?

·         I loved the films and the article. From a personal standpoint I learn better through media mediums, than from reading texts. Also I don’t think it is realistic to gain an appreciation for art just by learning how Mark Getlein believes it to be.  I think it makes the study of art more credible when you can understand some of the why we see it differently from one another. The CNN article and the CARTA: Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics, video did excellent jobs of creating a foundation for that.  The Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts video provided a context for many different ways art had be graded and viewed over time, and as fresh eyes on the scene it is good for us to be exposed to that so that we may begin to understand how and by what standards we will assess art.