1. For
each video and article list/discuss the key concepts you learned.
For the Philosophy of the Arts video, I really enjoyed how much I learned since I had never really thought that hard about the word ‘aesthetics’ and yet it brought out so much information and interesting history I had never been privy to. It’s odd to see so many different yet similar points of view from so many philosophers I’ve known – some I’d only known in name and not their experience, so it was very interesting to hear different specifics from them. One philosopher I did not discuss in any of my discussion posts was Baumgarten, who had the idea I found intriguing that art and beauty belong in a middle group between sensitivity and reason, that art leads us from the darkness of merely sensible to rational understanding. Another thing about him I enjoyed was that he was the one who actually coined the term aesthetics. For the CNN Article, I found Ramachandran’s “peak shift principle” incredibly interesting. The idea that animals attracted to a particular shape will be even more attracted to an exaggerated version of that form was both interesting and amusing. It really works when you relate it to the study of art from different point of views. He stated, “I think you’re seeing the same thing with all kinds of abstract art. It looks distorted to the eye, but pleasing to the emotional center to the brain.” For the CARTA video, was far more scientific and probably my least favorite of these information sources. The two speakers discussed the development of the brain and it’s relation to the perception of art/aesthetics. It was interesting to hear them discuss different reason why some people find the things they do aesthetically pleasing.
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.
Immanuel Kant of the 18th century put forth what I think is the most important view on aesthetics – that all judgments of beauty are not bound by certain rules but is completely subjective. There was no exact science on what is beautiful, but rather it’s based on feeling. He also stated that artists are not skilled craftsman but sensitive and superior individuals – I do not think I would phrase it particularly like that, but I do agree with the notice that through genius nature shows her true face, “through the genius, nature set rules to art.” Also, one of the most important points I felt was that there is almost nothing you can’t treat/see as beautiful, even if it is traditionally something ‘ugly’. All things have beauty, it’s just a matter of who views it as beautiful.
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?
As far as Changeux’s lecture, it was hard to gleam much from it as his accent made him very hard to understand. But from what I understood, I found him to be very scientific about everything he had to say, his lecture focused mostly on brain functions and perception. I honestly found it hard to focus on his lecture, he was a horrific public speaker, and as mentioned his accent did not help. Ramachandran was a much better public speaker and was much more interesting to watch, perhaps because I could understand him much more clearly. I enjoyed his eight laws of art the most, number two of which was what I mentioned before the “peak shift principal”.
4. How do the videos and article relate to the readings in the text?
Both the text and the various media presented besides that all discussed the same basic ideas about art and the perception of beauty and such. Different points of view are discussed in the text as well as the videos, and the idea of aesthetics was really very thoroughly discussed in all media types.
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 think the videos and article were an excellent addition to build off of the readings done in the text book. It helped add different viewpoints and different ideas that hadn’t been thoroughly discussed or looked into in one of the sources or another.
For the Philosophy of the Arts video, I really enjoyed how much I learned since I had never really thought that hard about the word ‘aesthetics’ and yet it brought out so much information and interesting history I had never been privy to. It’s odd to see so many different yet similar points of view from so many philosophers I’ve known – some I’d only known in name and not their experience, so it was very interesting to hear different specifics from them. One philosopher I did not discuss in any of my discussion posts was Baumgarten, who had the idea I found intriguing that art and beauty belong in a middle group between sensitivity and reason, that art leads us from the darkness of merely sensible to rational understanding. Another thing about him I enjoyed was that he was the one who actually coined the term aesthetics. For the CNN Article, I found Ramachandran’s “peak shift principle” incredibly interesting. The idea that animals attracted to a particular shape will be even more attracted to an exaggerated version of that form was both interesting and amusing. It really works when you relate it to the study of art from different point of views. He stated, “I think you’re seeing the same thing with all kinds of abstract art. It looks distorted to the eye, but pleasing to the emotional center to the brain.” For the CARTA video, was far more scientific and probably my least favorite of these information sources. The two speakers discussed the development of the brain and it’s relation to the perception of art/aesthetics. It was interesting to hear them discuss different reason why some people find the things they do aesthetically pleasing.
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.
Immanuel Kant of the 18th century put forth what I think is the most important view on aesthetics – that all judgments of beauty are not bound by certain rules but is completely subjective. There was no exact science on what is beautiful, but rather it’s based on feeling. He also stated that artists are not skilled craftsman but sensitive and superior individuals – I do not think I would phrase it particularly like that, but I do agree with the notice that through genius nature shows her true face, “through the genius, nature set rules to art.” Also, one of the most important points I felt was that there is almost nothing you can’t treat/see as beautiful, even if it is traditionally something ‘ugly’. All things have beauty, it’s just a matter of who views it as beautiful.
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?
As far as Changeux’s lecture, it was hard to gleam much from it as his accent made him very hard to understand. But from what I understood, I found him to be very scientific about everything he had to say, his lecture focused mostly on brain functions and perception. I honestly found it hard to focus on his lecture, he was a horrific public speaker, and as mentioned his accent did not help. Ramachandran was a much better public speaker and was much more interesting to watch, perhaps because I could understand him much more clearly. I enjoyed his eight laws of art the most, number two of which was what I mentioned before the “peak shift principal”.
4. How do the videos and article relate to the readings in the text?
Both the text and the various media presented besides that all discussed the same basic ideas about art and the perception of beauty and such. Different points of view are discussed in the text as well as the videos, and the idea of aesthetics was really very thoroughly discussed in all media types.
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 think the videos and article were an excellent addition to build off of the readings done in the text book. It helped add different viewpoints and different ideas that hadn’t been thoroughly discussed or looked into in one of the sources or another.
No comments:
Post a Comment