Brain for arts or smarts?

1. Baumgarten- 18^th Century

I feel that Baumgarten’s theory on aesthetics made the most sense. Granted they all had solid points but his ideas offered little controversy to them unlike those of Aristotle and Plato. What I mean is that, Aristotle and Plato are unanimously known for their take on philosophy and yet they both offer completely opposite views on what aesthetics and art actually are. After understanding the textbook definition of aesthetics it is only fair to assume that there is no right or wrong to what someone believes is beautiful. Our senses allow us to determine what we see, feel, smell, hear and our imagination determines how we choose to interpret it. These are all things that Baumgarten philosophized. “Judgment of beauty is not rule bound nor wrong”.

2. Changeux broke down aesthetics by analyzing how the brain works. Because visual art is based on nonverbal communication we must first look at which of our senses signals which part of our brain. Only then can we begin to understand the “beauty” of aesthetics and what makes art to pleasing to us as individuals.

3. Ramachandran also explained aesthetics by analyzing how our brain interprets the images we see but he did it on a level that allowed for a simpler everyday understanding. He also included eight rules of art. Some of which included grouping images to differentiate items from other items and how the contrast of colors and shading affects the way we view images.

4. One fact that stood out to be the most interesting to me was the explanation for why artists have a tendency to distort images such as the sculpture Ramachandran used during his example. The breasts and hips were too big and the waist was too small. This is because our brain enjoys objects that are more pleasing to the eye. We also are creatures that get bored easily as Changuex illustrates. Once that occurs we lose interest and less signals fire. If we continuously saw a painting of the same generic woman we would be disinterested.

5. My opinion was that the film, “Aesthetics: The Philosophy of Art”, offered a tremendous amount of knowledge throughout the history of art. I enjoyed hearing how a single concept evolved over time. My only complaint was the lack of a table of contents. I felt like I was going into it blindsided and as I was trying to write down key elements of each philosopher’s theory I had to keep back tracking to make sure I caught the right name and right era.

For the second film, I thought that Changeux was hard to hear and very dry. A lot of what he said I was not familiar with and therefore had a hard time understanding him all the more. After hearing Ramachandran speak he actually brought much of what Changeux said and made it make more sense. I also enjoyed his analogies and the way he tied science in with art.