Aesthetics and Art

I had a chance to watch a few videos and an article on the aesthetics of art and came away with quite a few interesting views.  I would say the largest impact would be with regards to the angle in which these philosophers and scientists approach the meaning of art.

Here are links to the 2 videos I had the pleasure of watching:

• Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts
• CARTA: Neurobiology, Neurology and Art - Aesthetics 

 This is the article:

• What the brain draws from: Art and neuroscience

Now be prepared the 2 videos are about an hour each so do not dive in unless you have some time, but rest assured you will come out with some interesting ideas on the idea of aesthetics.

Lets hop into the videos and see what we learn! 

Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts

In our first video we are given the conceptual background of aesthetics.  This philosophical definition of art and why we humans are drawn to it.  The narration starts us off with the thoughts of a well known philosopher, Plato.  Now his views on art are not the typical forms of beauty and expression but he sees them in a very different light and this debate brings forth our topic, aesthetics.  The video is laid out nicely, however the resolution we have access to is of low quality unfortunately.  They progress nicely through the century marks and take care to note prominent philosophers views in this category.  What we take away is the debate that still exists today.  What is it about art that makes us fall in love with it, and what secret recipe is needed to ensure a piece is art?



 I particularly like the progression of how art is perceived and interpreted as it follows the line of history.  Plato of 4^th Century BC philosophy had a view that everything we make and create is nothing more than our interpretation on the perfect idea of what we are trying to convey.  He believed that art is nothing more than a distortion of some things true form and thus a fake.  His strict views on how objects only exist in their current form as a representation of our idea of perfection really holds true to deep philosophical thinking.  I also like the portrayal that Morris Weitz gives from the 20^th Century.  His thoughts are that, due to the ever changing aspects of that logically you are unable to set a formal property on its definition.  Due to art developing as the world around us develops and changes and as our tastes evolve and twist there is no way to predict what the future may bring us.  If you cannot see the future then you cannot develop a set of rules that define art, logically thinking.  I think his use of logic to defend his case is what really makes it interesting for me.  Combining the simple rules of logic to basically cast away the need to define art and focus on the what art represents and the roles it plays in our lives.
 

CARTA: Neurobiology, Neurology and Art - Aesthetics

Moving on to the scientific side of Aesthetics, we are exposed to two well developed lectures on aesthetics.  Our first speaker, Changeux, has a theory to explain our natural development into visual arts.  He is careful to point out that he is strictly basing his approach on visual arts.  He lays out a set of general rules that would help classify what makes a piece art worthy and he goes into great lengths on the development of the size of the human brain and its connections to symmetry.  Our second speaker, Ramachandran, dives into what he calls visual esthetics.  He covers a few different aspects of visual distortion to captivate and draw in the art audience.  He also covers his rule set that he lays out originally as the "8 Laws of Art" but he moves on later to say, "cross out art" and points out he is referring to esthetics in general.

The science angle taken here is very interesting.  To approach this topic from a non divine science approach and try to tie specific natural scientific proof to what a human perceives as art almost feel mechanical.  To say the development of the size of our brains naturally led us to be able to identify pleasing objects and then to create them seems natural but the question as to why seems to elude everyone.  I do not personally think they will be able to set a rule or a set of rules that will define all art.  They may be able to measure the brain activity of the whole human race and still fall short in their theory the next decade.  The ideas behind their work is viable and both sets of rules have the same open ended-ness to be used as an outline for their definition.  Changeux biological approach on the whole is interesting to me.  I think that even though we may be able to map a path of a brain pattern that we are still missing more connections that are not being measured.  With studies you may be able to show how a brain reacts when any number of situations occur but then you have to account for the occasions when your theory fails thus losing some weight on a scientific base.  If gravity suddenly did not work in one random area and we could not explain the anomaly we would have to revisit that scientific model as well.  Ramachandran touched on a point that I like with regard to the complexity of the optic path way.  His take on the complexity of the 30 plus inputs the eye perceives offers a great way to see how many paths and different takes people can have on the same art piece.

What the brain draws from: Art and Neuroscience

Here we explore the neuroscience behind art again.  This article depicts the use of optical tricks to grab a viewers attention and provoke thought.  The elements covered are a very good starting point in understanding the concepts behind great pieces of art and the illusions they present.  I am particually fond of this piece by professor Semir Zeki:

Squaring the Circle

This piece is has clean lines and the color pop that is optically mind blowing.  The fact that it is a free standing unit and not a painting is what I like the most about it.  They fact that every angle has a different perspective and that to me is a well developed piece of art made my a neuroscience professor, not a typical artist.




Now this blog is centralized around a class I am taking at Buffalo State College and our course text covers some ideas that are touched on in the above mentioned pieces.  I would say the best relation our text has to the pieces we covered here are with regards to the many layers of what makes art.  Culture, life experiences and exposure all pay a role on how art is made as well as perceived.  Even the touch on the normal every day items that transform into art, Soup cans and cereal boxes and the likes.

After reviewing the films and reading through the article and our textbook I have been exposed to a much more scientific view of aesthetics.  For me art has always been a personal connection that would be both easy to discribe and yet hard to explain.  A physiologist could probably analyze my views and attribute it to something in my past but I still think that would only lead to the tip of the iceburg.  I enjoyed the insight and especially the overview of aesthetics in art and hope the next time I see a piece of art that I can think more critically about why I find it intriguing or not.