Week 2

1.
Philosophy of Art-
Aesthetics is the philosophical study of beauty and art. Art and beauty are very different things. They systematic study of art has its roots in 5th century Athens. Plato said the true nature of things we see in the world was their idea. Ideas are beyond the senses. The idea of beauty presents itself to reason through the senses. Plato says something beautiful attracts the person who sees it. His ideas didn't include the role of art/aesthetics.
Plato Versus Aristotle-
In the republic, Plato explained his understanding of art as an act of treason against the idea. He essentially believes the artist copies a copy. Plato mistrusted poets because they spoke of things they really couldn't know about. Plato denied that poetry is an art. His student Aristotles composed a book on art theory - The Poetics. Many see it as a rebuttal of Plato's critique on the arts.
Specifying the rules-
Aristotle didn't discuss the idea of beauty but analyzed tragedy. He inferred specific rules of composition. The most famous of these rules were the 3 unities: action, time and place. Action-a tragedy should represent an action with no sub-plot and each phase is a consequence of what went before. Time - the time frame of a plot shouldn't exceed 24hours. Action - the action should take place in the same location. In the middle ages, there were no aesthetics. Instead, beauty was a dedication to God. Beauty is harmony and perfection.
Foundations for aesthetics -
The foundations layed in 18th century England during a period of remarkable intellectual activity. This is where we find the first system of the arts that held that the individual arts are united through imitation of nature. There is a disengagement of practical concerns that is essential in appreciating art. On The Pleasures of Imagination marks the beginning of modern aesthetic theory. Beauty and foos is the same and is divine from God. The inner sense of beauty is innate and spontaneous. At the height of the enlightenment, Bumgarten said that art and beauty belong to a middle ground between sensitivity and reason.
Beyond Reason -
Kant believes that the easthetic experience brings sensibility and reason together. Also, the only ugliness that can't be beautiful is the disgusting because it causes pain. It's in our nature to want to expel pain. Kant introduces the judgment of the beautiful is not rule bound, its based on a feeling. All judgments are subjective; they can be shared among many people. There can be no principles or science of the beautiful because it is subjective.
From Kant to Hegel-
Schiller composed an aesthetic education. He helped students appreciate and understand the arts. Arts make us more human according to Schiller. Hegel distinguished 3 ages in the history of art: 1. Eastern or symbolic, 2. Classical, 3. Romantic. Hegel believed that through art the individual expresses what she is and what she will become.
Nietzche's Contribution-
Schopenhauer was inspired by Hinduism. He said the world is a fabric of appearances woven by our intellect. Reality is nothing more than the will to live. The impulse to live only reveals itself through artistic contemplation. Schopenhauer thought music was the art of his century. His theory of music was his most important contribution to aesthetics. He influences Nietzche. In the Birth of Tragedy he wrote that art is a resounding yes to life. He believes that there are 2 principles to art: Appollonian and Dionysian
Twentieth Century Aesthetics-
The biggest problem of this time was the notion of art itself. In the first half the dominant view was "the expression theory of art". This theory states that art is the expression of emotion with expression and emotion each defined ways particular to the theory. In the second half philosophers grew impatient with the definitions of art. Some turned to a book called Philosophical Investigations, published in 1953.
Challenges to Conventionalism-
20th century art was characterized by innovation and challenges to convention. New things such as pop art, cubism and surrealism came about. The idea of beauty was nearly forgotten in the process. It disappeared in philosophy and in art. Int he 60's the consensus was a work of art could look like anything. Unconventional experiences were in contrast with the art of the past.
Rethinking the idea of art-
In the 60's things change dramatically. Andy Warhol's show changed the art world. The Avante Guard was sucked into main stream culture. Jazz, science fiction and other renegade cultures were then being acknowledged as art. This made certain people start to think philosophically.
Aesthetics of technology-
In 1934 John Dewey says that aesthetics is always linked to society as a whole. Art is a sociological phenomenon according to Dewey. Technology altered art because now art can be easily reproduced. Aesthetics must deal with this new reality, especially with the power of television.
Evolving aesthetics-
Observer is involved in contemporary aesthetics. "To appreciate it is to live it". Essentially, if you find a work of are that you like, you will go see it or listen to it or look at it. One must wonder what effect does that have in the long run? Dates back to philosophy itself in classic Greece. It is concerned with the artist, the artwork and the audience. At time it emphasizes one more than the other or balances all three. Art and philosophy of art has a history. As it grows, artists attempt to grow with it.
CARTA: Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics-
Exploring the connection between art and science. They spoke about a neurological theory of artistic experience. He explains that those two cultures of art and science meet in the brain. A powerful work of art can make a change in the human brain. They can produce pleasing effects on the human brain. He brings up the 8 laws of art (He likes to call them the Law of Aesthetics)
1.Grouping, 2. Peak shift principle, 3. Contrast, 4. Isolating a single cue to optimally excite cortical visual areas, 5. Perceptual problem solving, 6. Symmetry, 7. Abhorrence of unique vantage points and suspicious coincidences, 8. Art as metaphor.

2.
As previously mentioned in Angel, I feel tha Joseph Adiison had the most important impact on the first system of art found in 18th century England. This is because his papers "On the Pleasures of The Imagination" marked the beginning of theory on aesthetics in general. In my opinion, he is a pioneer in this area and further steps may not have been taken if it were not for him.


3.
Although it was very difficult for me to understand (and therefore learn) anything Changeux said, I found his neurobiologist viewpoint to be interesting. I have never took the time to think about the discovery of symmetry or symbolism, which he brought up. He spoke about genetic envelope for the evolutionary origins of art, which was a new concept for me. My favorite part of his lecture was when he showed the slide "brain imaging of surprise". It was cool to see how a brain looked when you were looking at something you are used to seeing versus a surprise or novelty.
I enjoyed Ramachandran's lecture much more because I could understand him more clearly and he used humor to engage the audience. I thought it was an interesting point when he mentioned that "the science of art" seemed like an oxymoron. He explains that those two cultures meetin in the brain. I think it would be naive for anyone to think that art and science are always separate. I also found it interesting that he avoids the word art because he feels it is "a loaded word". Instead, he likes to say "visual aesthetics".

4.
The videos add a little more depth into what we can read in the text. They both spoke of the idea, definition and creation of art as well as different artists. However, the videos gave us visual insight of the ideas discussed in the text.

5.
The first set of films were a bit dry but were helpful. I am an auditory learner most of the time so hearing it in addition to reading it adds a lot to the course for me. I have mixed feelings about the CARTA video. The first speaker was terrible and I couldn't understand a word he was saying. If it wasn't for his slides I wouldn't have learned anything from him. On the other hand, the second speaker was wonderful and I really learned a lot from him that was not in the book.