1. Aesthetics: Philosophy of The Arts
A few different philosophers opinions stood out to me and took me by surprise. One was that 'an artist copies a copy, their copy is an imperfect copy of a perfect copy.' You never really think that an artist gets almost all of their ideas from other artwork, and then they change it.
Chanqeux & Ramachandran Video
I didn't know that the evolutionary origins of art and aesthetics were sexual selection, group selection, intersubjective communication, social bonding and by product of brain evolution. This video really showed me that there is so much 'behind the scenes' of science in art that I didn't know about.
CNN Article
I found it very interesting that not only us adults, but babies can decipher a visual face due to coarse information being triggered by emotional response. We are emotionally engaged when the detail orientated part of our visual system is distracted.
2. Morris Weitz is the philosopher that stood out to me the most, he incorporated family into his art, which is why I think I am most connected with his theory because I incorporate family and my personal life into my art, and that is not the only quality we share. He also believes anything can be art, it doesn't have to be hanging in a museum, he still believes creations that aren't labeled in the art category can be art. He believed that certain art movements fit into aesthetics, and the one that he related to most was anti-essentialist which was big in the 1950's. "Art is whatever we may call it, no mater the object." -Morris Weitz.
3. Starting off, it was hard to understand Chanqeux at first, until you really focused in on his voice. I loved Rakmachandran's sense of humor, techniques and way of talking about art that most artists and people wouldn't necessarily think is funny. The most interesting fact I think from Jean-Pierre Chanquex is that the discovery of symbolism was in Spain and the discovery of artistic competition was in France- Homo Sapiens. The fact from Vilayanur Rakmachandran that I thought was most interesting is how he had no interest in art 14 years ago but now he believes the goal of art is to distort or change art to have pleasing effects on the brain. He is now doing research on pieces of art that he visited when he was younger with his family.
4. The videos and the articles have a lot of content on scientific standings behind art within the body and the brain. The videos discuss certain types of art, for example Indian sculptures, Picasso and religious pieces. The textbook goes into great detail about themes of art and what art even is, therefore the correlation between the textbook and the reading and videos is that they all explain a lot of details that happen in the art world. Meaning, not a lot of people think about the themes of art or even think about the science behind it, the only science I think I ever learned about art is the left and right sides of the brain, and what they do.
5. Reading the article and the textbook were probably my favorites out of all the choices. The article was short and sweet but informative, along with the reading in the book. I liked the way the book was wrote, it is an easy read for me (I usually don't comprehend much while reading.) But I think this one as interesting enough for me to where I could focus and highlight etc.. The videos were okay- Hard to understand the one speaker, but got use to it eventually. I like that the videos go into more depth about content in the book. For example on page 13 in the Arts In Living textbook, theres a section called Creating and Creativity (pg 12.) but it talks about nerves in the brain, "Scans showing nerve traffic pathways though the white matter in the brain. Arrows point to regions where nerve traffic slows in individuals identified as creative." quoted with a photo- which this photo and quote goes into much greater detail in the videos provided.