Philosophy & Neurology of Art

1. From the video on Aesthetics - we're introduced to aesthetics as the branch of philosophy that studies beauty and art. It traces the development of the Western concept of aesthetics from the ancient Greeks to modern times. It discussed how the concepts of art and beauty are influenced by the culture of the times - politics, scientific understanding, religion, etc.
- From the Changeux video, we're introduced to how neuroscientists try to explain the experience of art. He argues that the evolution of art reflects the evolution & genetic development of humans as a whole. He points out that there are a number of areas and pathways in the brain that are involved in the perception and interpretation of visual images, including areas linked to emotions. While there are so many neural connections allowing for different possibilities for representations made by artists, there is also evidence for biologically based "rules" regarding art.
- Ramachandran builds on this to articulate some of these rules. Our brains are "hardwired" to group similar colors within images together and we get a "jolt" of pleasure when we decipher images. The act of searching for meaning in visual images shows activity in parts of the brain that are involved in pleasure. The brain tends to respond more strongly to images we recognize, but are distorted or exaggerated.
- The article builds on the information in Ramachandran's video, noting for example that a part of the brain connected to emotion responds more strongly to blurry images

2. I think that Weitz's theory is most important.Morris Weitz was a 20th Century philosopher who believed that you couldn't come up with a definition of art because it was always changing. He felt you could come up with a set of "resemblences" (buidling on Wittgenstein's work). So instead of trying to define art, we should concentrate on trying to understand its roles and the ideas it represents.

3. Changeux and Ramanchandran's views are summarized in number one.The most interesting fact I learned was the many connections and different parts of the brain involved in the processing of visual images, especially the connections to the emotional parts of the brain. This would help to explain the emotional responses we get when viewing works of art.

4 & 5. I really enjoyed the Ramachandran video - he was able to explain these complex scientific principles in a way that was understandable and enjoyable. The other videos were dry, though informative. As noted above, the CNN article built on Ramachandran's video, providing additional examples of the neurological basis for our responses to art. This complements the text in that we see a neurological basis for why artists make various choices in order to evoke particular responses.