Aesthetics and The Mind

It's me again, your intrepid art student, ready to delve into the MIND! 

I watched two videos and read one article, and here are the key concepts that I learned from them:

Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts:

1)    “Aesthetics” is the philosophical study of beauty and art

2)    The concept of what is beautiful has changed over the centuries it has been studied

3)    Since there have been so many changing concepts, beauty is difficult–if not impossible–to define

CARTA: Evolutionary Origins of Art and Aesthetics: Neurobiology, Neurology and Art and Aesthetics:

1)    Art evolved as humans did and is still evolving

2)    There is conscious processing and non-conscious processing of images and emotions

3)    Art creates pleasing effects in the brain by deliberately exaggerating and distorting images

4)    There are universal principles of aesthetics that cross cultural, phylogenetic, and even species boundaries

What the brain draws from: Art and neuroscience:

1)    Our brains are wired to recognize faces, outlines of objects, colors, and patterns

2)    Artists have been tricking human minds for centuries using techniques like exaggerated values, unrealistic shadows and mirrors, and more recently, distorted forms

As I mentioned in my discussion thread, I believe that the most important philosopher in the video was the early 20^th century philosopher, Walter Benjamin, who stated that “the concept of art has been radically altered by technological advances that enable unlimited reproduction of an artistic object. A work of art is no longer unique and unrepeatable. An original painting is one of its kind but a poster is not.” Benjamin demanded that “aesthetics must deal with this new reality, in particular, with the power of television.” I believe Benjamin’s analysis to be the most important contribution to the video because it articulates the current artistic environment that we are living in now. Benjamin’s view is poignant because it illuminates the problem of how multiplying an image reduces the appreciation for the original, which results in an overall jadedness upon seeing the original. Why would I value the Mona Lisa when I can Google it at any moment of the day? What is my motivation to travel to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa in person when I can buy a poster of it? While I may personally find infinite value in seeing Mona Lisa with my own eyes, I know that this current generation, for the most part, is completely satisfied with looking at her smile from their iPhone; for many, the original has been replaced by a replication.

I was very intrigued by Changeux’s and Ramachandran’s scientific view of aesthetics and art because of the experiments that supported their claims. For example, the fact that Michael Posner’s studies show how surprise activates the prefrontal cortex, whereas familiarity does not, supports Changeux’s first definition of art: novelty, which is the constant search for the unanticipated. Ramachandran posits in one of his eight laws of aesthetics that “isolating a single cue…optimally excite(s) cortical visual areas”. Ramachandran goes on to say that the outline of a nude is the most important part, and is also the most stimulating part because seeing a picture of a nude inundates us with a ton of irrelevant visual information. He states that “the artist focuses on what is critical, and throws away all the irrelevant clutter…” which is exactly what a seven year old, autistic girl did who drew a horse that was more aesthetically pleasing that Leonardo da Vinici’s drawing of a horse; the girl highlighted the outline of the horse and removed all of the excess visual clutter. Even though she was autistic and seven, her brain functioned like an artist’s brain, only even more efficiently because of her autism.

The videos and the article talk about how we perceive aesthetics and how we define it, which is also what the textbook talks about. The videos, article, and the textbook all seek to define what art is and how it affects us. The main difference, though, is that the videos and the article have scientific experiments that explain why many common aesthetics are so stimulating to our brain. I think learning about the science of peak shifts, as well as pattern recognition–like when different types of clothes match because they have the same pattern–helps me to understand why we are so moved by different aesthetic techniques.

The films and article were very enlightening for me because they explained some reasons why we perceive aesthetics the way we do. Knowing what visual tricks that artists use, like peak shifts, explains why we are stimulated by certain types of art. It was interesting to see how the peak shift technique was used in ancient Indian sculpture and was rejected as a ridiculous distortion, yet when Picasso did the same thing, it was considered revolutionary. Rembrandt also used peak shifts, just a little more subtly, and he is a revered artist. I also really liked Ramachandran’s style and delivery because his energetic lecture helped to get excited about his views on aesthetics.

Until next time!