This week I learned more about the IDEA of art and aesthetics than I ever expected to know! Two films complemented our first readings from "Living With Art" by Mark Getlein.
The first film, “Aesthetics: The Philosophy of Arts” chronicles the history of the philosophers responsible for the development of aesthetic theory, including Plato, Hutcheson, Kant, and Tolstoy, among many others. Basically, this film depicts how aesthetics has evolved over time. The second film, “CARTA: Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics,” took a very unique approach to the concept of art by exploring the connections between art and science.
When I first began learning about aesthetic theory this week, I personally identified Kant as the most important aesthetic theory philosopher because he explored how art connects reason with sensibility. However, after considering my peers’ interpretations of the various philosophers, I now consider Plato’s contribution to aesthetic theory in the 5th century to be the most important, although he did not purposely contribute! Furthermore, I have to admit that I did not understand his theory at first. I especially struggled to understand his concept that “the true nature of ephemeral things is an idea which can only be reasoned." Even though Plato himself did not think of art highly, I now understand how his theories actually relate to aesthetics - his idea of the true essences suggests that art makes one contemplate the idea of beauty itself. Likewise, the most important thing I learned from the "Aesthetics" film overall is that art is not always beautiful. What is more important than beauty in a work of art is whether or not it makes you question things. Besides, not everyone has the same concept of beauty, so that cannot be the only consideration in whether something is art or not.
In the second film, Changeaux’s examination of the evolutionary origins of arts and aesthetics was very interesting to me as an anthropologist – the connection between genetics and the development of art is something I had not before considered. For me, the most interesting fact Changeaux related was the connection between the discovery of tools as the first step towards the development of art and aesthetics; this fact is a great example of how art IS related to anthropology - a connection that people do not always see.
In Ramachandran’s presentation, “The Science of Art, ” he suggests that humanities and science meet in the human brain. His main point is that art is not realistic – the goal is to deliberately exaggerate an image in some way. I was surprised to learn that there are artistic universals, although cultural overtones exist as well.
Upon reflection, the “Aesthetics” film helped to reinforce what we learned in Chapter 2, especially the section on Art and Beauty. Both the book and this film showed the indefinability of “beauty” and how a work of art should be appreciated in and of itself. Simply put by Getlein, “Art makes looking worthwhile.”
While the first film reinforced Chapter 2, I found the second film, “Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics,” to bring an alternative perspective to the idea of aesthetics. By attempting to reconcile theories of aesthetics with scientific explanations, the film brings a whole new level to the understanding of art.
As for my opinion on the films, the “Aesthetics” film tended to have poor audio quality at times, but overall served as a comprehensive history of aesthetics without overwhelming the viewer with too much information on each philosopher. The audio and diction of the second film was also hard to understand at times, but I appreciated the overarching theme of the juxtaposition of art and the human mind. However, I would have liked a little more detail from Changeaux, such as the evidence that shows that symbolism was discovered some 300,000 years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment