The Aesthetics of Art

1. For each video and article list/discuss the key concepts you learned.

First Video

Aesthetics: Philosophy of the Arts

Aesthetics, which comes from the Greek word "aisthetikos" is the study of beauty and art. The first video that we watched covered aesthetics from the 4th century BC in Athens, Greece, up until the 2nd half of the 20th century AD in the United States. This is a wide range of time time to be covered in a video less than an hour long, but it non-the-less gave an excellent overview on the philosophy of aesthetics, and how what is aesthetically "pleasing"changed over the centuries.

I was surprised to learn that Plato, the influential Greek philosopher of classical 4th century Greece, held a low opinion of artists and poets. He believed they were creating illusions over which they did not have a full understanding, and therefore had no business creating. According to Plato, only a philosopher knew the difference between reality and illusion.

Plato's student Aristotle strayed away from his teacher's low opinion of artists. He believed that poetry was art, and that evoking emotions was good for the people. He spent much time analyzing Greek Tragedy. Aristotle established the three rules which make up a tragedy: action, time and place, and he also claimed that each Play should have a clear beginning, middle, and end. 

There were NO AESTHETICS in the Middle Ages. Instead, the idea of beauty was overshadowed by a complete dedication to God. In Medieval times art theory was "merely (the) defining (of) technique".  At the height of the Renaissance in 15th Century Italy, Alberti, a man of many passions (including philosophy) believed that beauty is harmony and perfection, and there were formal laws to follow: proportion, symmetry and order.

The foundations for modern aesthetics didn't begin until the Enlightenment period in 18th century England. Philosophers of this time period included Joseph Addison and Francis Hutcheson. Addison contributed to modern aesthetics in his papers 'On the Pleasures of the Imagination', while Hutcheson stated that beauty equaled good, which in turn embodied 'Divine Order'. However, he felt that the viewer or listener needed to have refined sensibilities to truly experience beauty in art and music, which unfortunately left an enormous amount of the population out of the equation.

The philosopher Alexander Baumgarten, who was influenced by fellow German philosopher Immanuel Kant, coined the word "aesthetics". For Kant, the only thing in art that can't be beautified is "ugliness and that which is disgusting", the reason being that something ugly/disgusting causes pain. Kant believed that beauty was based on feeling; it can be shared but is subjective, there is no exact science of the beautiful. And while earlier philosophers claimed that an artist was no more than a skilled craftsman, Kant felt that an artist was a genius, and someone who was an "exceptionally sensitive and superior individual."

By the 19th century German philosopher Georg Hegel's  writings and speeches about aesthetics claimed that there were 3 ages of aesthetics, the Eastern or Symbolic Age, the Classical Art Age, and the Romantic Art Age. Art was presented by him as a completed process and a process in which no further advances were to be expected.

But there were further advances to be made, and these came in the 20th century when the established rules of art were now being broken and re-invented. By the second half of the 20th century the 'Avant Garde' had taken over. As American aesthetician Morris Weitz said, there were "...no necessary conditions that made something a work of art." And artist Marcel Duchamp put an upside down urinal in a museum and claimed that "...art is whatever we call art." By the end of the 1960's a work of art could look like anything, it was not necessary to be beautiful. Avant-garde art such as jazz, novels, films, musicals, and photography are no longer considered to be 'out of the norm', and are now completely accepted to be art.

What I most liked about this video was shown towards the end; to appreciate art is to live with it, and when you like something it changes your life. For example, my love for the work of Andrew and Jamie Wyeth has changed my life; I've purchased and read books about them, I've bought reproductions of their work and displayed them in my home, and I've specifically traveled to Chadds Ford, Pa and Rockland, ME to see their work in person in museums. No matter how you personally feel about it, or which philosophers ideas you most agree with, art is trans-formative and it is powerful.

Second Video

CARTA: Neurobiology and Art and Aesthetics

In the first part of the video Changeux describes the rules and constraints of artistic creation from the viewpoint of a neurobiologist's viewpoint. He breaks it down by the brain sizes of early man and the discoveries made at that time. For instance, the discovery of tools was found to date back 2.5 million years ago when man had a brain the size of 600 cubic millimeters. Next came the discoveries of symmetry, of symbolism, and of artistic composition. 32,000 years BC when Homo Sapiens first discovered composition, their brain was 1,400 cubic millimeters, which is approximately the size of a human's brain today. Man's brain had more than doubled in size, so Changeux believes there is a 'genetic envelope' for the evolutionary origins of art. He makes a strong case for his theory, and backs it up with examples of different tools made be early man and how they became more sophisticated with time, and also examples of the cave drawings in Grotte Chauvet, France.

In the second half of the video, Indian scientist Ramachandran talks further about the science of art. His questions about art include: Are there artistic universals? How does the brain respond to art? He discusses his Eight Laws of Aesthetics and claims that art "...transcends culture and species." He included images of brain scans, showing how different sections of the brain become stimulated when looking at art. It was fascinating in this video to hear two scientist's views of art and aesthetics, and it further emphasizes that 'art' is not just a part of the humanities, there is much science (and certainly mathematics) behind 'what is art?'

What the Brain Draws From: Art and Neurosciences

In this CNN article, Elizabeth Landau talks about how "(T)he human brain is wired in such a way that we can make sense of lines, colors and patterns on a flat canvas." Simple line drawings tap into a neural process; for instance we can see an artist's outline drawing of a room in a house and identify what it is, EVEN THOUGH when looking at the actual room there are no black outlines to be found. Apart from line, artists also play with color. As an artist myself I am very conscious of the color, hue, and values I use. I understand that different combinations will create different 'illusions' or even 'excite' the viewers vision (knowingly or unknowingly) by combining colors in a way that will create different optical vibrations. An interesting aspect of the article was the discussion of color vs. luminescence. Color contrast with no light contrast equals luminescence, and by playing with these aspects an artist can use luminescence to give the illusion of depth on a flat canvas.

2. Which philosopher's theory on aesthetics do you feel is most important? Be sure to mention the philosophers name, era (time in history), and contribution to the aesthetic theory in your response.

I feel that 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant's theory on aesthetics is most important. He lived in a time period known as the 'Age of Enlightenment' when there was much emphasis on intellectual activities. I agree with Kant's stance that the only ugliness that can't be beautified is the disgusting, something that causes pain. Most importantly Kant treated his philosophy on aesthetics as something almost ethereal, something almost impossible to explain; for Kant, beauty was based on FEELING; it can be shared, but it is subjective. It is true, there may be no perfectly exact science of the beautiful, it is subjective. In two recent art shows I had a pastel painting, Rose of Sharon, win top awards. Yet when I entered it in yet another show, it was rejected, they would not even hang it up. This is just one personal example of why Kant's theory, at least in my opinion, is most important to artists today. And for Kant, there was no exact science of the 'beautiful', he felt it was subjective. Kant also believed that a successful artist was a genius, for artists, in his eyes, are "...exceptionally sensitive and superior individuals." In earlier centuries being an artist was nothing more than a skilled craftsman, Kant elevates the artist to the stature of  genius.

Rose of Sharon, pastel on paper, 12"x12", 2016

3. What do you think about Changeux and Ramachandran's scientific view of aesthetics and art? What was the most interesting fact you discovered from each speakers lecture? 

I thought it was fascinating how both scientists were able to express their concepts of art and aesthetics from a completely unique viewpoint. Chagngeux was able to use the parallel of brain size in early man to what they were able to accomplish. Over the course of many millions of years human beings' brain grew to the approximate size it is now, 1,400 cubic millimeters, and it was at this time that man first began actually drawing, as seen on the cave walls in Chauvet and Lascaux (France). Changeux's hypothesis is that there is a genetic envelope for the evolutionary origins of art, it is not random.

The scientist Ramachandran delved into his neurological theory of artistic experience. He wonders if there are artistic universals and sets out in his lecture to document how the human brain responds to art, in part by using images of brains stimulated by different images of art. He believes there are Eight Laws of Aesthetics, and also that art transcends culture and species.

The most interesting fact I discovered in the first lecture was the relation of brain size to artistic expression as talked about by Changeux. As we evolved as a species over millions of years it can be proven that our desire or need to express ourselves artistically evolved with our growing brains. Art is something that makes us uniquely human and elevates us above all other species.

In Ramachandran's lecture I was intrigued by his Eight Laws of Aesthetics. Although he didn't have time to explain each one, it is fascinating to see how differently a scientist breaks down aesthetic laws as compared to how an early philosopher, such as Plato, did. His theory that art transcends culture and species gives 21st century artists new avenues to explore and think about. 

4. How do the videos and article relate to the readings in the text?

There are many ways in which the videos and article relate to the readings. For example, all three discuss Paleolithic cave paintings, such as the ones in the Chauvet cave in France, as the first examples of proof that "...the ability to make images is uniquely human." While the videos and article talk a lot about the philosophy of aesthetics and the science behind art, the readings gave many more visual examples of paintings, sculptures, architecture, photographs, installation art, etc. I found that by doing the readings first, I was able to appreciate the videos and article on a deeper level. While the first video talked about different periods in art, it helped that in the book we could see even more examples from each period, and the book readings even include African and Eastern Art, not just the commonly-known images of Western Art History.

5. What is your opinion of the films and article? How do they add depth to understanding of the topics in your reading in the text?

I think it brings added depth to the study art when you look at it from different viewpoints. Before the first film I had of course heard the names of many of the philosophers, but I was unaware of their different views of the philosophy of aesthetics and how these views changed over the centuries. My father holds a PhD in Organic Chemistry and my brother in law is a Neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic, so I found looking at art from a scientific viewpoint particularly interesting. Both Changeux and Ramachandran's unique theories on art are so different from anything I've ever heard or thought of before. I am the type of person who likes to 'hold' a physical book in my hand, so I found that having the readings to consult and highlight while I watched the videos and article very helpful. The videos were excellent, but both speakers did not have English as their first language. While they both spoke English very well, I still had to frequently stop and 'rewind' to catch something they said. This is another reason why I loved having the readings to go back to, I found that the different media we looked at this week all complemented each other, and each piece needed to be looked at to get the 'entire picture'.