1.) The first video explained the history and the various aspects of the branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics. The history of aesthetics begins in ancient Greece with the philosopher Plato. Plato believed objects in the physical world were merely imperfect imitations of the idea. Since ideas are beyond the physical senses, they can only be explored and understood through reason. However, beauty is the one concept that uses the senses to find reason. The study of Aesthetics seemed to take a hiatus through the Middle Ages; where beauty was overpowered by dedication to the Christian God Art theory was reduced to a singular technique. As the Renaissance peaked, the Neoclassical style emerged, disregarding the Medieval ideas and embracing a new ideology of order and symmetry. Beauty was governed by a set of rules and was therefore not subject to taste. The modern basis for Aesthetics was formed in 18th century England during a period of intellectual prosperity. The formulation of the first modern system of the arts; which stated the "arts were united through the imitation of nature." The first formulation of Aesthetic Disinterest was also seen here; the idea that to really appreciate art you must remove practical concerns. A revolution to Aesthetics, Immanuel Kant, laid forth a systematic theory of art and taste in his "Critique of Judgment". Schiller expanded on Kant's work, proposing what he called and Aesthetic Education. He believed exposing people to art and educating them about art was the only way to live freely, not under the totalitarian hand. Hegel was another revolutionary in the field of Aesthetics. He held that romantic art was the end of the Aesthetic evolution, and further advances should not be expected. He also rejected representational theories of art, for example that art imitates life, and lead the way for the expressionist theories that prevailed in the 20th century. Expression theory, developed by Collingwood in 1938, stated that "art was the expression of emotion with emotion and expression defined in ways that are particular to the theory." Avant Garde movement followed, in which artists refused to produce objects that met the standard definition. Beauty became subjective, and because it was an unspecific way to study Aesthetics, it practically dropped out of common discussion. Aesthetics had to re-evaluate its theories and practices in light of the development of technology. Television, movies, and the ability to copy works of art meant the definition of art needed to change with those developments.
The second video I found way more difficult to analyze. The first speaker had such a think French accent that it made understanding him a challenge. He begins by describing some of the evolutionary steps the human species has been through; like the discovery of symmetry that lead to advanced tool making, to the discovery of symbolism, on to the discovery of Artistic composition. He continues with some essential definitions in aesthetics and art; I found they were listed more like rules instead of definitions. His analysis of the brain as working like a series of nested evolutionary steps, one building off of another, interacting with culture and society was interesting, but very confusing. Things became more familiar as his lecture progressed; the bottom up processing model of vision and emotional content is something I've discussed in some of my psychology classes. I found his use of the mind trick image very entertaining; though those images don't often work for me because of my blind eye. I can simultaneously see both images because there is no change in depth for me. The lecture finished by describing the rules for art; novelty, consensus partium, the exemplum, and schematisation. Each rule has a particular effect on the brain; novelty evokes surprise, the exemplum is the artist's conception of the world he wishes to share with the audience. The second speaker was far more engaging, and I could understand him more thoroughly. His lecture focused around the science of art, and whether such a thing could even exist. He poses that art is made to evoke pleasant feelings in the brain; and it does that by distorting the image in some way shape or form. He talks about the Western reaction to Indian art, calling it hideous because of its exaggerated features, yet other works of art, Picasso being the artist mentioned, with more distorted features are hailed as beautiful. This leads to two questions; "Are there artistic universals?", and "How does the brain respond to art?". He continues into a discussion of art in nature; symmetrical moths, and even bower building birds who decorate their breeding dens extravagantly. He highlights the complications surrounding the word "art", preferring to use "visual aesthetics" instead. He too has a list of laws for aesthetics; grouping, peak shift principle, contrast, attention, perceptual "problem solving", symmetry, preference for familiarity, and art as metaphor. He gives examples of many of them, explaining the way the brain reacts to certain stimuli; like beauty spots.
2.) I think Plato's theories on aesthetics were the most important, simply because they were the foundation for the entire field of study. Plato lived in the 4th century B.C., in Athens. Philosophy was a growing field, birthed by the great thinking minds of the time, including Plato. Plato posed that beauty was found not in an object itself, for it is only an imperfect copy, but in the contemplation of the perfect idea of the object. He disliked art and artists because he felt they were deceptive; if all objects are just copies, then art is a copy of a copy. He believed art lead to negative consequences such as an inability to distinguish what's truth from what's not. These principles helped develop the study of beauty and aesthetics.
3.) I found they both interesting views on aesthetics and the brain. Changeux's section on the development of the human brain was fascinating; I had never made those connections before between the development of things like symmetry and tool making. Ramachandran's entire lecture was fairly new to me, and the connections he made between the interpretations of Western art and Eastern art were intriguing; I knew there was a bias against Eastern styled art, but I did not think about it the way he posed.
4.) The videos somewhat helped to highlight some of the key points of the text; the first video was a little in depth, which was easier to understand after a second viewing. I found the article very interesting and it really made sense after watching the videos. Some of these visual concepts are very difficult for me to fully grasp, I don't see what you see, but the variety of mediums and sources help to create a more complete image of these ideas.
5.) I found them helpful, but a little overbearing. There was a lot of information to be synthesized, and it is heavy and deep information too. However, I very much liked the article and found it very interesting and informative.
