1. For each video and
article list/discuss the key concepts you learned.
With Aesthetics: Philosophy of the
Arts I learned how a lot of the past’s great artists had different views of
aesthetics. CARTA: Neurobiology
Neurology and Art and Aesthetics both showed me one persons view of the origins
of aesthetics and another’s lecturer’s ideas of how art effects the mind. The CNN article did a lot more of the same
with talking about how art effects the brain and how the brain accepts art.
2. Which
philosopher's theroy on aesthetics do you feel is most important? Be sure to
mention the philosphers name, era (time in history), and contribution to the
aesthetic theory in your response.
I like
Hagel’s view of aesthetics. I like his
because he used symbolic, classical and romantic art. The quote of Hagel they uses talks about
sensible art. This is the kind of art I
like, things I don’t have to think about but just admire.
3.
What do you think about Changeux and Ramachandran scientific view of aesthetics
and art? What was the most interesting fact you discovered from each speakers
lecture?
I like Ramachandrans view much better, not just because I could
understand his dialect better, but because his made more sense. He explained how different people can look at
the same thing and see a different thing.
I liked how he explained the piece of Indian art of a Goddess of the
cosmos and he explained how the western people looked at the same thing and
instead of seeing the art they critiqued the form and look of the Goddess. Different eyes, different views.
4.
How do the videos and article relate to the readings in the text?
The videos do support the readings in the text. The text is textbook style. Covering one fact at a time and moving
on. The videos give us a verbal
explanation of all of the things we read and applying those things to the
information they are talking about.
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 liked the Carta video the best because it was a lecture that
seemed relevant to the book. The first
video was hard to follow and engage in because of the slow moving and talking
pace of the video.
No comments:
Post a Comment