Week Two, Video Review Blog

After viewing the video,  AESTHETICS: PHILOSPHY OF THE ARTS, I had no clearer defined concept of what the philosophy of aesthetics in art is, than I did prior to viewing.  However, I learned that I should not try to define aesthetics in art but to observe and absorb aesthetics.  I'm inclined to agree with Morris Weitz' theory in the 20th century to release art from necessary conditions, not to reach for a definition of art but to embrace the roles and ideas conveyed in art.

Contrasting the aforementioned video, in CARTA: Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics, Jean-Pierre Changeux's lecture material was very interesting but his method of delivery left me needing to review this several times, as I had difficulty keeping my focus.  Vilayamur S. Ramachandran's lecture was much easier for me to grasp and I enjoyed it very much.  I viewed and recorded in my notes his proposed eight laws of aesthetics.  When I reviewed my notes, the eight laws as I listed them, made sense to me in regard to how I observe a work of art.  Grouping and binding, peak shift of principles, contrast, isolating a single cue, perceptual problem solving, symmetry, abhorrence of visual vantage points, and art as a metaphor gave me the "a ha" moment.  Both scientists have valid scientific observations, however, Ramachandran's presentation was charismatically captivating. Ramachandran's observations strongly related to chapter 3 by referencing the themes of art presented in LIVING WITH ART.  However, he tends to contradict himself when he states his eight laws of aesthetics, then sarcastically insults an artist's work as "not art"or "kitch art".  By doing so, he dismisses what he has elaborated on when breaking down each of his laws and examples.