Video review

1. Video 1- Aristotle said " The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness which the mathematical sciences demonstrate to a special degree". The word form here means quite literally means, the physical appearance of a work of art. Another concept discussed by Aristotle was "The Three Unities". They used to describe the expected form of a tragedy. The unities included, unity of action (no subplots), unity of time (tragedy should take place within a 24 hour period), and the unity of place (all the action takes place at the same location.

The concept of beauty was defined by Batista as " the combination of harmony and perfection. Others continued that God is the origin of beauty. Kant claimed that all things can be made beautiful except for the disgusting. He explained that the aesthetic experience is not constrained by either natural or moral law. The expression theory, which was developed in the first half of the 20th century claimed that art is the expression of emotion. The Avante Garde movement of the the second half of the century refused a standard definition of art.

   Video 2- Changeux's definition of art and aesthetics: Art is artifacts, human productions...specialized for inter-subjective communication that use symbolic forms. He also claimed that it is a means of non verbal communication. Both Scientists mentioned the interconnection between the limbic system (area of the brain dealing with emotion and motivation, mainly for the use of survival) and the pre-frontal cortex. The novelty of art is important in that the pre-frontal cortex becomes more stimulated when it is presented with new works of art. Ramachandran informed us that thirty areas of the brain are used in the visual process. His explanation of the point of art is, arts purpose is to deliver a hyperbole or an exaggeration of reality in order to deliver pleasing effects on the brain.

2. The Prussian philosopher Immanual Kant was born in 1724. He did the majority of his work during the 18th century Enlightenment period. Kant's most important contribution in my eyes, is the statement "a description cannot identify why something is beautiful".  He goes on to claim that all one can do is offer a hypothesis as to why something may bring about some elicit feeling. He claims that there cannot be a science of beauty because beauty itself is subjective. This helps us to understand why aesthetics is the philosophy of beauty, and not the science of. Another claim he made is that the only thing that cannot be made beautiful is the disgusting. In other words, if something does not want to be expelled once consumed (metaphorically) beauty can be found in it.
3. The most interesting fact I learned from Changeux's lecture, was that our brain is approximately the same size it was 100,000 years ago (1400 cm^3). Learning from Ramachadan that 30 areas of the brain are used in the visual process was fascinating. I appreciated the scientific approach to art. For me to gather an appreciation for art, I am going to need to know exactly what I should be enjoying and why. We take in art through our eyes. It only makes sense to study how the brain processes these images. Art is of course supposed to be enjoyable. What is more enjoyable than having a series of aha moments while doing something that is sociably fashionable.
4. Video 1 and the book both speak about the aesthetic experience. The video goes more in depth, but the book gets us started by informing us that simply stopping to take pleasure in a work of art is an aesthetic experience. 
    Video 2 Changeux claimed that art evokes stored images in the brain, thus bringing out emotions. The book suggested that bringing outside information into your experience with art will lead to a better appreciation. Changeux's theory suggests that one cannot help but to do this. The overall lesson is, the more you have to bring to the table the more you will enjoy your experience with art.
Ramachadan referenced iconography, saying that it is often religious statues in places of worship, and isn't necessarily high art. The book gave the impression of the opposite.
5. Video 1 was remarkable in that it got me thinking about what exactly art is. The book attempts to give a definition of what art is, but Video 1 made me realize that there is no correct answer. I most closely identify with the idea that Art is whatever the art community says is art. I would actually go a little deeper and say, whatever anyone who claims to be an artist says is art is in fact art.
   Video 2 was very enjoyable. What I understood of Changeux's lecture was quite interesting, but Ramachadan was exceptionally real. I agree that there are universal laws for aesthetics, but not necessarily for art. This suggests that not all art has an aesthetic value. That part I'm not so sure about. I guess my point is, that he really got me thinking about all the elements than go into explaining art.