As an educator I am continuously upset by people who try to limit information from others. To me it sounds as though the record companies want to thwart people just because they aren't getting any money from Youtube. 

This article is proof that as long as large companies run our society, we will only be fed the media they want us to see, hear, read about. 

This also brings about an issue I have about the internet and the public school system. I don't understand why Youtube is blocked on the school's internet server. There are so many educational videos which could be downloaded. 

Article 6

Looks like YouTube is not the same as it once was. I think part of the charm/coolness of YouTube was that anyone could be creative and post a video of them doing ANYthing. At leas that’s how I’ve always looked at it. Things always get more complicated when money and power become involved. I can see why Warner music would not want the original video and song up if they weren’t getting anything out of it, but why do they have to try and control the little people? People like the high school aspiring rock star and the sign language teacher are people doing creative things and are using music that they like to do it. I don’t see what big business has to lose with people like that. Sites like YouTube and FunnyorDie.com make us feel as though we can truly express ourselves, but there is always someone lurking around the corner to bust us. What do they really have to lose??

YouTube Vs. Warner

As ridiculous as it may seem that Warner Music Group removed a 15 year old girl’s cover of a Christmas carol, I don’t necessarily disagree with them. It’s just business. The article states that YouTube has licensing deals with numerous major music companies, so for every popular song that plays on YouTube, someone is making money by allowing YouTube to keep it up on the website. For whatever reason, Warner and YouTube could not agree on a deal, so Warner is just reacting to this. I agree that pulling the video of a guy teaching sign language may be going overboard, but Warner stated that their song identifying software is automatic and has no way of distinguishing professional from amateur. This is a much more efficient way of removing videos than having someone manually go through them, which would be pretty much impossible. Warner may seem like the bad guy here, but they are just doing what they need to do. I think any other music company would do the same thing if they could not agree to terms with YouTube. As much as it stinks, people need to remember that there’s always a risk when you post something on the internet. Having Warner remove the videos is not the worst thing that could have happened, being sued would be a lot worse.

The New Real

This article brings up some interesting questions. I see the positive aspects of digitally reproducing great masterpieces to for example exhibit them where the artist intended originally. But I think that Walter Benjamin's concept of an art work having an aura is still true. With reproduction, or cloning this aura could be lost, or multiplyed? The artist intended to make, and made only one masterpiece. When technology alows us to clone, "one of a kinds" and put them in the place of the original it is a tribute, but it also reminds me of the missing master. More people can experience it but, is there experianc authentic?

Rights Clash on YouTube

I think the most important thing is to focus more on the professionally-made material while letting amateur videos made for fun remain on YouTube. Removing home videos with songs playing in the background is nonsense to me.

This reminds me of when I was in school for graphic design. We were told to change an image in seven distinct ways before using it in our work. I am not sure if there is any legal merit to that, but it is a good way to scare people out of using other people's work.

I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. Copyright laws should be frequently reviewed and updated to keep up with the rapidly-changing means of creating, using and sharing media.

YouTube vs. Warner Music

I understand that copyright is an important thing for music and even artworks itself. But since YouTube is a public website, and anyone could sign up for it, I think that people should not have to take down their video unless it is not appropriate for the public eye. Most of the users of YouTube are usually amateur, and they post up video for fun to share with friends and family. I feel that the Warner Music Group should not have had YouTube to tell the high school sophomore to take down her video, in a way it is her own version of the song. If every song is copyrighted, which it probably is, so people can’t just sing for fun, like in karaoke or other. What about American idol or America’s got talent, the contestant all sing already known songs. Even though if you tube ask everyone to take down their video because it was copyrighted, there will be other websites that will post up. The corporations will have to track down every websites. I just feel that to keep both sides happy, maybe the users should add on the artist and title of the song, so that they are not “stealing” the song, they mentioned it.

Neuroaesthetics

Before I began to read the article, I was looking at the picture. It felt like someone scratching the blackboard, with the chills down my spine. The white lines reminded me of that. It was as if someone did not like the painting and decided to scratch of everyone that has eyes on the painting. But the article was not really related to the artwork. I felt that it is true in a way of how people think about a artwork. It could be because they saw another style first and decides that it is beautiful. When they look at another style they may think it’s not art or something, especially, between a figurative and abstract artwork. People may choose the figurative because it is more representational, whereas the abstract one is abstract. Ever heard someone say “oh, I could do that too, how hard is it to paint a box?” and you wonder how the brain works. To me, I feel that the brain works from experience on what the person may have learned or not learned, experienced and not experienced. It would be really interesting to find out how the brain really works, when looking at artwork. Like, why a person like a certain style over another style. Is it because of experiences or is it that that’s just how the brain works.

Warner VS Youtube

I feel that the face that Warner Bros are preventing regular people from posting covers of songs is getting to be a little ridiculous. Even videos that have a song in the background? Why? I feel like its more of a benefit because people could be watching the video and wondering who the singer really is, gaining more exposure and free advertising for the artists. These people are not making money off of doing covers, and its obvious that it is a cover. I can see Warner Bros side, but I don't think its as valid of a reason, especially trying to take innocent people to court. It makes me afraid almost to put any video up on youtube. A student where I was student teaching made a pixilation video with a popular song in the background, and it was credited, but youtube ended up deleting it because of the song. I thought it was unfair, and almost ridiculous in that matter. 

It is very hard now to copyright anything that is online. Any piece of artwork I post on the internet is basically not mine anymore. There is a lot of debate on who owns the artwork when you post it, even posting a piece of your work on Facebook. There is tiny print on Facebook that says they own any picture you post on their site, which makes me not want to post anything on there.

YouTube vs Warner Music Group

It's time for the music industry to catch up with new media. With very few exceptions, instead of changing with the times, they have been fighting against them. When the copyright laws were written the Internet, bit torrent , and peer to peer file sharing were nonexistent. The laws are out of date, and need to be revised to work with new media like YouTube.

I would bet that if you asked individual artists if they though Juliet Weybret's cover of their song should be removed from YouTube, very few (like Metallica) would say "Yes." Progress is a result of taking ideas and building on them, remixing them, combining them into new ideas and sharing them. What the music industry, or any industry that relies on copyright law, needs to do if come up with a viable way that this can happen without turning people into targets for legal action.

Creative Commons , headed up by Lawrence Lessig, is the perfect example of how to do this. They provide legal ways to copyright material with many different clear degrees of freedom of use. Lessig has created a system that is legal, and allows for the culture of remixing and sharing of ideas. It is time for copyright law to take a huge step forward and continue to evolve with new media and the culture surrounding it.

Clements: YouTube vs Warner Music Article Response

I feel somewhat caught in the middle on this issue. I can see both sides of the story. While users like Juliet Weybret may have no intention of making a commercial profit from their videos (which happens to have copyright protected material), Google in the end makes money. On the other hand, it really stinks that Warner Music is interfering with creative expression. It would seem that allowing YouTubers to use their music would almost increase its popularity, possibly increasing their revenue...this however, is just a hypothesis.

In this age of new media and technology, music, videos, and the latest news spreads like wildfire even unintentionally. I'm not exactly sure how Warner Music is planning on preventing the posting of its material online...Like Dustin McLean, YouTubers may just migrate their videos to their own personal sites...perhaps they'll start making money and the problem will just go on and on. It's like a dog chasing its tail. Maybe it's easy to catch right now, but eventually it will quickly get dizzy.

youtube v. warner

There is an interesting dynamic that exists in a case like this. On the one hand it seems like Warner is the big bad corporation that is shutting down the little guy out of blind greed. I can hardly see how a 15 year old girl's cover of a Christmas carol really affects Warner's profits. On the other hand, youtube has become a multimillion dollar organization as well. Seeing as they profit from the amount of videos users post, they have essentially the same incentive (money) as Warner. In light of the copyright laws, I guess the only fair thing would be for youtube to give Warner a cut of the profits that they make off of their copyrighted material, but then that would open them up to every company out their doing the same thing. I don't know that I can see a solution that keeps all parties happy that repects and upholds the law. I do think that this sort of thing represents how record companies are becoming irrelevant and are resistant to change. No one buys CDs anymore, and more and more musicians are releasing their own music on the internet and are even putting it up for free. I wonder how long it will be before record companies either get with the times and accept that things are changing or else become totally obsolete and vanish...

Rachel Stepaniuk: Neuroaesthetics

I find studies in neuroaesthetics to be extremely fascinating. The human brain is so complex and interesting. Why not keep studying it and see what more we can find and understand? I consider myself to be a very visual person and it’s fun to think about different areas of my brain being more active than others. However, with that said, what can we really do with what we find from such studies? Art isn’t going to change because of it, and people will still like what they like. Even if we can plot fundamental emotions on charts, it’s not going to change what we are drawn to. I don’t see why art critics would be threatened by Zeki’s work. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how advanced knowledge of processing centers in the brain will change anything when it comes to raw human perception. I would like to know more about why Zeki thinks these studies are necessary, and what can be gained from them.

Neuroaesthetics

The science of the aesthetic experience. I suppose I can see how this is something that scientists as well as artists would like to understand. Especially since artists attempt to evoke particular emotions through our work, and maybe understanding the many dimensions of how the brain views a piece of artwork will allow us to further explore the interaction between the viewer and art.

I suppose this study on the universal beauty is similar to the studies on what makes beautiful faces and what humans find attractive in a mate. Wouldn’t the brain react similarly if they both provoke similar experiences? I guess I find it even more interesting to think that maybe there is a formula to creating an aesthetic experience that can be measured in degrees. However, I don’t feel its possible to truly measure beauty. Like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally wouldn’t want someone telling me a piece of art has more beauty value then the next. I feel that would take away from the overall experience when viewing art. It would be like booking a hotel on hotel.com and being told that I should go to this hotel rather then this one. I guess I think that something’s shouldn’t be measured and left to each individual to decide what they think is beautiful or not.

Andolina - Neuroaesthetics

This was one of the most interesting articles I  have read to date.  I never would have thought famous artists  working in this way. I feel each brain sees the world as it wants to be seen, just as the famous saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I am wondering if this "innate" understanding of how the brain sees the world embodies more of us than just famous artists.

Zeki also mentions how one can deceive oneself when looking at art in its context, or say falling in love. He has a very scientific way of looking at art and the brain while looking at art. The article also mentions the values of art and how we are easily persuaded.

The part that interested me the most is when Zeki talks about someone having an "an eye", and could spot a fake from a real piece of art. I had recently read a book by Malcom Gladwell that mentioned instincts and had a story based on a piece of artwork that was a fake. 

This article does seem to bring a new and different light to art and its importance, especially on a scientific level.  

Clements: Neuroaesthetics Article Response

I loved this article. I have always been fascinated by the connections between art and science; this seems to be a true blend of the two. Zenki's research about the connection between visual appeal aka "beauty" and it's correlation to brain impulses and responses may prove to have a tremendous impact on art making in the future. If we knew exactly what was appealing to viewers on a neurological level, wouldn't it be easy to create art that was in high demand and thus very lucrative? Would this be beneficial or a detriment to the authenticity of the artistic process?

Zenki's view of art history "as the progression of the human brain’s understanding of its own capacity for visual perception" may serve as an explanation of the trends and artistic movements. Has our artistic taste changed due to the biological evolution of the human brain? The idea that we are able to determine which areas of the brain are stimulated by different visual representation such as portraiture verses landscape and the ability to identify the order in which sensory cues are perceived, for example, color before shape and form is amazing.


It is, in my opinion, human nature to be influenced by context and the information presented to us...thus, placing more value on a piece of art simply because it has been selected for exhibition in the Met is not surprising to me. Is it really beautiful and appealing, or is it appealing because it has been dubbed valuable? As intriguing as this information and data may be, I think the real excitement will come from its use which will surely be controversial...Perhaps Zenki's research may open a new Pandora's box, unleashing a plethora of new questions about aesthetics and the value of art, as well as the ethics and integrity of genuine art making.

Da Vinci

I think that this issue of creating replicas of works of art to display in the place of the originals is a strange concept. I understand that we want to preserve the original works, but what is the point of having them if they are sitting in a lightless airless box where no one can see them. By preserving the originals we are prematurely ending their existence for the purpose for which they were made. I think that there is something to be said for seeing a work of art for the original purpose for which it was made. I am not sure if it is more important for me to see the original, or the context, or just the image. I am reminded of seeing the statue of Marcus Aurelius at Capitoline Hill in Rome. In the center of the piazza there is a large replica statue where the original used to stand. Inside the museum was the original. I was much more impressed by the replica in context than the original in a white room. I felt almost the same when seeing the David in Florence. The only thing this lacks is the general sensation that I am in the presence of the actual object that was touched by Michelangelo (for example), but that is a rather fleeting sensation for myself. This very similar to the digital replica of the painting discussed in the article.
I still think that digital technologies are not quite advanced enough to create an exact replica of most works of art. An extremely high resolution digital print of a renaissance painting might be sufficient to capture the physicality of the work. Renaissance artists painted very flat, but could this work for Van Gogh? Once depth is introduced into a painting then a digital print is no longer sufficient. It seems that we already have the technology to create an accurate representation of a flat surface, and I am fairly sure that we can scan three-dimensional objects and create a perfect replica. We need to combine the two. I think if we could create a 3D replica of a painting that captures the brush strokes and depth, and colors each stroke appropriately then I think that there is little difference between owning or viewing the real thing or a replica.

You Tube

I found this discussion of YouTube to be rather interesting, though somewhat dated. The article was written in 2006 and I believe that YouTube has only grown in popularity since then. As far as I have seen, YouTube has changed little since its purchase by Google. The article discusses ways in which a monetary gain can be produced through advertising the way that television has commercials. YouTube has yet to introduce commercials before or after videos placed on the site. I think, and it would seem that the executives in charge agree, that this would be detrimental to its popularity. If YouTube did this, or charged people for membership with the sight, then competitors would create another site that would please users more. YouTube is not a revolutionary technology, but a revolutionary idea that happened to come about at the right time. Adding commercial spots, or charging would simply make for the right time for a competitor to succeed.
The idea of targeted advertising would likely be more successful. This, however, does not guarantee that a user would follow the link to the advertisers page. Likewise, television has developed easy to use technologies that allow viewers to skip commercials. TiVo and DVR have made it possible for people to record shows and fast-forward through commercials. I think that the introduction of non-intrusive targeted advertising on YouTube could eventually prove as successful as television commercials. If internet connections continue to improve, and streaming video technologies allow for better quality then YouTube could probably surpass traditional television in popularity. This coupled with many television viewers skipping commercials could make YouTube the new mainstream media. I think that television networks should start airing second runs of their shows on this platform. This would benefit the user with better quality, reduce illegal copying and sharing, and benefit the networks if targeted advertising can be implemented. Maybe something can be worked out that networks buy YouTube accounts and advertisers pay the networks to place ads on their “channels.” In this way, YouTube could remain user friendly, with limited commercial intrusions.

Beauty And Brains

I’m not sure that I understand the real significance of the findings described in the article. It seems to me that knowing which part of the brain is affected by aesthetic beauty will cause little change in the art world. First, I would imagine that this is subjective. I can’t believe that we can do a couple of brain scans while people are looking at a work of art, and suddenly decide that it is universally unpleasing to the aesthetic receptors. It could tell you whether an individual person believes that an individual work is beautiful or not, but I think on the whole we would gather little more.
Second, the article suggests that the value of works of art can change overnight, but I think the value of a work of art is not simply in its aesthetic beauty. While I do consider that highly important in a work of art it is not the only consideration, and I do not believe that art is valued in this way. I am a big fan of Marcel Duchamp, I know the article mocked his fountain, but I do not place beauty at the top of my list for the reason that I appreciate his work. Some of his works have a beauty to their construction but some are merely a snow shovel, or a urinal. According to the fears of art critics as described in the article, if I were to be tested I would discover that I do not find this work that aesthetically pleasing and therefore hate it.
I believe that there are many factors that go into deciding whether or not a work of art is valuable. When I assign value to a work in my mind I know that the decision is being based on beauty, skill, originality, concept, etc. This process determines one of many factors that go into this decision.

response: Neuroaesthetics

It's very strange that that the word, beauty, has been used as the focus of this study. My idea of beauty evolves from the first impression as I gather more knowledge and experience. To me, this applies not only to people and places, but to artwork as well. I would be curious to understand the different neurological effects of artwork seen for the first time versus artwork that is familiar to the viewer.

Zeki's research should also take trends into consideration. It's hard to believe that pleated bleached jeans and blazers with shoulder pads were once beautiful to many [raises hand]. The fact that some people, once again adopt these fashion beauties today makes my neurotransmitters chuckle.

The article mentions that the directors of auction houses may be most threatened by the research, but fails to offer that perhaps people who go to auctions have a similar aesthetic preference. This makes me wonder if Zeki himself has a narrow definition of art, despite the mention of his extensive work with artists.

It's inspiring that research is being done in an attempt to bridge the gap between art and science, but I don't think a study like this can be very useful without also investigating many important factors.

Neuroaesthetics

I think that Zeki’s view of art history as a study in the progression of the understanding our own visual perception is very interesting. I wonder if his research would be less controversial if he was focusing more on this aspect, and not the beauty aspect. There is still very little known about how visual perception works, and I think research with the goal to further understanding would be more valuable than what Zeki is doing. Questions like “what is beauty? “ and “what is art?” have as many different answers as there are people on this planet. People have been trying to discover the answer to that question for a very long time. If there is a universal beauty, how can you account for all the different kinds of art? Wouldn’t everything start looking the same, if we were all driven to a universal beauty? I find the idea of a universal beauty difficult. How do you account for the constantly changing styles of art and standards of beauty throughout history and between cultures?