Tallsman’s article brings up some really interesting points- particularly the idea of authenticity. She notes the difference between an authentic object and an authentic experience. She claims that in this day and age, authenticity has supplanted beauty as the primary criterion of value. This is definitely true- people tend to be so caught up and concerned in the authenticity or “realness” of an object/piece of art, that they fail to recognize and appreciate it’s beauty or aesthetic appeal.
Knowing Greenways films, I didn’t really now what to expect with the project. (Did anyone else see the Pillow Book? Its crazy!) I thought that a lot more of the personal voice of the director would be present, and I was pleased to see that it wasn’t! After watching the video, I became kind of fascinated with this piece and while I can see how some people might be opposed to altering such a monumental work of art, I personally found it to be both aesthetically pleasing and emotionally engaging. To my pleasant surprise, the projections seemed quite natural and harmonious when combined with the original work.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
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.
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.
Neuroaesthetics
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" right? The article about neuroaesthetics defines with scientific evidence what has been intuitive action for humans. However there I believe there is still an ineffable aspect about beauty which can never be proven. It is that "essesence" which is just out of our control to decide. However if funding for this research continues imagine being able to assess a person from the inside and out just on a glance. This would mean an end to all bad relationships forever!
Neuroaesthetics
What an interesting article and scientific theory. The concept that we could measure what most people find beautiful and use that when creating art. The idea that maybe the great masters of art, were in fact instinctive neuroscientists and have some higher understanding of how the brain views the world and beauty. Therefore, these artists could always create a visual language what was pleasurable to the eye. Imagine that scientifically we knew why we are attracted to certain pieces of art rather than an other; artists might change their style to be more pleasing to the publics’ eye and sell more artwork. This concept could be a threat to audition houses, art critics, artists, and art itself if pattern, design, composition, duration, materials uses, ideas, etc no longer mattered. And rather we classify what beautiful art is based on the publics’ overall opinion.
I think this is a very interesting scientific concept that could have some results on the art world. However, for the most part I think artists, art collectors, art critics, and etc would probably work even harder to find new ways to change art and refine beauty.
What an interesting article and scientific theory. The concept that we could measure what most people find beautiful and use that when creating art. The idea that maybe the great masters of art, were in fact instinctive neuroscientists and have some higher understanding of how the brain views the world and beauty. Therefore, these artists could always create a visual language what was pleasurable to the eye. Imagine that scientifically we knew why we are attracted to certain pieces of art rather than an other; artists might change their style to be more pleasing to the publics’ eye and sell more artwork. This concept could be a threat to audition houses, art critics, artists, and art itself if pattern, design, composition, duration, materials uses, ideas, etc no longer mattered. And rather we classify what beautiful art is based on the publics’ overall opinion.
I think this is a very interesting scientific concept that could have some results on the art world. However, for the most part I think artists, art collectors, art critics, and etc would probably work even harder to find new ways to change art and refine beauty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)