1. Some of the key concepts I earned in the Philosophy of Art were, that Plato thought "There is beauty by which all things are beautiful". I liked this because to me I think it means any artist can consider there piece beautiful as long as they think it is beautiful. Also I learned that Plato did not hold other artists and poets in high regard and in most cases looked down on them. Lastly in this film I really like Morris Weitz and when he said, art is whatever we may call art, no matter what the object may be. I originally thought that art was art and there was something masterfully behind this but to here a philosopher think that art has the potential to be whatever you want it to be makes it seem like it would be a lot easier for a person to understand and appreciate art.
In Neurobiology Neurology and Art and Aesthetics, the one thing I got out of this video was that almost anything can be broke into a science. Ramachandran says it perfect in his presentation, you think of science and human behavior in two totally different aspects of life but where they are connected is the brain. He talked about how art is influence by what is going on in the brain through out his presentation and I guess took that away from the second video because he made it sound very interesting.
2. The philosophers take on aesthetics that I feel is most important is Morris Weitz. Weitz was a philosopher in the year 1956 that said, art is whatever we may call art, no matter what the object may be. Now I thought he was most important because I thought his theory would relate to anyone. What I mean by that is the people who don't understand art as much could relate to art being whatever they thought art was whether they liked the piece or not.
3. What I thought of Changeux and Ramachandran's scientific view of Aesthetics was interesting. I couldn't really get into Changeux's views of science in Aesthetics because I couldn't really get into him as a speaker. Ramachandran was very interesting he made jokes and seemed to keep the audience into his presentation. The most interesting thing I took out of Ramachandran's presentation was that he liked to talk about the science or scientific's of Aesthetics, not art. He stated that he thought art was more of a fad and what people where interested in or what more popular thing now a days to have up in your gallery or your home, where the science of Aesthetics could be brought out and documented and showed to people like he does in his presentation.
4. I think the videos relate very well to the readings in the text. In a few cases in the videos the they use examples from the same works of art as in the readings to prove and show some of there theories of Aesthetics.
5. All in all i enjoyed the films a alot better then the readings. For me it is a lot better to understand something when someone is talking about it rather than reading it. I feel that watching the videos helped me make more of what I read in the readings and understand it a little bit more. I feel the films added good depth to topics in the reading because they covered them again but in some aspects went more in depth with pictures or in Ramachandran's case comparing to other things that may have been a little more simpler to understand which ended up helping me out a lot better.
