There is a new field of bioethics, related to neuroscience. See Marc Hauser's book, Moral Minds, 2006. He argues that humans have evolved to favor moral, just judgments. This has some application to aesthetics because if the good is moral and if the moral is beautiful then the good is beautiful. Perhaps a new field of bioaesthetics or evolutionary aesthetics is forthcoming. If the mind has evolved to benefit from moral judgment and if the same could be true of aesthetics then the same might be true of creativity. In other words, biology and evolution may favor moral creativity. The groundwork for this possibility is being cleared by biology and neuroscience.
I want to clarify what I think is the chief difference between art theory abnd art criticism. Art theory tries to determine what sort of art is exemplified by a cultural identity. It doesn't need to describe specific artworks or art objects. Art criticism is an examination of particular artworks in direct or only loose relation to art theory and art philosophy. Its main subject is existing art objects. WC --- On Fri, 10/31/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 10:45 AM > While William is lurking as he waits for Cheerskep to > improve his behavior > -- I'd like to give some more thought to differences > between the discourses of > art criticism/philosophy and the discourses of > neuroscience. > > First - by noting that discussions of neuroscience, just > like discussions of > art, include the category of journalism: the writers who > address the general > public in daily newspapers as well as monthly science > magazines. > > I can't find popular magazines devoted specifically to > neuroscience (as there > are for astronomy or aeronautics) -- but it is a frequent > subject in magazines > that cover all the sciences -- especially with articles > that deal with the > popular subject of "creativity" > > But while "creativity" seems an appropriate topic > for neuroscience, > "judgment" does not -- while, as William notes, > Art Theory is concerned with > "establishing past and future validation" and > "the goal of Art Criticism is > judgment" > > Can neuroscience address issues of judgment ? > > Presumably, it could show which parts of the brain are > involved -- but as > soon as it asks which judgment is better than another, it > has left its area of > expertise. > > For example -- perhaps a study might show that damage to a > certain area of the > brain removes the ability to distinguish the art or > aesthetic quality of a > Jackson Pollock painting from that of a randomly selected > house painter's drop > cloth. > > But whether that distinction is relevant to the critical > validation of art is > a question that only art theory and criticism can address. > > So I'd like to suggest that neuroscience is no more > relevant to art theory and > criticism than it is to any of the other high-level mental > activities that > humans may pursue -- like chess, mathematics, handicapping > horses, etc. > > Indeed it only serves as a distraction which points, as > does the success of > the "institutional theory", to the weakness of > contemporary art theory and > criticism. > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Click here to compare prices and features on point of sale > systems. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlQC1zGYi8ssWumZijX4tjWx > rXHlHjjYfQ1UV9wx4A43lLco/?count=1234567890
