Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
brainpanhandler, thanks for mentioning that.brainpanhandler wrote:So Kellaris.... http://www.uc.edu/news/kellaris.htm
Kellaris is a marketing professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Business Administration so not surprisingly the bastard is really just looking for the best way to hijack our auditory cortices and enlsave them to inane little ditties advertising the cures for everything that ails us.
norton ash wrote:WOW, Alaya, I was just telling a friend the other day how once the guitar break-bridge in a pop song got stuck in my head for WEEKS and was driving me mad because I couldn't figure out where the hell it was from... and it was the one toward the end of 'Knowing Me, Knowing You.'
It was the most vexing time I've ever had with trying to figure out where a piece of music was from, and why I kept hearing it in my head.
We listened to AM top 40 radio in the work vehicles when I was on a survey crew in the early 80's, and 'Elvira' by the Oak Ridge Boys, and 'Playin With The Queen of Hearts' by Juice Newton drove me nuts. Songs I didn't like, and could...not...shake.
I always hear 'Purple Rain' during slow driving in blizzards, whiteouts... that's because I heard it for the very first time in that exact situation in Manitoba. But it's a good thing...I love when I hear it in my head, it's reassuring, it comes over me like a prayer or a benign light... the closing riffs sound like drifting forward through a vastness you just have to go with, but carefully.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps is a hard-to-shake earworm.
(Listen to Prince's 'holy fuck' solo in this Hall of Fame version.)
(Gee, I had fun getting here.) (Of course 'Eldorado' Jeff Lynne is in the band so we'll go full circle.)
na wrote:WOW, Alaya, I was just telling a friend the other day...
streeb wrote:
Allegro wrote:...But then I found IMO a satisfying co-written pdf by Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake, which I’ve not read entirely, titled The Arts are More than Aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics. The paper has nothing to do with earworms, btw, and was probably published 2007, and distinguishes neuroaesthetics with neuroartsology. The authors suggest the latter studies might in time become more important than the former.
I wrote:I intend on getting to this when I have more time.Allegro wrote:...But then I found IMO a satisfying co-written pdf by Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake, which I’ve not read entirely, titled The Arts are More than Aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics. The paper has nothing to do with earworms, btw, and was probably published 2007, and distinguishes neuroaesthetics with neuroartsology. The authors suggest the latter studies might in time become more important than the former.
Sounds intruiging.
Finally, to the extent that the arts are perceived as rewarding, this is not so
only because artworks are appealing objects. There is a wide variety of rewarding
emotions that occur when people create and experience art apart from simply
object-based emotions, including the pleasure of social communion and the moral
zeal of common cause.
I have purposefully stacked comments in different spaces below. If I hadn't, I would've lost my way and you, entirely!Allegro wrote:Hey, BP, I will get back with you with some ideas to add to your thoughts. ... By that time, I will have read the entire chapter or excerpt you've referred to (re neuroartsology), and maybe I'll have something to add too wrt finger painting.
Me too.brainpanhandler wrote:... I say let's have a finger painting party. I'd vote for them. [Refer.]
Here’s a thought about art in antiquity that might suit you. Remember those discussions Bill Moyers had with various philosophers, like 20 years or so ago? One was a talk with Joseph Campbell, and in one of those videos Campbell described what we might call a philosopher or shaman. Now, please note, I'm writing what I remember from the video I watched some years ago.brainpanhandler wrote:...It seems to me that if one can figure out what art was for homo sapiens in a period like the late stone age then I'll be closer to an answer that is more foundational and less weighed down by the trappings and complexities of modernity, which is what this post was about in that thread. I wanted to discuss those finger flutings in that thread but no one took me up on it. They are still a mystery and we do love mysteries here at RI. [Refer.]
While reading the February, 1947, article you posted, Paint with Your Fingers, I felt as you wrote “…weighed down by the trappings and complexities of modernity,....” Y’know, I was expecting a feel-good article, yet as it turned, I remembered Adam Curtis’s documentary, The Trap, that revealed convoluted pretenses the psychiatric community accomplished here in the states and UK during the latter twentieth century. Then, there is the matter, noted in the last paragraph of that article, of the army and navy getting their fingers in on finger painting for purposes likely to have been intelligence gathering. Jeez, what must’ve the US military not been involved in?b 1881, Spanish painter, sculptor, Pablo Ruiz Picasso wrote:All children are born artists.
The problem is to remain artists as we grow up.
About the neuroartsology thing. What I think the inventors of the neologism, neuroartsology, want is to scrupulously augment conventional Eurocentric objectifications, phenomena and perceptual preferences of art and music with definitions of art and music as what people do, as actions or behaviors of doing alone or in a group. Or, as the authors wrote: “...a neuroartsology that seeks to explain the full array of cognitive, neural, and cultural phenomena involved in the universal behaviors of artification.” (For those who’ve not read the paper, artification is a neologism for art as an activity; something people do (to “artify”)).brainpanhandler wrote:I read through the excerpt. I'm not sure I entirely understand their point except that they want to counter the western enlightenment notion of art as being this rarified objectification of aesthetic sensibilities based on limited criteria that seemingly have no pragmatic/social purposes and that don't function to do anything other than observe and be observed, just to pick sight for an example. [Refer.]
You bet they get it! The Russian composer born 1906, Dmitri Shostakovich, comes to mind. In addition, I would refer the first four pages of introduction in pdf The Mass Psychology of Fascism as this writer’s preferred definition of fascism.brainpanhandler wrote:The other thought that occurs to me in reading the excerpt on neuroartsology is that fascist governments seem figure out pretty quickly that the arts, insofar as they function in the social ways that Brown/Dissanayake contend, are a threat and need to be suppressed/controlled and rechannelled into pursuits/themes/purposes in concordance with the state's interests. In other words, murdering and incarcerating the subversive artists is usually pretty high on the fascist to do list. So when they write:You can be sure the fascists get/got this. ... [Refer.]Finally, to the extent that the arts are perceived as rewarding, this is not so
only because artworks are appealing objects. There is a wide variety of rewarding
emotions that occur when people create and experience art apart from simply
object-based emotions, including the pleasure of social communion and the moral
zeal of common cause.
Return to The Lounge & Member News
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest