- "A long time ago someone proclaimed that art could not be studied scientifically, and for some reason almost everyone believed it. The humanities and sciences constituted, as Stephen Jay Gould might have proclaimed, separate, non-overlapping magisterial - that the tools of one are radically unsuited to the other" (Gottschall, 2014)
- "Our curious love affair with art sets our species apart as much as our sapience of our language or our use of tools. And yet we understand so little about art. We don't know why art exists in the first place. We don't know why we crave beauty. We don't know how art produces its effects in our brains - why one arrangement of sound or colour pleases while another cloys." (Gottschall, 2014)
- "There is nothing so central to human life that is so incompletely understood" (Gottschall, 2014)
- "If we want better answers to fundamental questions about art, science must jump in the game with both feet" (Gottschall, 2014)
- "There's the unexamined assumption that something in art makes it science-proof. There's a widespread, is usually unspoken, belief that art is just a frill in human life - relatively unimportant compared with the weighty stuff of science. And there's the weird idea that science necessarily destroys the beauty it seeks to explain (as though a learned astronomer really could dull the star shine)" (Gottschall, 2014)
This article supports the evaluation of art through scientific theory - such as Gestalt psychology, Arnheim's theories of visual perception and the Golden ratio. The arguments of Gottschall could be used alongside Arnheim, and the views of artist practitioners to discuss whether a psychological analysis of art is an effective one - this provides an introductory statement that hopefully will validate the premise of my written essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment