Response to ETM's Question "What sections do I believe we should cover in this course?

Having just completed the P of M course last semester, I would prefer to spend more time on Appreciation, understanding and nature (I'm a big fan of "nature as art" and the artistic nature of other beings). For those same reasons and the portrait and landscape qualities of some photography, I'm very interested in Photography and representation.
I'm curious to learn about Feelings and fictions simply because it is a topic I have not previously contemplated. I abhor horror movies, I don't subject myself to them (or extreme violence or pornography) however, I am curious about what they do to us from a biological/psychological perspective - what function do they/can they serve to those who expose themselves to it, and what it is that I and others who never expose ourselves to horror as entertainment are, perhaps, missing. I am interested in Part 9 because I lack knowledge on this topic, and I'm very curious about most things which are novel to me. Wouldn't mind skipping Section 10 just because I know the topic makes me uncomfortable, but once again, novelty, curiosity of philosophical angle to topic...
Would love to debate Public Art and Are there societies without art? because these are topics I am passionate about, and about which I am eager to learn more.
I assume DKJ has read the text and would appreciate his insight on the topics, and I think your idea for an Aesthetics II has great merit.

Purpose, Utility, Intent, and Impermanency

I spent a good part of my summer pondering the impermanent nature of everything and wondering what the true purpose might be behind creating that, which by design, must decay.

I considered the possibility that it is all about evolution. But again, the fact that decay is inevitable for all things left me feeling that would be an illogical and impoverished evolutionary path - where and what is the gain when the solar system disappears?

This led me to wonder about the utility of categorizations like purpose, function, and performance in an impermanent world. What is the purpose/meaning of life? What is the function of evolution? Who/What/How was what we now classify as "life" created? Was it done intentionally and cognitively? Was impermanence assigned as an inherent characteristic of the original design? What is the logical outcome of design impermanency? What is/should be the ultimate goal of an impermanent existence for a reflective being?

Telfer's desire to classify food as a simple and minor art, partially because of food's utilitarian nature, its transiency, intensity of aesthetic reactions, aesthetic judgments, and the nature of "works of art" and "art forms" brought me back to my summer musings - but with a twist. Why do beings create? What is the purpose of the activity of creating? Does it serve an evolutionary function? Is it an aspect of a being's biological imperative? Is the act of creating inherently artistic? Is the creation of life an artistic act? Do all life forms create? Is creativity a necessity to actualize art? Must creativity necessarily be cogitative and intentional? Can art be created by the subconscious? Or accidentally? Should art be compared through interartistic disciplines?

I am extremely curious about humankind's propensity for judging and labeling, especially in the very personal and subjective realm of art. I am concerned about our society's obsession with value judgments proceeding from its materialistic, unethical, and spiritually impoverished mores and their misapplication to art.

More Questions:

Are judgments and dichotomies the result of the brain's biological need to find patterns through hierarchical imposition? Is this why society feels compelled to judge art? If it is, how does judging art inform us biologically or evolutionarily?

Reacting to Telfer's Food as Art

Telfer posits that the process of preparing, presenting, and consuming meals is too common, too necessary, too simple, too temporally, spatially, and sequentially insufficient to be considered as art. She defends these claims with references to the accepted practices of evaluation and classification to determine an artifact’s status as an art form or a work of art (p 20). She states food can be, and in some cases, is, an art, but it is only a minor art because it is not only simple, it is also limited by its impermanence, meaninglessness, and its inability to move us (p 26).

I found this particular reasoning constrictive, incomplete, and biased.

I agree with the idea offered in class by Ed, that the person experiencing the thing will be the one imposing the meaning of art upon it.

I think art is, by its nature, relational; and its relational nature has its origins in biology. All of our sensory perceptions are the result of signals transported through various organic mechanisms to the brain, which then interprets this data. Everyone is a unique assemblage of organic, psychological, and historical experiences. Although we may share many experiences in common, our associations are filtered through our individuation.

Art is a construct. Whether it is a social or cultural construct, each person will have a unique relationship to art. While individuals in our society may have evolved beyond the need for interpretation of particular organic sensory stimuli for survival, we cannot deny their rank as survival mechanisms for our ancestors. I am unwilling to presume that my concept of art is superior to any other person's concept of art (external judgment of a foreigner's internal experience). For these reasons, I am uncomfortable with evaluating or classifying any art as major or minor.

In response to Jacob's question, I believe that food is an art to those who experience it as such, and that often, the nature of the preparation, presentation, and consumption of food is inherently artistic.

My Question:
Can Telfer legitimately claim a disconnect between what food we eat, how and where it is grown or raised, how it is processed, transported, stored, marketed, obtained, and utilized by us, from what it tells us about the world and ourselves, as well as what it represents to us and others? (P 27

Reflecting on Environmental Protection Policies and Forest Management

Section 40 of the Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practices Act (MGL Chapter 132) declares that the public welfare requires the rehabilitation, maintenance, and protection of forest lands for the purpose of conserving water, preventing floods and soil erosion, improving the conditions for wildlife and recreation, protecting and improving air and water quality, and providing a continuing and increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use, and for the woodusing industries of the commonwealth.

Are the goals to rehabilitate, maintain, and protect forest lands to conserve water, prevent floods and soil erosion, protect and improve air and water quality, and improve conditions for wildlife compatible with the goals of improving conditions for recreation, or of providing a continuing and increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use, and for the woodusing industries of the state?

Should these policies be changed to reflect the broader goal of restoring natural forest habitat and wildlife communities or restructured to prevent long-term habitat and biodiversity losses?

Due to the interdependent nature of all life within and between ecosystems, issues of connectivity and the necessity of wildlife corridors must be considered. How do we balance conservation, preservation, or restoration of environmental systems across private and multi-use public lands? Does preservation of endangered and at risk species warrant dominance of private land by state or federal policies? How do we morally determine the merit, and fate, of invasive species in conflict with native species? How do we categorize non-native species that have been occupying the continent for 200 years? For 100 years? For 50 years? For 30 years? How do we judge and respond to invasive species whose offspring mature in 1 year? Literally hundreds of generations of some invasive species have successfully occupied our lands. At what point do we classify non-native species as native? Should we ever classify non-native species as native? Do invasive species ever occupy a niche without ousting the former occupants of that niche? If restoration requires it, how do we quantify the benefit of disturbing lands previously disturbed by anthropogenic actions?

What is the goal? Is the goal restoration to pre-anthropogenically disturbed condition? Is the goal obtaining a balance between post-anthropogenically disturbed condition in a manner that best supports the maximum environmental health and biodiversity of native habitat, flora, and fauna?

From a philosophical point of view, if this is the ethical position, is it a feasible position? If this involves extinct species and we have the technological ability to recreate extinct species, should we? How do we return the past without dislodging the present and affecting the future? What is our ethical obligation to the present? What is our ethical obligation to the future? Do we have any moral obligation to the past?

Positive, Negative, and Neutral Emotions

While reading David Huron’s book Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation, I learned that Huron used findings and techniques from modern cognitive research to expand on music theorist Leonard Meyer’s 1956 work, Emotion and Meaning in Music. Unfortunately, I was unable to delve further into Meyer's work at this time, but hope to explore this over the summer as I found Huron's work quite impressive. I was startled by Huron's belief that there are no neutral emotions, only positive or negative emotions. He refers to the positive or negative quality of emotion as valence. He defines contrastive valence as the conjecture that the hedonic value of an experience is amplified when preceded by a contrasting hedonic state. I need to research and process the concept of no neutral emotions, but I can see where evolutionarily speaking, organisms would need positive and negative response range to promote efficient survival mechanisms.

In my primary perusals I have found references to neutral emotions in The Effect of Positive Emotions on Multimedia Learning. This article's abstract states: "The study examined whether the positive emotions experienced during multimedia learning facilitate cognitive process that leads to better learning performance and satisfaction. Positive emotions were experimentally induced before a multimedia based learning by means of self-referencing mood induction procedure (positive or neutral emotions) and during the learning by the aesthetic design of the learning materials (good or neutral design). The result of the experiment shows that there is significant effect of emotions on their transfer test, mental effort investment, as well as level of satisfaction. It also indicates that positive emotions can be generated by the instructional design that may be able to affect learners’ experience and performance. The study implies that positive emotions should be considered as important factors in instructional design. Also, emotional design principles should be studied in more detail for better instructional material design."

The link to download the study is: http://create.alt.ed.nyu.edu/courses/2015/reading/Um_Song_Plass_ED-MEDIA_07.pdf

Other resources I have found that discuss the three categories of positive, negative, and neutral emotions relate to mental illness. An example is Hemispheric Differences in Recognition of Facial Expressions: A VHF-Study of Negative, Positive, and Neutral Emotions, Published in the International Journal of Neuroscience, Volume 45. Issue 3 & 4. April 1989. pages 205 - 213. It was authored by Kenneth Hugdahl et al. I will have the summer to explore what I believe to be the possible range of emotions, and determine whether or not I agree with Huron position that there are no neutral emotions.

My Question: Do neutral emotions exist in nature?