As a Christian who was raised in the church, the discussion from the chapter “Paradigms and Perspectives” concerning “Chartres and medieval aesthetics” stood out to me the most. Although I am not Catholic and have only been to one cathedral in my life (I believe it was the Crystal Cathedral in California), I still felt a connection to that section of the chapter. I found it interesting to read about an earlier purpose for the church and the perspective and attitude communicated by even the architecture of the cathedral itself. Believers, architects, and society in general, took the Bible’s statements about God much farther and much more literally than the same people do today. For example, I liked how the entire cathedral was an allegory for God, which was probably a reflection of the higher focus on aesthetics during that time period. I can only compare this view with my own experience with Christian churches; although they are slightly different belief systems and set in much different time periods, I can only discuss what I know.
Usually, Protestant Christian churches today are rather large (in larger cities at least), but I have never heard that the size of the building was meant to make worshippers feel small and insignificant in comparison to God. Also, some churches are actually considerably unattractive; the belief today, as far as I know, is that the building does not matter; it is what is inside the worshippers’ hearts that counts. Stained glass and the use of light is relative common in churches today, at least the ones I have observed, but I have never had it communicated to me that the purpose of this was to emulate the beauty of God. The purpose I have always assumed behind the stained glass was to show scenes from the Bible in picture form. In worshippers’ minds and hearts today, there is probably an agreement with Thomas Aquinas’ statement that “beauty is an essential, or transcendental property of God,” but it has disappeared from the architecture of today’s modern churches.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Blog 1: DNA as a "ghostly puppet master"
Question: Is our DNA "a sort of ghostly puppet master" (96) determining our aesthetical preferences?
In Conniff’s article, he makes an interesting claim; that evolution, and in turn, our DNA, determines what we, as humans, find attractive. His statement made sense, to an extent, but in my opinion, there is more influencing our human appreciation of, for example, nature scenes and art. Also, he utilized rather narrow examples to back up his argument.
It makes sense to me that we as humans, since we are all very genetically similar, would have innate qualities that are not learned, and we do, such as reflexes and the desire (for the most part) to be involved in social relationships with others. However, although Conniff was relatively careful to keep his argument about art appreciation to the realm of nature (which is limiting in itself), there was one mistake. He mentioned that we appreciate ballet, a performing art, and particularly, wrote about the fact that women are able to perform so well in ballet because of their flexible ankles that evolved from their role of foraging for food in the trees. This claim allows me to point out a flaw in his discussion. He makes the point that ballerinas can do things that “few men can manage.” What about the ones that can? Also, ballet does not qualify as one of the peace-inducing, natural-scenery art pieces that Conniff argued that humans enjoy because of our common DNA qualities. I would have to argue that enjoying ballet has been influenced greatly through our society; the environment, not an innate, quality. I consider ballet an acquired taste; hence all of those sit-com shows (such as “Home Improvement”) where the man in the family is portrayed as hating ballet and other “cultured” events. If this appreciation were innate, all humans should have this appreciation. Once again, Conniff’s argument almost makes sense if he is only discussing humans’ appreciation for the natural environment, but he also brings it into the “culture” realm, where I believe that the “nurture” part of the “nature vs. nurture” debate is victorious.
In Conniff’s article, he makes an interesting claim; that evolution, and in turn, our DNA, determines what we, as humans, find attractive. His statement made sense, to an extent, but in my opinion, there is more influencing our human appreciation of, for example, nature scenes and art. Also, he utilized rather narrow examples to back up his argument.
It makes sense to me that we as humans, since we are all very genetically similar, would have innate qualities that are not learned, and we do, such as reflexes and the desire (for the most part) to be involved in social relationships with others. However, although Conniff was relatively careful to keep his argument about art appreciation to the realm of nature (which is limiting in itself), there was one mistake. He mentioned that we appreciate ballet, a performing art, and particularly, wrote about the fact that women are able to perform so well in ballet because of their flexible ankles that evolved from their role of foraging for food in the trees. This claim allows me to point out a flaw in his discussion. He makes the point that ballerinas can do things that “few men can manage.” What about the ones that can? Also, ballet does not qualify as one of the peace-inducing, natural-scenery art pieces that Conniff argued that humans enjoy because of our common DNA qualities. I would have to argue that enjoying ballet has been influenced greatly through our society; the environment, not an innate, quality. I consider ballet an acquired taste; hence all of those sit-com shows (such as “Home Improvement”) where the man in the family is portrayed as hating ballet and other “cultured” events. If this appreciation were innate, all humans should have this appreciation. Once again, Conniff’s argument almost makes sense if he is only discussing humans’ appreciation for the natural environment, but he also brings it into the “culture” realm, where I believe that the “nurture” part of the “nature vs. nurture” debate is victorious.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
