first video response

Changeux proposed scientific terms and links to genetics and aesthetics in his lecture. He mentioned many definitions of art, the meaning of it, and aesthetics. He views aesthetic experience as being a conscious access. His accent was very difficult to understand, so it was hard to decipher what exactly he was saying, and his ideas and proposals. I felt his lecture was dull for the most part, and made scientific sense, but didn't catch my interest. There were plenty of facts, but not enough appeal. The book reading was more interesting than him. In fact the most interesting fact that I pulled from his lecture, didn't even follow his theme; it was a description of empathy for pain, and how two people with a good relationship can experience each other's pain. Ramachandran discussed how science and art interact in the brain, and how art has an enormous affect on the brain. He believes in using 8 laws of art, which relate to one interesting fact about his lecture; where one has an "aha" experience as your brain and eyes linking things through aesthetics. At every stage, there is mini "aha" jolt when your brain visually perceives images. I thought the first film lacked any kind of interest, but the second film (the Ramachandran) had more of an appeal. Both films related to the text, but the first film related to it the closest. I felt that just by reading the text I had enough of an understanding, rather than watching the films as well. The films reinforced what I watched.