Paradigms and Purposes

Freeland's chapter 2: "Paradigms and Purposes" offers quite a sweep of ideas about art. Choose one perspective/idea/element from that chapter that in particular stands out to you and discuss it.

On page 38, Freeland writes that “The medievals followed three key principles for beautiful creations like cathedrals: proportion, light, and allegory.” I understand the emergence of new artistic forms, however in such a religiously influenced time, why was nature excluded from the “key principles”, especially since the natural world and God were closely linked throughout the bible. Cathedrals seem to have absolutely no sign of nature within them.

God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush. God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God led the Jews out of Egypt in the form of a cloud in the dessert. The three wise men followed a star to find Jesus in a manger. The supernatural world is linked to humans through nature. Before the fall of man, there was no need for this intermediate, but afterwards, man cannot look at God without suffering consequences. Saul, a biblical man in the Old Testament, caught a glimpse of God and was temporarily blinded. Even then, what he saw was an amazing light. The medievals correctly interpreted the significance of light and its relationship to God; however the gothic style cathedrals failed to incorporate nature.

Maybe it is because having something organic in a cathedral has the risk of dying, but people die too. Besides, the fear of death isn’t physical death, but spiritual death. Maybe it is because in heaven, nothing is organic, just the constant presence of the “light”. Can someone explain?

Chartres is an impressive display of the gothic style, but I wonder if this form of art expressed as a cathedral is another misinterpretation of the bible by the Catholic Church. I think it is the result of overzealous leaders. It reminds me of The Crusades, where the action was never justified or indicated by the bible, but misinterpretation of the bible sparked a “holy” war.

The Natural History of Art

Comment on Conniff's article: "The Natural History of Art."
Is our DNA "a sort of ghostly puppet master" (96) determining our aesthetical preferences?

The Conniff article presented some interesting points that only contribute to the ongoing mystery of the origins of the human race. I enjoyed reading the theories he has and it is all very intriguing, however I don’t believe his article possessed the content to persuade me. Some evidence does support the statement that DNA can influence our preferences, but Conniff’s conclusion is far from complete.

Our understanding of DNA expression is very limited, and certain situations may not be the same as others. Preference of art by human beings and the instinctive choice to inhabit grasslands by prairie deer mice have little similarities. Humans succumb to culture, trends, and nurturing. The attraction to savannahs does not indicate the role of genetics. It could be a temporary phase that in ten years no longer exists. The art will remain, but our preferences will change to favor another landscape. I’m sure if people could reproduce the sandy beaches of Hawaii with the gentle breeze and the steady beating of the waves, many would choose it over a savannah. This doesn’t mean we genetically prefer beaches either, we just exist in a culture and time period that acts as a “ghostly puppet master.”

I do believe that we, being DNA based, are victims of genetic predisposition, linking us to our parents and our ancestors. I don’t believe that preference is addressed by genetic predisposition and it can’t be genetically passed down to offspring, since preferences change with each generation. The dissimilarity amongst offspring also indicate that there is variation, even among twins.

The only link that I see between the visual stimulus of the savannah and our genetic timeline is the consistent goal of all animals to survive. Despite living in modern civilization, humans still have the instinct for survival. The savannah offers that, but I don’t think it is genetically coded that we will prefer surviving in the savannah over another environment. So basically, our instinct for survival could influence our preference for an environment, but it does not specify which environment.