Big Think Post: Neuroaesthetics

On Big Think today, I uncovered this particular article. Here's the link:

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/beauty-is-in-the-brain-of-the-beholder

This article only vaguely relevant to STAC, as it deals with something so foreign to us as art. Crazy, right? (In case you're technologically challenged, like me, that's sarcasm.) The article discusses both why and how the human brain is moved by different types of art. Personally, I think that this article is one of the best I've found on Big Think - a bit of a problem for me, as most of my Big Think posts are me finding flaws in the articles; but I digress. The article is well-written and thoroughly explains just how this all occurs. I'm a bit surprised that the article didn't elaborate more on its claim that art was vital to humanity, helping our ancient ancestors outcompete their aesthetically-challenged Neanderthal cousins. Personally, I'd have put in my two cents worth on that point, rather than simply stating, although not directly, "this happened because it happened." If it weren't for the fact that this article is more about how art appeals to us (neurologically speaking) rather than why, I wouldn't think that this is such a strong article, which I do. The article is well-written, to say the least, providing detailed explanations of the numerous scientific processes it discusses and dumbing them down for your everyday average Joe. It discusses why artists use "amplified colors" in their work (I put that in for you, Danny), describes the procedures that scientists used to determine this, and includes an excellent video from a leading authority on the subject. The video, obviously well thought-out, is straightforward and easy for the audience to understand, even if they have no prior knowledge on the subject (which I assume most of us don't, though I could be wrong). Another strength in this article is that it draws the subject outside of art by mentioning its potential applications in the fields of science and medicine. The article further strengthens itself by referring to critics who feel that neuroaesthetics are degrading our appreciation with art, and countering it with the professor's statement that this new science will not impact how we react; it will simply allow us to understand why. And as we all know, understanding why something happens or works doesn't always make it less important.