In this lecture, the context is attempting to understand art scientifically, and one of the more memorable statements for me is When we undergo art.. Or is it when will we undergo art..?
In the 1st talk though, he is mentioning – among other stuff – the issue of survival. He said that to begin with, stuff we might link to as art practices – had to do with Well-being. You need to have a certain well being to sing/draw/sculpt/dance/drum/talk in a way that affects a sense of well being in another person.
However, in a sort of conservative view, this well being idea then stopped within the illustration of how this meant that more well-being influencing people got a chance to have kids and propagate..
This propagation, in my view, is in fact basic survival, not thrival. Perhaps ironically, I think we can argue that Thriving, having the ability to practice stuff that we have no idea about, to Be utterly non-utalitarianistic, Un-functional, purposeless, dis-instrumentalised, is based on being sure you will in most probability, survive.
In the sense that we use art-linked practices for cultural, social, genetical propagation and survival – rather than questioning/searching and thrival, we are still stuck stuck stucked stuckkered and stuckistically just about surviving..
2nd talk mentions “Drive for art” as a gene.. I tend to think, Imagine genetic practice – from the view of a gene itself – as a search.. Search is trajectorally a drive, no?
3rd talk mentions brain sensations in relation to music. I found myself feeling – or sensing?? – the emotions they mentioned. However, it came as Questions. Do I want to feel X? Should I sense X from this music? Maybe I could change that sensation to something else? If I didn’t want, I’d just discard the effect…
Is this not how people do stuff?
I question any sensation/thought/feeling to then question the questioning of the process and so on..