hmmm...

Stafford’s chapter concerning, Form as figuring it out leveled with me for the most part, I enjoyed the reading. The middle section highlights how the human brain’s reorganization has effected how we think, perceive and react to a given stimulus. “The disproportionate enlargement of the prefrontal cortex with respect to the increase in absolute brain size (occurring some 50,000-100,00 years ago) helped increase the ability of humans to suppress reflexive responses to stimuli, thereby increasing behavioral freedom and the chances for rational reflection.” Arnheim would state that emotion is a consequence, rather than an instrument of discovery. George Bret, tells us that, “All emotions begin from a stimulus which disturbs the balance of the organism. The response varies with the nature of the organism and is more or less complex according to the level of development.” I couldn’t help but be reminded of my conference project I researched for Lizzie last semester, regarding emotion regulation. I focused on this exact issue of automaticity, conscious and subconscious reflexive responses to stimuli and when it is okay to allow certain urges that are so natural roam freely and when it is more appropriate to control them as well as how to distinguish between these situations. Temperament, emotion and the development of self-regulation and the relations between emotional dispositions and environmental qualities shape social development.


Stafford continues the discussion focusing the discovery of mirror neurons. Ramachandran reminds us that the important implications of mirror neurons are the explosive evolution of the ability to imitate or mime complex skills enabled their cultural transmission. I must say as someone with an extremely active mirror neural system, emotionally (wise), I found this paragraph quite intriguing. In humans the most dramatic developmental changes occur in prenatal development, infancy and childhood. Many important emotion regulatory skills and strategies are developed during the first five years of a child’s life. The emotional environment in which a child is raised can enhance or interfere with their ability to learn to regulate emotion and function with others. The very early development of emotional display infants does seem to suggest that some of the mechanisms for producing emotion are innate, or strongly canalized in development. For the most part after infancy emotional expression is learned from others, through observation and imitation. When a baby comes in contact with a stranger for the first time they will usually look at their mother’s current expression so they know how to act in this situation. If the mother reacts positively to the stranger, so will the baby. But, if the mother ignores the stranger then the baby will not react positively to the stranger. Although Stafford notes that we remain in the dark about the interactive context of such development, I believe the research I have conducted and have included above proves otherwise. My only question pertains to the statement she makes after in the core of this paragraph, “Perhaps this ignorance serves as a cautionary reminder of the limits of brain modularity research-despite its revelations.” I wasn’t to clear on where she was going with this assertion. She mentions the 18th century so I am unsure if we are still confronted with said limits regarding brain modularity research.


In an earlier section of the chapter Stafford praises, Gyorgy Kepes for structuring or what Kepes called the “discipline of forming” which is a fundamental part of perceiving because either we forget to remember the passing show so quickly or, the bits we do attend to, still must be actively accessed later through mnemonic re-performance. I am currently studying Kepes for conference this semester and the previous sentence emphasized an excerpt from Kepes; book Language of Vision. It is not an exact translation more so a trigger in thought of how I connected the two passages. “Every day something new is the inheritance of the last century’s disastrous urge. Continuity means development. Every period changes. But these changes have to be rooted in other than purely materialistic considerations. They have to grow from other sources. The different movements have a common denominator: a new spatial conception.” I interpreted the original statement differently from how others may swallow it. Basically the passing show is history, the various eras of and the impact they had on art at those specific times; Baroque, Gothic, Renaissance, etc. In order for new genres to be born we take the bits and pieces that we automatically form a connection with that we build upon to recreate anew.