I was particularly interested in the concept of parallel processing as discussed by Solso. Obviously the brain carries out simultaneous functions on a constant basis since it must first maintain vital functions before it adds on any action it might devote itself to. I was fascinated by the way in which seemingly singular brain activities are subdivided into many distinct processes that come together in a flash to form a unified thought. Much in the way that breathing and walking are separate activities but work in conjunction with each other to create movement, seeing the color red creates two different reactions (one caused by the emotional associations and one caused by evolutionary training) to create one opinion of the experience. These of course are just examples of the various activities going on in the brain during such an observation. By evolutionary reaction I mean both the way in which the brain receives the color and the instinct that accompanies it. This reaction is present in nearly all animals and can therefore in terms of neurological evolution can be seen as being “first.” The higher processing of a visual experience come “second.” Since the first process is present in brains that have not yet evolved to the point of parallel processing it could be argued that the additional processes were created by and in fact are higher brain activity. However, higher brain activity cannot exist without parallel processing,(Solso writes, “The subtle meaning of everyday events—the hunt, the cooking, the gathering of berries—was understood with greater complexity,” [Pg. 115]) therefore it can also be argued that these additional processes allowed higher brain activity to be born. Unsurprisingly, evolution has left us with another “chicken and egg” situation.
I believe parallel processing plays a large role in the development of our sense of selves. Before parallel processing we were beings with singular brain functions. We were conceptually and biologically able only to engage in one activity at a time. This ability was devoted to survival. With the addition of multiple simultaneous thought processes we not only had the ability to consider what we were doing, but could hardly avoid doing so. It is parallel processing that is responsible for us being able to lift our heads up from our task and look around look around in wonder.
It is because of Parallel processing that it is so hard to find a moment's rest from one's own thoughts. Clearing the mind of all thought can be incredibly complicated and difficult. The brain constantly produces blankets of thoughts from every instance of experience. The effort of suppressing thought causes reaction over the matter and more cognitive activity As soon as one thought is eradicated two spring up in its place.
Of course, it is this constant hum of thoughts that allow us to glean a high degree of information from the world around us. Art's foundation rests on parallel processing. Every artistic idea must be multifaceted in its meaning in order to be successful. It is the combination of thoughts that allow us to create higher, more revelatory truths and creates the sense of miraculousness that art gives us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was also extremely intrigued by parallel processing. The idea that our perception of the world relies on so many aspects of neural processing resonates with the way I look at art especially. As Solso says, "people react to visual stimuli (and other stimuli as well) with innumerable implicit associates, which attests to the richness of experience as well as the depth of cognition we all enjoy" (121). Not only do we see a piece of art, but each of its components causes us to respond in a huge variety of ways (drawing upon memory, emotional response and various other associations to both forms and colors), which combine to produce a rich and fulfilling experience. I think this illuminates the abstract problems we can run into when trying to analyze art: the subjectivity of the artistic viewing experience, and the difficulty we can find in expressing the full extent of our relationship to an artwork. I really like what Ernest said in his post, that "Every artistic idea must be multifaceted in order to be successful." I agree with this statement, and think that it's interesting to consider that often these many facets of meaning may be supplied by the viewer, who infers different meanings and responses than even the artist imagined.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing all of this talk of processing information makes me think of is Solso's assertion that we give life to light by perceiving it. Without the eye & brain to interpret the information that the electromagnetic energy of light can convey, light is rendered effectively useless. I like this idea because it seems to give us license to interpret the images of the world as we may: to use to their full capacity our interpretive faculties, and to continue our study of art in this way.