•••
Roy R. Behrens, Art, Design, and Brain Research: Non-Scientific Thoughts about Neuroesthetics in Gestalt Theory, Vol 35 No 2 (2013), pp 169-182—
Today, when I think about defining art (in truth, it’s something I usually try to avoid), I am reminded of an old routine that was part of a Monty Python comedy in 1972. It was a parody of an athletic competition, and one segment featured a sports-running contest in which the participants were "people with no sense of direction." In that sketch, the athletes were shown in their starting positions, awaiting the sound of the pistol. When the gun sounded, they all ran off—not down the track as expected, but instead in a wacky confusion of speeds, directions and running styles.…
I find it ironic that artists today are distressed by the imbalance of public devotion to art and athletics, and the seemingly limitless funding that goes to competitive sports in our society. It is typical for an artist to ask: Why isn't such funding given to the arts instead? Why is there so little coverage of art in the news when such excessive attention is given to sports? Why does art have such low priority in public education? In short: Why don't people take art seriously? I suspect this is largely explainable by the fact that in art, as widely practiced now, just as in the Monty Python sketch, there is no credible "contest" to watch.
