Boston Med Or Shark Week: Psychology Of Aesthetics

Also on the contrary to Johnsons article, Stevens discusses the examples of television shows that Johnson mentions that he is convinced enhances brain function by making the viewers pay attention, make inferences, and track shifting relationships between characters. Some of these shows are The Sopranos, 24, Hill Street Blues, and others. The show The Sopranos, is a prime example because this show will “connect multiple threads at the same time, layering one plot atop another” (Johnson, 283). Therefore, The Sopranos require a lot more attention from their audience engaging them with complex characterization and intertwining multiple episodes, which is what Johnson calls the “Sleeper Curve.” But does engaging in television shows such as this benefit the brain in anyway? Stevens says no; she believes in watching shows like these, “watching TV teaches you to watch more TV” (Stevens, 296).

Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional Intelligence in associations: a conceptualization. Hereditary Social and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209-224.

While emotional intelligence is vital to human behavior, it only accounts for a portion of a person as a whole. The author states, “IQ, personality, and EQ are distinct qualities we all possess. Together, they determine how we think and act. It is impossible to predict one based upon another. People may be intelligent but not emotionally intelligent, and people of all types of personalities can be high in EQ and/or IQ. Of the three, EQ is the only quality that is flexible and able to change” (p. 19). There is no know

In the article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter," Steven Johnson argues why and how television can make you smarter. In another article, “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box," Dana Stevens contradicts everything Steven Johnson said in his article about television making people more intelligent.

It’s weird to say but I love to cry (something I’ve always known) – I’m a hard core hopeless romantic and I like to feel the emotions the characters are feeling no matter what they are. As much as I hate politics when I watch my favorite talk shows I do find myself debating their views with my own. All my drama shows that I watch I found myself wondering what I would do if I was in their situation. Meaning that the shows challenge my moral and values. The conscience of the television got into my conscious which made me switch around what I would watch. When my drama shows tugged to hard at my sad emotions I would turn my superhero show as if I needed saving from this theoretical

only this T.V. show is addicting but it will make your brain to be more complex of thinking or

In the best movies and tv shows they have some qualities in common. These qualities engaged us as the audience to watch the whole things instead of sleeping half way through it. These qualities make us feel what the character feel when something bad or good happen to him or her. Make us sad when a innocent character is killed. This lead us to tell all of our friends to watch this certain movie or tv show.

Watching television is a very controversial hobby, thus it can easily turn into an addiction. Television might keep us informed about our surroundings, as well as it might also make us completely unaware and ignorant; it all depends on what we decide to watch, and to what extent. For me, choosing a series or channel fully depends on my mood. When I feel like learning something new and interesting, I tend to watch a Ted Talk or a documentary of any topic or current event that intrigues me. But when I feel mad or frustrated, I watch reality shows because they are very funny, less complex and they help me to avoid unhappy thoughts.

To begin with we will look at the issue of how modern TV can enlighten the audience. The author Stephen Johnson makes the argument of how TV is more complex, therefore it makes you smarter, in his article “Watching TV

Psychodynamic is the closest perspective I can tie to how a TV show influences me. First I watched the show then I liked the characters and now I mimic them in subtle ways. The tv show influence my unconscious mind and how I react from emotions as they seem to do on the show. I notice how I’m analyzing problems different seem or think I can bruce force scenarios in my head a hundred at a time. It’s funny but just today I was talking to somebody who was having a problem on the job. I gave her advice. Now that I think about it the advice came from the tv show. Consciously it came from me but unconsciously it came from scandal. I told them instead of arguing with the person and becoming inferior ask the person what they desire and negotiate

The readings for this week consisted of summaries in Applerouth and Edles (2016), excerpts from Discipline and Punish by Michael Foucault (1975), “Social Space and the Genesis of Groups” by Pierre Bourdieu (1982), “Outline of a Sociological Theory of Art Perception” also by Bourdieu (1968) and Orientalism by Edward Said (1978), as well as the article “Towards an ‘optics of power’: technologies of surveillance and discipline and case-loading midwifery practice in New Zealand” by Deborah Davis and Kim Walker (2013). All of these readings center on “Poststructuralism”, which Applerouth and Edles (2016) describe as being a response to “Structuralism” (Applerouth & Edles, 2016, pg. 644). Applerouth and Edles (2016) state that “From the perspective

With the leap-forward development of social economy and improvement of living standard, many people show their expectation to spiritual fields. They start to spend more of their spare time and money on entertainment to get the merry experience of the process. As a result, the film is incorporated into our daily life. American commercial film, particularly, is becoming more and more popular. Under the circumstance, the thesis applies the relative theoretical methods of life aesthetics, reception aesthetics, film-television aesthetics and aesthetic psychology. Its breakthrough point is the aesthetic activity of the audience 's reception experience while they are enjoying American commercial films. According to the four elements of Aesthetics Psychology Mechanism, the paper makes analysis from both lateral and vertical and explores the changes of Aesthetics Psychology Mechanism in the background of modern society based on the relationship between American commercial film and Aesthetics Psychology Mechanism. In addition, the paper analyses the film features and strategy choice of American commercial film under the new situation. From the discussion above, it can come to the conclusion that commercial film can get experience from the American commercial film, providing the feasible exploration for commercial film from perspective of Aesthetics in the future.

It could very well be true that over the past 20 years, television programming has developed in such a way as to demand more cognitive participation. However, watching TV is not the societal benefit Johnson makes it out to be. Johnson’s claim that TV is overall a beneficial societal force fails to account for the indirect effects of watching TV. It may be true that the cognitive demands of watching an episode of 24 do in fact stimulate brain function as opposed to diminish it. However, when a person sits down in front of the TV, he is choosing to do so instead of reading, studying, doing his homework, or exercising. These things are undisputedly beneficial to society. When one spends his time in front of the TV screen, it is time he is taking away from actually getting smarter.

In his essay “On the Origins of ‘Aesthetic Disinterestedness’” Jerome Stolnitz describes how aesthetic criticism began with Lord Shaftesbury’s idea of “the virtuous man as a spectator, devoted to ‘the very survey and contemplation’ of beauty in manners and morals, the initial ‘practical’ significance of ‘disinterested’ is supplanted altogether by the perceptual’,” a definition that would eventually grow from an ethical one to an aesthetic one (133). While much of the tradition of aesthetic theory is built on this idea of the necessity of being “disinterested” in the object in question, however, the implied inability to judge the aesthetic of objects a viewer is interested in is extremely limiting. Immanuel Kant, an inheritor of this idea, goes further and completely rules out any judgement from an interested viewer: “everyone must admit that a judgment about beauty, in which the least interest mingles, is very partial and is not a pure judgment of taste” (2). Both men, being of the 18th century, could never have anticipated a Modernist aesthetic which relies heavily on the beauty of utility and inherently requires an interested spectator. The aesthetic principles of Modernism are in many ways even entirely incompatible with the kind of aesthetic disinterestedness Kant espoused.

As a child, two of my sisters and I would gather at a television and we would watch shows together. My sisters and I loved watching each show, and to this day, we still watch the same shows, or some that are similar. There are a variety of shows that grab a large audience, and continue over each episode, because they are very interesting. What makes a show interesting is when there is some drama, romance, and when the story continues over each episode. Those qualities make people want to know what the conclusion is of a storyline. Since the audience wishes to find out what happens in the end, qualities like drama, romance, and continuing storylines, are attention grabbers, and they are what makes television shows great.