Monday, March 11, 2013

Blog #8: Thoughts on Kestrel's Eye

After watching this film I find myself wanting more out of it, in a traditional sense. That is, I found myself enjoying what I was physically watching but I also craved the narration and presented background/scientific information that is genreally presented in a nature documentary (which, as far as I am concerned, this movie should indeed be classified as). This fact leads me back to Carlson and how I have, at least thus far, been inclined to agree, more or less, with his stance that a proper aesthetic appreciation needs scientific knowledge to be a part of it. Had I the knowledge about kestrels that I desired during the viewing of the film, I definitely think I would have enjoyed it more, but would that simple differnce mean that I had a proper aesthetic experience? I am not sure of this answer. I do not think that enjoyment is a factor that determines an appropriate aesthetic experience nor do I think that I am entirely certain how to have one. So for now, I suppose, this question shall have to remain unanswered for me. But it does provide some very interesting food for thought.

No comments:

Post a Comment