Injustice Everywhere: Hemingway's Struggle with Race, Gender, and Aesthetics

The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the aesthetic decisions and theoretical complexity of three of Ernest Hemingway’s most experimental texts: IN OUR TIME, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, and THE GARDEN OF EDEN, and to show that the usually maligned Hemingway was an author invested in the avant-garde and in analyzing and dissecting rigid societal rules, not championing them. Through critical analysis this study examined how Hemingway makes specific aesthetic decisions in order to more clearly examine the disparity between whites and both women and racial minorities in America. The problems that Hemingway makes clear through his art are meant to have a profound effect upon the reader and encourage re-evaluation of societal rules, their purpose, and their fairness to those who are not white, male, and typically in a position of power. The findings demonstrate that Hemingway’s entire oeuvre is open to re-interpretation on the basis of a progressive view of the author.

Neuroscience and Hindu Aesthetics: A Critical Analysis of V.S. Ramachandran’s “Science of Art”

Neuroaesthetics is the study of the brain’s response to artistic stimuli. The neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran contends that art is primarily “caricature” or “exaggeration.” Exaggerated forms hyperactivate neurons in viewers’ brains, which in turn produce specific, “universal” responses. Ramachandran identifies a precursor for his theory in the concept of rasa (literally “juice”) from classical Hindu aesthetics, which he associates with “exaggeration.” The canonical Sanskrit texts of Bharata Muni’s Natya Shastra and Abhinavagupta’s Abhinavabharati, however, do not support Ramachandran’s conclusions. They present audiences as dynamic co-creators, not passive recipients. I believe we could more accurately model the neurology of Hindu aesthetic experiences if we took indigenous rasa theory more seriously as qualitative data that could inform future research.