Neuroaesthetics, Part 1
Thursday, June 7th, 2007
I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to make a post about psychology as it is consuming more and more of my reading time (albeit, not for the most pleasant of reasons). But while most of my research has no place here to get a post of its own, there is a relatively new field of psychology that combines art and psychology in fascinating but controversial ways.
This new field, called neuroaesthetics, makes some very ambitious claims–to create a science of art, to understand “what art really is,” to show “the existence of universals in art based on neurological mechanisms.”
Now, don’t go getting your canvases in a bind, we’re still quite far from studying the effects of Damien Hirst on chimps–for now. But I feel neuroaesthetics deserves our attention simply for having the testicular fortitude to try something like this, despite how problematic the theories are.
The first problem I find is in the phrasing of the claim itself. In order to study art scientifically it’s first necessary to define art. “Artists have struggled with this question for millenia, been charged with the crime of copying nature or distorting reality when at the next table philosophers and psychologists agree that reality is completely subjective anyway.” Ultimately creating a specific definition of art is an individual endeavor as each one of us has differing ideas of what art can be and do and, more importantly, what good art is.
This is truly an impossible task to perform without an exclusionary definition–one that can quantify objects as either art or not art so as to limit the number of works that are currently considered to be “art.” Without such a definition scientists would be forced to develop theories that can encompass the entire gamut of art, everything including Greek architecture, paintings by the Renaissance masters, Duchamp‘s Dadaist works, Jackson Pollock‘s drip paintings, and Andy Warhol.
Inversely, imagine trying to make a painting one painting, that that encompasses the entirety of science–from astronomy to biology to quantum physics. Not only is it impossible (feel free to prove me wrong here) but it would also take lifetimes of study for an artist know enough science to create something remotely accurate.
I say all this as a preface because it just so happens that such a definition of art has already been made. Semir Zeki, a professor of neurobiology at University College London and one of the most prominent proponents of neuroaesthetics, has this to say in his book, Aesthetic Theories:
“Great art can thus be defined, in neurological terms, as that which comes closest to showing as many facets of the reality, rather than the appearance, as possible… The inestimable quality [of great art] is the opportunity that the brain is offered to give several interpretations, all of them valid.”
There we have it. But this definition is hardly satisfactory. As every artist very well knows, no work of art has a single interpretation. Different people bring different experiences, emotions, and histories with them to the art galleries. Even the simplest of works (in terms of concept, technical skill, or composition) have multitudes of readings–any of which can be considered valid.
I’d like to now cut through some of the bullshit here. I don’t believe that neuroaesthetics is about art at all. I find this to be a great exaggeration made simply for PR purposes. While the reality may sound like a minor difference, the implications are enormous. This is not about art but about what we see with our eyes and our brains’ responses to visual stimuli. This isn’t about subject matter but about color, line, shape, and texture.
Check out Part 2 where I delve into this further.
7 Responses to “Neuroaesthetics, Part 1”
June 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
One of my German bosses said, “If you dont understand it, its probably art.” I hope this was because he had a particularly…..modern…taste in art, some of which may seem more like firewood than art to other people. Still I love the quote.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Hahaha, that is a good quote. But there are lots of things I don’t understand that I wouldn’t call art, like how light switches work and where the world goes when I close my eyes.
But I’m sure some great art could be made out of firewood–especially if you consider arson an artform.
PS- I apologize for the pictureless post.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Updated with a spiffy pic!
June 10th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Your statement that Neuro-aesthetics is “not about art but about what we see . . .” is provocative and could be levelled at a lot of so-called art criticism esp (but not necessarily limited to) post modern deconstruction.
The “Art World” is completely unequipped to understand the mechanics of how paintings and music seduce the minds of their audiences. Those who comprehend at a deep level the nature of humanity including how people are moved (or bored) by beauty, ugliness or banality will give their creativity a greater edge.
Neuro-aesthetics is providing some very sharp knives to cut through the obesse claims made in the name of Art by self-serving Art mafia racketteurs, ego-trippers and pseudo-intellectuals who have enjoyed a priestly status in the twentieth century like bloated ticks.
I predict that neuro-aesthetics will fundamentally give a new direction and impetus to the creation of accessible, intentional and powerful art in all its many forms. It will reinforce that which we already know to be good (ie art that has survived the test of time) and hold vacuuity accountable.
I will be reading your posts with antici . . . pation!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Thanks for the comment, xxancroft, and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply.
I had a whole reply written out here when my web browser crashed. Take 2:
In general, you sound very angry–whether at art or artists or the whole damned thing–and I think you have good reason to be upset. I get upset at the state of the art world fairly often myself. There is a lot of hot air and nonsensical jargon out there and, indeed, a lot of art criticism exists as you described it.
In general, there is a disconnect between the art world and non-art world and I agree it is a problem. But even though there are many art-types who do cloak themselves in theory and language games and what-not, this elitism is only one small piece of the mess we're in.
I've never met any "Art mafia racketteurs, ego-trippers and pseudo-intellectuals"–I'm sure they're out there–but believe me that there are also a lot of good artists and good artworks out there. Even postmodernism, when you get past all the BS, has something meaningful to say.
Maybe I'm misreading you here, but it sounds like you're suggesting that neuroaesthetics will one day be able to separate good art from bad art. While I can't say this will never happen, I certainly can't imagine it. And I hope to hell that it doesn't. To paraphrase something I said in Part 3, if we’re creating a scientific definition of "good art," we may as well start work on a scientific definition of the "right religion." And I can't see anyone wanting that.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:59 am
thanxx for your reply. If I sound angry it is not at artists, but at something more amorphous – at the way discussions about art have become by and large the preserve of a priesthood of critics and academics who (over the twentieth century) have excavated a valley between the general public and those with “art-knowledge”. My biggest irritation is the adulation of bullshit/blankets/whatever dressed as meaning and the despisal of work with genuinely artful qualities.
I’m afraid Duchamp’s urinal always pissed me off regardless of the brilliance of the gesture to put it on a wall without the plumbing.I’ve become less interested in Art (and definitions of Art) and more interested in painting, carving, cartooning and what gives particular artworks their power. I’m frankly bored by single punch-line installations that are wheeled into galleries on all manner of vehicles and find it offensive as a tax-payer and rate-payer that this is generally the main diet offered by publicly funded galleries with the occasional blockbuster exhibition to get the turnstiles ticking over again. I find it in-comprehensible that Fine Arts departments preface their “progressive” course outlines with statements such as – “we don’t teach things that can learned from books” . . . . a hint to the lack of life drawing and other foundational material.
I see neuro-aesthetics as a way through the smog generated by factories of invisible yarn spinners and so-called “critical theoreticians”. Samir Zeki, Vilanyur Ramachandran Masahiro Mori and many many others have done a lot of work on the basics of particular aspects of vision and are well qualified to step back from brain electro-chemistry and see what kind of picture they are sketching; – about the affects of vision as manifest in humans. As many have suggested there is no art without a viewer. If an artist knows how to engage a viewer, hold their attention and project ideas through imagery, sounds, movement or tastes they will make the world a richer place.
My hope is that neuro-aesthetics will re-validate what the general public already knows intuitively to have value (from whatever culture or period) and will call into question that which is travesty and mockery.Fortunately there are a lot of people who love art in all it’s guises and some of them including popular spray-can propagandists just take their work to the public without the blessing of the proper channels.
Discussions about good and bad art are a problem for a culture which buys into moral relativism and has a horror of extreme positions such as Good and Bad. People who are advocate positions about good and bad are deftly branded as fanatics. Personally I avoid discussions about good and bad art because it is more instructive to consider whether an artwork is powerful or weak. Deep down I think there is art that is good for people and the cultures they inhabit, just as there is bad art. I think we’re starting to get over the fact that smoking really is bad for you, and we’re starting to think that obesity, gambling, suicide and drug addictions are not just unhelpful behaviours but BAD – dreadfully!!
THE NEXT BIG THING for Western Culture to face up to is the realisation that we live in a world of limited resources and massive needs. One of these needs is the need to communicate and find meaning. Resources that are expended on frivolous, decadent, narcisstic communications/activities will be seen as wasted opportunities and will be condemned as such. The 19th century bourgeosie suffered similar accusations and their art was pilloried by the communists and modernists. I don’t see that contemporary art will be treated any differently. . . but I prattle on . . .
June 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I have always seen the problem as going both ways, however. If artists and critics have buried themselves in academic theory it was, in part, because the general public has buried itself in popular culture—television, movies, pop music, and etc.
Ultimately, art, in its traditional forms, is a very passive thing—painting just hangs on the wall, a sculpture just sits there motionless. This means that a viewer must make a committment to look at a work of art in a meaningful way. This is true for all art. But things like television are very aggressive. The stories in a sitcom are told for you and are broken down into easy to digest segments whereas with a painting that information is hidden. There's movement and sound in a TV show whereas a painting can't move and can't speak.
There's more to the problem than this, even. I just want to emphasize that the problem of artistic and academic elitism and public disinterest is a complicated one with multiple causes. This is why I don't believe that neuroaesthetics will make any difference. For even if artists begin making art based upon scientifically derived principles of art I don't believe any more people will turn off their TV sets to go see it.
(I'm afraid you've lost me with your last two paragraphs)