The CNN article, “What the brain draws from: Art and neuroscience” by Elizabeth
Landau, attempts to explain the phenomena of creating a recognizable
representation of the real world through art. It begins a discourse on why and how tangible, inanimate objects fabricated through the
use of optical illusions on a two-dimensional plane can seem so very real and
interpretable by the human brain. According to this article, “To
trick the brain into thinking something looks three-dimensional and lifelike,
artists add elements that wouldn’t be present in real life but that tap into
our hard-wired visual sensibilities” (Landau). This reigns true as the brain
works to interpret pictorial representations of reality in the same way that it
would when experiencing reality itself. This concept is further reinforced
because imagery also possesses the ability to illicit an emotional response as
well. So, not only is the brain able to identify recognizable forms in a
work of art, but it is also responsible for our emotional relation to it.
In response, a field termed “neuroesthetics” was devised by Semir Zeki to
explore the underlying neural mechanisms that enable people to experience art.
Theoretically, with this kind of information, it would be possible to
distinguish the effects that certain artistic conventions have on the brain and
thus predict a viewer’s response. This, in turn, would give a scientific
explanation as to why and how some visual qualities provoke a particular
response over others. Revelations within the field would have the capacity to
formally dictate which artistic techniques activate different centers of the
brain. It is probable that structuring experiments in a way that would allow researchers to
analyze the patterns of activation of visual areas and the way they arouse the
brain, a field such as neuroaesthetics may revolutionize how people create and
interpret art. As a whole, the field incorporates an evolutionary perspective
in that the “aesthetic experience” has been made possible through the evolution
of the human brain. It would appear that
Zeki’s theories are reminiscent of the locationalist view in that he has set
out to prove that the way one experiences certain emotions and compositional
aspects of art can be defined and examined through the neuronal activity of
specific regions of the brain.
On the other hand, art critic Philip Ball argues that it is possible to appreciate a work of art apart from its beauty. So, hypothetically speaking, in the event that a viewer’s emotional response to an artwork strays from what is expected according to neuroaesthetic research, is it then dismissed as invalid? Although it can be useful to observe and link responses to specific locations within the brain, it seems as though the field could potentially jeopardize a viewer’s freedom of interpretation and appreciation. For an artist, successful research in neuroaesthetics could have an effect similar to the golden ratio technique which was employed by artists as a means to fabricate beauty and direct a viewers attention throughout a composition. It was a means of formulaic creativity. However, recent research conducted by Stieger and Swami (2015) has provided evidence that suggests that the golden ratio is not infallible as the most effective way of composing a work of art for it does not illicit an automatic preference over imagery that does not employ the ratio. In a similar fashion, if neuroaesthetics were to prescribe a method of success in artistry in describing a standardization of artistic practices, it may cause artists to adhere to specific rules about the rendition of imagery and hinder creative freedoms for artists as well. Even worse, these ideas may not withstand the test of time.
Works Cited
CNN Article
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/health/art-brain-mind-nov/index.html
Semir Zeki on Neuroaesthetics
http://neuroesthetics.org/statement-on-neuroesthetics.php
Philip Ball on Neuroaesthetics
http://www.nature.com/news/neuroaesthetics-is-killing-your-soul-1.12640
Golden Ratio Study
Stieger, Stefan, and Viren Swami. "Time to Let Go? No Automatic Aesthetic Preference for the Golden Ratio in Art Pictures." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 9.1 (2015): Print.
In response, a field termed “neuroesthetics” was devised by Semir Zeki to
explore the underlying neural mechanisms that enable people to experience art.
Theoretically, with this kind of information, it would be possible to
distinguish the effects that certain artistic conventions have on the brain and
thus predict a viewer’s response. This, in turn, would give a scientific
explanation as to why and how some visual qualities provoke a particular
response over others. Revelations within the field would have the capacity to
formally dictate which artistic techniques activate different centers of the
brain. It is probable that structuring experiments in a way that would allow researchers to
analyze the patterns of activation of visual areas and the way they arouse the
brain, a field such as neuroaesthetics may revolutionize how people create and
interpret art. As a whole, the field incorporates an evolutionary perspective
in that the “aesthetic experience” has been made possible through the evolution
of the human brain. It would appear that
Zeki’s theories are reminiscent of the locationalist view in that he has set
out to prove that the way one experiences certain emotions and compositional
aspects of art can be defined and examined through the neuronal activity of
specific regions of the brain.On the other hand, art critic Philip Ball argues that it is possible to appreciate a work of art apart from its beauty. So, hypothetically speaking, in the event that a viewer’s emotional response to an artwork strays from what is expected according to neuroaesthetic research, is it then dismissed as invalid? Although it can be useful to observe and link responses to specific locations within the brain, it seems as though the field could potentially jeopardize a viewer’s freedom of interpretation and appreciation. For an artist, successful research in neuroaesthetics could have an effect similar to the golden ratio technique which was employed by artists as a means to fabricate beauty and direct a viewers attention throughout a composition. It was a means of formulaic creativity. However, recent research conducted by Stieger and Swami (2015) has provided evidence that suggests that the golden ratio is not infallible as the most effective way of composing a work of art for it does not illicit an automatic preference over imagery that does not employ the ratio. In a similar fashion, if neuroaesthetics were to prescribe a method of success in artistry in describing a standardization of artistic practices, it may cause artists to adhere to specific rules about the rendition of imagery and hinder creative freedoms for artists as well. Even worse, these ideas may not withstand the test of time.
Works Cited
CNN Article
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/health/art-brain-mind-nov/index.html
Semir Zeki on Neuroaesthetics
http://neuroesthetics.org/statement-on-neuroesthetics.php
Philip Ball on Neuroaesthetics
http://www.nature.com/news/neuroaesthetics-is-killing-your-soul-1.12640
Golden Ratio Study
Stieger, Stefan, and Viren Swami. "Time to Let Go? No Automatic Aesthetic Preference for the Golden Ratio in Art Pictures." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 9.1 (2015): Print.
Sofia - very interesting post. From my experience with art theory, though limited, I have learned that artists manipulate this concept already. Certain visual cues tend to provoke specific subconscious emotional responses, although artists aren't necessarily viewing this through the lens of said neuroesthetists.
ReplyDeleteA classic example of this: vertical lines cause our mind to feel more aroused while horizontal lines are calming. Next time you look at a painting that seems to be aiming to create an atmosphere of arousal - such as one of war - note the prevalent vertical lines that the artist sneaks into the painting.
Taking this to a scientific level can bring about a concern of stripping the sentiment from art; however, I think that artists could more effectively convey their message with thorough knowledge of what activates certain mental responses.