Neuroesthetics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As neuroaesthetics a research program is called, whose aim is the neurobiological basis of aesthetic sensations, such as the reception of art or music , as well as the creative process to explore the creation of such works. The term was coined in 2001 by Semir Zeki . Zeki sees neuroesthetics as a sub-discipline of experimental aesthetics .

Research approaches

The methodological approaches of neuroesthetics include perceptual psychology , evolutionary biology , neurological methods and functional anatomy .

An important approach within this research area is to find possible universal laws on which the perception of beauty is based and to justify them neurobiologically. For the field of fine arts , the mechanisms of visual perception are particularly important. Such laws can also be examined with regard to their possible evolutionary advantages.

In addition, imaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) are used to identify brain structures that respond specifically to aesthetic experiences and can therefore be understood as their neural basis. Investigations of the aesthetic sensation of patients with specific brain disorders such as Savant's syndrome or traumatic brain injuries can also be used for this purpose. The works of artists with such disorders are also of particular interest.

A current question in neuroesthetics is aimed at the extent to which aesthetic perception “ bottom-up ” depends on the merging of simple (“ primitive ”) perceptions or “ top-down ” on the influence of higher cognitive processes. An imaging study from 2009 gives indications of both processing methods: attention control and visual search as cognitive components, as well as the active construction of mental images with soft edges as bottom-up processes.

Furthermore, the neural reactions to different styles and art movements have recently been juxtaposed, for example abstract versus more classical, representational painting .

In a broader sense, art-historical, philosophical or political science studies are also included in neuroesthetics, which refer to neuroscientific findings in their argumentation.

Theories of Neuroesthetic Laws

Semir Zeki's Laws of Visual Perception

Semir Zeki is a professor of brain research at University College London who was instrumental in the development of neuroesthetics. Zeki sees art as an expression of the enormous versatility of the brain due to its rapid evolution. Just as neuroscience can help to uncover the fundamentals of the understanding of art, conversely the investigation of the enjoyment of art can also provide information about brain functions. Zeki proposes that artists unconsciously explore how the brain works when producing their works:

“… The artist is, in a sense, a neuroscientist who explores the potential and capacity of the brain, albeit by different means. The way in which such artificial creations evoke aesthetic experiences can only be fully understood in a neurobiological way. Such an understanding is now in sight. "

- Semir Zeki : Statement on Neuroesthetics

For Zeki, two principles are of crucial importance for visual perception: the principle of constancy and that of abstraction . Constancy refers to the ability of the brain to gain knowledge about the constant properties of objects despite constantly changing visual impressions and to ignore many other factors. For example, we are able to recognize a face even though it is viewed from different angles or under different lighting conditions. According to Zeki, artistic creation also has the task of working out what is essential in the objects. An example of this are the works of early Cubism , in which many of the mutable aspects such as perspective and lighting were eliminated.

The principle of abstraction relates to the ability of the brain to extract representations of general regularities from a number of many examples actually seen, i.e. to infer from the particular to the general. According to Zeki, the artist transfers this process to his work of art by creating an abstract image. Conversely, he explains the particular fascination of unfinished or ambiguous works of art with the fact that the brain is given space for its own abstraction process when viewing such works.

Ramachandran's eight laws of art experience

The neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran , together with the philosopher William Hirstein, put forward a theory in which he introduces eight heuristics that are important for the experience of enjoying art. Ramachandran also sheds light on possible evolutionary advantages that result from the application of these "laws" and on their neurobiological implementation in the brain. These laws are the following:

  1. Exaggeration: From the field of learning to differentiate, it is known that animals may react more strongly to exaggerated representations of a learned stimulus than to this stimulus itself ( peak shift principle). Should they z. For example, to distinguish a rectangle from a square, a rectangle that is extremely elongated in one direction can trigger a strong reaction, although such a "super rectangle" has never been shown before. For Ramachandran, this means that working out and exaggerating the basic properties of an object creates a strong response. This is also a central working method of many artists, for example in caricatures and abstract art .
  2. Isolation: When looking at a picture, visual attention plays a central role. If this attention is drawn to a single aspect through the design of the image, the brain can allocate more resources for its processing and react more strongly to it. Ramachandran speaks of the isolation of a visual module. He suspects that artistically gifted savants represent an extreme case of isolation in which all other modules are switched off in favor of the visual-artistic.
  3. Gestalt laws: The visual system is able to put together individual visual elements to form an overall figure ( perceptual grouping ). It uses a series of so-called gestalt laws . Then z. B. similar objects located close together or in the same orientation are more likely to be assumed to belong together than others. These processes are of immediate use in discovering hidden objects, such as a predator in a bush. Artists have always made use of these laws.
  4. Contrast enhancement: For the same reasons as with the gestalt laws, the contrasting of two visual units as separate objects is important for survival and is perceived as pleasant. Neurobiologically, such contrast enhancement is mediated by nerve cells in the early visual system.
  5. Visual problem solving: Discovering an object or some other regularity is usually perceived as particularly satisfying when it was difficult to discover. Similar to the contrast enhancement and grouping, this can be explained in evolutionary terms by offering an incentive to solve even difficult visual problems and thus to ensure survival more sustainably.
  6. Symmetry: The symmetry is an important aspect of beauty and how the contrast is detected early in the visual system. Ramachandran explains the importance of symmetry in turn as an evolutionary advantage in recognizing potential predators, prey or sexual partners.
  7. Generic viewpoint: Related to the gestalt laws is the principle of the generic viewpoint . What this means is that the brain avoids making conclusions that only last from a certain angle. For example, two objects, only half of which can be seen, are always interpreted in such a way that one obscures the other. In principle, the rear object could simply be incomplete, but then this specific constellation would only be possible from this one perspective. This is unlikely and is therefore not believed to be true. Works of art that comply with these rules (such as using the correct perspective ) are more pleasant to look at.
  8. Visual metaphor: Works of art often use metaphorical representations, i.e. images that have another, figurative meaning in addition to their obvious meaning. Similar to visual problem solving, the discovery of such a metaphor is a satisfying experience. The Capgras syndrome , in which a patient believes that someone close to him has been replaced by an identical-looking doppelganger , provides evidence of a neurobiological basis for this process .

Brain areas related to aesthetic perception

Old text
Location of the orbitofrontal cortex in the brain visualized by MRI
Old text
The prefrontal cortex is highlighted in orange. The Brodmann areas are identified by numbers.

In order to link aesthetic perception with certain areas of the brain, imaging methods such as fMRI, EEG or MEG are used, mostly while the test subjects are looking at works of art. The neural activity is compared between different conditions, for example between the purely "pragmatic" viewing and viewing from an artistic point of view, between different art styles or between images or geometric shapes rated as beautiful or ugly. The brain regions that are particularly active in a certain condition are then regarded as belonging to the respective aspect.

The results of this study point less to a clearly delineated brain region that would be specific for the perception of art, but rather to a hierarchical network of such regions. Initially, the visual areas are active differently, depending on which type of painting was viewed (abstract or representational painting, still life , landscape painting or portraits ). The assessment of an image as beautiful was often accompanied by the activation of frontal areas, such as the orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior cingular cortex and the dorsolateral and ventral prefrontal cortex. The orbitofrontal cortex in particular is also more generally associated with assessing the reward value of a stimulus.

Activation of areas that are associated with emotions ( amygdala , insular cortex ) was also described. Cinzia Di Dio and Vittorio Gallese also emphasize the importance of motor areas such as the premotor cortex and the posterior parietal cortex, especially when looking at statues that show certain movement poses.

criticism

The approaches of neuroesthetics have been criticized many times. It is accused of reducing the concept of art to a few biological principles, which only explain "some aspects of some works of art", but claim to be a generally applicable theory of art. Cultural and social factors as well as the knowledge from centuries of philosophy and art history would be ignored. Similar arguments can also be found in a more general criticism of the encroachment of the neurosciences on a wide variety of areas of life ( neuromarketing , neurotheology, etc.), in which the main arguments are based on the impressive images from fMRI scanners, which, however, are insufficiently meaningful if they would not be interpreted by trained psychologists. In particular, the theories of Zeki and Ramachandran are criticized as too unspecific: They would only make statements about perception in general, but not about art in particular.

Aesthetics professor John Hyman of Queen's College, Oxford, one of its harshest critics, cites Ramachandran's example of a sculpture of the Indian goddess Parvat, which, with exaggerated hips and breasts, serves as an example of his principle of artificial exaggeration. Hyman argues that these considerations could just as well be applied to Pamela Anderson , since she could also be seen as an exaggerated image of femininity and the theory makes no statement about whether her object is a work of art or not. In this context, Hyman sarcastically speaks of a “ Baywatch theory of art”. Hyman admits that the neurosciences can certainly make a contribution to the understanding of art, but points out that there are many works of art that would not be explained by neuroesthetic theories. By no means is all art caricature, as Ramachandran puts it in an exaggerated way, but many examples of very naturalistic representations can be found in classical painting . The element of ambiguity to which Zeki refers is also not omnipresent in art; in particular, the artistic value of a work does not automatically increase to the extent that it allows for different interpretations. In general, Hyman advises:

“… Regarding the artistic value of a work, we should be pluralists. It is a mistake to think that ambiguity, or exaggeration, or anything along these lines would make up all art, or all "great" art. "

- John Hyman

Hyman's greatest point of criticism, however, is that Zeki's and Ramachandran's theories would appear to be scientific and universal explanatory value, but that they would only be illustrated with a few examples and not tested experimentally - a procedure that both scientists work in their own field surely would not accept.

Semir Zeki responded to criticism of neuroesthetics in a blog entry entitled "The Fear of Neuroesthetics". He argues that any scientific approach is necessarily reductionist, but that this also applies to many types of artistic creation and their interpretation. He also denies that the explanation of art is the primary goal of neuroesthetics:

"... neuroesthetics is far from trying to" explain "a work of art or a literary masterpiece, it just tries to gain insights from them and to learn something about the brain."

- Semir Zeki

Rather, this has always been the field of art criticism and art history.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d S. Zeki: Artistic Creativity and the Brain. In: Science. 293 (5527) 2001, pp. 51-52.
  2. ↑ CW Tyler: Is Art Lawful? In: Science . tape 285 , no. 5428 , July 30, 1999, p. 673-674 , doi : 10.1126 / science.285.5428.673 .
  3. ↑ a b A. AA Salah: Technoscience art: A bridge between neuroesthetics and art history? In: Review of General Psychology . tape 12 , no. 2 , p. 147-158 .
  4. ^ A b William Hirstein, VS Ramachandran: The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience . In: Journal of Consciousness Studies . tape 6 , no. 6-7 , 1999, pp. 15-51 ( imprint.co.uk [PDF]). imprint.co.uk ( Memento of the original from March 2, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.imprint.co.uk
  5. ↑ a b G. C. Cupchik: Viewing artworks: Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. In: Brain and Cognition. 70, No. 16, 2009, pp. 84-91.
  6. ↑ PG Lengger: Functional neuroanatomy of the perception of modern art: A DC-EEG study on the influence of stylistic information on aesthetic experience. In: Brain Research. 1158, 2007, pp. 93-102.
  7. ↑ K. Herrmann (Ed.): Neuroesthetics. Perspectives on an interdisciplinary research area. Contributions to the impulse workshop on January 15 and 16, 2010 in Aachen. Kassel University Press, Kassel 2011.
  8. ^ S. Zeki: Inner Vision: an exploration of art and the brain. Oxford University Press, 1999.
  9. ^ S. Zeki: Splendors and Miseries of the Brain. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
  10. ↑ Statement on Neuroesthetics ( Memento of the original from September 13, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed November 24, 2009. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.neuroesthetics.org
  11. ^ HS Terrace: Discrimination Learning, The Peak Shift and Behavioral Contrast. In: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Bahavior. 11, 1968, pp. 727-741.
  12. ^ N. Tinbergen: Curious Naturalist. Basic Books, New York 1954.
  13. ^ David H. Hubel, Torsten N. Wiesel: Brain and visual perception: the story of a 25-year collaboration . Oxford University Press US, 2005, ISBN 0-19-517618-9 , pp. 106 ( books.google.com ).
  14. ↑ a b A. Chatterjee: Neuroaesthetics: A coming of age story. In: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Volume 23, No. 10, 2010, pp. 53-62.
  15. ^ A b C. Di Dio, V. Gallese: Neuroaesthetics: A review. In: Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 19 (2009), pp. 682-687.
  16. ↑ a b c d e H. Kawabata, S. Zeki: Neural Correlates of Beauty. In: Journal of Neurophysiology. 91 (1) 2004, pp. 1699-1705.
  17. ↑ a b c O. Vartanian, V. Goel: Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. In: NeuroReport. 15 (2004), pp. 893-897.
  18. ↑ a b c T. Jacobsen, R. Schubotz, L. Hofel, D. von Cramon: Brain correlates of aesthetic judgments of beauty. In: Neuroimage. 29 (2005), pp. 276-285.
  19. ^ CJ Cela-Conde et al .: Activation of the Prefrontal Cortex in the Human Visual Aesthetic Perception. In: National Academy of Sciences. 101, No. 16, 2004, pp. 6321-6325.
  20. ↑ U. Kirk et al: Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. In: NeuroImage. 44, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1125-1132.
  21. ^ C. Di Dio, E. Macaluso, G. Rizzolatti: The golden beauty: brain response to classical and renaissance sculptures. In: PLoS ONE. 2007, 11, p. E1201.
  22. ↑ a b c d e J. Hyman: Art and Neuroscience. In: Roman Frigg, Matthew Hunter (Eds.): Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science. Springer, New York 2010, pp. 245-262.
  23. ↑ a b A. Noe Art and the Limits of Neuroscience . Opinionator (Online Commentary from the New York Times), December 4, 2011.
  24. ↑ N. Maak: I measure what you don't see: neuroesthetics and natural sciences. In: FAZ . October 22, 2009.
  25. ^ A b C. Power: The trouble with neuroaesthetics. The Guardian Books Blog, July 4, 2008.
  26. ^ P. Lenzei, C. Umilta: Neuromania: On the limits of brain science. Oxford University Press, 2011.
  27. ^ A b Semir Zeki: The Fear of Neuroesthetics. In: The Creativity Post. April 23, 2012 ( creativitypost.com ).