Neuroesthetics

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

Research approaches

For the methodological approaches of neuroesthetics include cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, neurological methods, and functional anatomy.

An important approach within this research area is to find possible universal laws that underpin the sense of beauty is based, and to justify this neurobiologically. Here in particular the mechanisms of visual perception of importance for the field of visual arts. Such laws may also be examined in relation to their possible evolutionary advantages with.

In addition, imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI ) and electroencephalography ( EEG) are used to identify brain structures that specifically respond to aesthetic experiences and therefore can be understood as the neural bases .. Also studies of the aesthetic sensibilities of patients with specific brain disorders such as a Savant or traumatic syndrome Hinrverletzungen can be used for this purpose. Of particular interest are the works of artists with such disorders.

A recent issue of neuroesthetics aims extent aesthetic feeling "bottom-up " depends on the merge easier ( " primitive " ) perceptions or " top-down" of the effect of higher cognitive processes. An imaging study of 2009 is evidence of both processing modes: direction of attention and visual search as cognitive components, as well as the active construction of mental images with soft edges as a bottom -up processes.

Furthermore, the neuronal responses were nouveau and art directions faced on various recently, about abstract rather classical in comparison to representational painting.

In a broader sense, rather art history, philosophy or political science studies of neuro- aesthetics are attributed to their argument on neuroscientific findings relate.

Theories neuro aesthetic laws

Semir Zeki's laws of visual perception

Semir Zeki is a professor of neuroscience at University College London, who has shaped the development of neuro- aesthetics prevail. Zeki sees art as an expression of the enormous versatility of the brain, due to its rapid evolution. So how neuroscience can help to reveal the basics of understanding of art, the study of art appreciation can be reversed also give information about brain functions. Zeki makes the case that artists unconsciously explore with the production of their works, the functioning of the brain:

" ... The artist is in some ways a neuroscientist who studies the potential and the capacity of the brain, albeit by other means. The way, call the generic kind of artificial creations äthetische experience shows, can only be fully understood in neurobiological way. One such understanding is now well in sight. "

For Zeki are two principles crucial for visual perception: the principle of constancy and of abstraction. With consistency the ability of the brain is meant despite constantly changing visual experience, to gain knowledge about the constant properties of objects and thereby hide many other factors. So we are, for example, be able to recognize a face, although it is considered as from different angles or under different lighting conditions. Artistic creation has by Zeki also the task of working out the essence of the objects. An example of this are the works of early Cubism, in which many of the varying aspects such as perspective and lighting were eliminated.

The principle of abstraction refers to the ability of the brain to extract representations of general regularities of a series of many examples actually seen, so close from the particular to the General. After Zeki the artist transfers this process in his work of art by creating an abstract image. Conversely, it explains the special fascination of unfinished or ambiguous works of art so that the brain when viewing such works space for your own abstraction process is left.

Ramachandran's eight laws of the art experience

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

Brain areas related to aesthetic perception

In order to bring aesthetic perception with certain areas of the brain in conjunction, imaging techniques such as fMRI, EEG or MEG are used, while the subjects of art look. The neuronal activity between different conditions is compared, for instance between the purely "pragmatic " view and the view from an artistic point of view, different artistic styles or the evaluation of images or geometric shapes as beautiful or ugly. The particularly active in a certain condition brain regions are then considered as belonging to the respective aspect.

The results of this study show less attention to a well-defined region of the brain for feeling for art would be specific, but rather on a hierarchical network of such regions .. First, the visual areas are different activities, depending on which type was considered by painting ( abstract or gegenstandliche painting, still life, landscape paintings or portraits). The evaluation of a picture as beautiful often been accompanied by the activation of frontal areas, such as the orbitofrontal cortex, the cortex and the anterior cingularis dorsolateral and ventral prefrontal cortex. In particular, the orbitofrontal cortex is also associated with the general assessment of the reward value of a stimulus in conjunction

Furthermore described activations of areas, which are brought into compounds with emotions ( amygdala, insular cortex ). Cinzia Di Dio and Gallese vittorio also emphasize the importance of motor areas such as the posterior parietal cortex and Prämotorcortex, especially when looking at statues, show the particular movement poses.

Criticism

The approaches of neuro- aesthetics were widely criticized. She is accused, they reduced the concept of art in a few essentialist principles that only " some aspects of some works of art " explain, but it raise the claim of a general theory of art. Cultural and social factors as well as the lessons learned from centuries of philosophy and art history would be ignored, however. Similar arguments can also be found in a more general criticism of a spillover of neuroscience in many different areas of life ( Neuromarketing, Neuro Theology, etc. ) in which would primarily argued with the impressive pictures from fMRI scanners, but they are too little 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 the perception in general, but not about art in particular.

The aesthetics professor John Hyman from Queen 's College, Oxford, one of its fiercest critics, Ramachandran cites example of a sculpture of the Indian goddess Parvat, which is used with exaggerated hips and breasts as an example of his principle of artificial step exaggeration. Hyman argues that one could apply these considerations equally well on Pamela Anderson, as they could also be considered as on recorded image of femininity and the theory makes no statement about whether their object is a work of art or not. Hyman speaks in this context of a sarcastic " Baywatch theory of art". Although Hyman concedes that neuroscience may well enter a contribution to the understanding of art, but points out that there are many works of art that would not be explained by the neuro- aesthetic theories. So far is not all art caricature, as Ramachandran exaggerated expresses, but there are just to many examples of classical painting very naturalistic representations. Also the element of ambiguity on that Zeki relates, is not omnipresent in the art, in particular the artistic value of a work does not rise automatically to the extent in which it is open to different interpretations. General advises Hyman:

" ... With regard to the artistic value of a work we should be pluralists. It is a mistake to think that ambiguity or exaggeration, or anything else in this direction all art, or all would make " great " art. "

The biggest criticism Hymans, however, is that the theories Zeki and Ramachandran would give the veneer of scientific and universal declaration of value, but that this illustrates only a few examples and would not be tested experimentally - an act that both scientists at work in their own field certainly would not accept.

Semir Zeki has recently responded in a blog entry titled " The Fear of Neuroesthetics " on the criticism of the neuro- aesthetics. He argues that any scientific approach is necessarily reductionist, but this applied also to many types of artistic creation and its interpretation. He also denies that the Declaration of art is the primary goal of neuroesthetics:

"... The neuroesthetics is far from trying a work of art or a literary masterpiece to" explain ", she only tried from them to gain insight and to learn about the brain. "

This is instead of always been the field of art criticism and art history.