Week 4 Part 2 - Neuroscience + Art

My knowledge of neuroscience and art working with each other was a foreign concept to me entirely. It’s a field that I am just plain uneducated in, and so I approach this blog post almost entirely blind.

In the process of attempting to learn more about this topic, I stumbled upon “neuroesthetics”. At its core, it’s essentially the idea of connecting our emotional reaction to art to the neuroscience that is happening under our skull. I thought it was incredibly fascinating to say the least. One part that took me aback was the idea that some artists choose specific color tones or strokes knowing that the brain will have a certain reaction. While that’s obvious on a very macro level, on the scale that neuroesthetics describes, it almost feels kind of manipulative. That could just be paranoia talking, but I feel like the artwork becomes less about the artist attempting to express themselves and more about them seeing if they can induce some desired reaction from their audience. To me anyway, the idea almost dehumanizes the idea of art, which I think has a fundamental part in audience interpretation. When that element becomes controlled as opposed to unpredictable, I think it takes away from the appeal of art.

Nope, a tin foil hat will not make you any less susceptible to neuroesthetics. Maybe mind control isn't too far off?

Another aspect of relating neuroscience and art that I found immensely thought-provoking was the idea of “peak-shift principle”. This is the idea that if we as a human find a shape appealing, we will be neurologically attracted to exaggerated versions of it. I was led to the work done by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, who came up with the so-called “Eight Laws of Artistic Experience”. I immediately thought of the caricatures that we see at amusement parks. Why is it that we aren’t repulsed by caricatures, and instead find them funny and amusing? I think it has much to do with Ramachandran’s peak-shift principle. We find entertainment in exaggeration, and when the exaggerations are based on some kind of truth (i.e. having large eyes), we find an extra level of comfort in them. 

You know you find this amusing.

In contrast to the neuroesthetics idea, I think that’s actually a very fun way to create art with the intention of creating a desired reaction. Humans take natural delight in over the top depictions of daily life, and having an artist exploit that seems more honest than trying artificially create extremely complex emotions and feelings with other techniques.

Perhaps not immediately applicable, but seeing a giant exaggerated sandwich is definitely firing off some more intense neural signals than if I saw a smaller sandwich.

Works Cited

Anthony, Andrew. "VS Ramachandran: The Marco Polo of Neuroscience." The Observer. Guardian News and Media, 30 Jan. 2011. Web. 21 July 2014.

Ball, Philip. "Neuroaesthetics Is Killing Your Soul." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 July 2014.

Chatterjee, Anjan. "Neuroaesthetics | The Scientist Magazine®." The Scientist. LabX Media Group, 1 May 2014. Web. 18 July 2014.

Landau, Elizabeth. "What the Brain Draws From: Art and Neuroscience." CNN. Cable News Network, 15 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 July 2014.

Noe, Alva. "Art and the Limits of Neuroscience." Opinionator Art and the Limits of Neuroscience Comments. The New York Times, 4 Dec. 2011. Web. 21 July 2014.