Neuroaesthetics

I think that Zeki’s view of art history as a study in the progression of the understanding our own visual perception is very interesting. I wonder if his research would be less controversial if he was focusing more on this aspect, and not the beauty aspect. There is still very little known about how visual perception works, and I think research with the goal to further understanding would be more valuable than what Zeki is doing. Questions like “what is beauty? “ and “what is art?” have as many different answers as there are people on this planet. People have been trying to discover the answer to that question for a very long time. If there is a universal beauty, how can you account for all the different kinds of art? Wouldn’t everything start looking the same, if we were all driven to a universal beauty? I find the idea of a universal beauty difficult. How do you account for the constantly changing styles of art and standards of beauty throughout history and between cultures?

Neuroaesthetics

I’m not sure why Art Critics and Auctioneers are so worried about this research. The art critic often serves as the “public relations officer” getting the art or art movement recognized by the masses, not a scientist. The art critic also serves to document the history of art while it’s happening. It’s their job to disseminate the messages, the higher-level concepts, the uniqueness, and the groundbreaking ideas from all other art; they must also think beyond color, form and aesthetic beauty. They must also think beyond the research that is being done on neuroaesthetics.

All that said, in the same way that disc jockeys used to determine the music that would become popular, art critics often times determine or influence what art will become popular. However with the influx of new radio stations on air and on the internet, as well as the tape trading and underground grass roots movement, music that might not have been discovered before is now getting into the hands of many. In the same way, good art that moves people will also find its breeding ground outside the art critic and scientific world. Possibly through the Internet, fanzines, and the like. And the labels or awards and placement in a museum may play a less significant role in the future.

At the end of the day, how many people are ONLY going to listen to a scientist tell them why they like or dislike a particular piece of art? And to further that point, how many lovers of art are ONLY going listen to what an art critic has to tell them? A person’s gut reaction will always impact their opinion regardless of what is said about the artwork.

It’s interesting to understand the reasons for our responses when observing and creating art; it doesn’t diminish our innate passion in any way. Therefore, I have no problem with a scientist doing research to understand how the brain reacts to art in order to understand how the brain functions on a deeper level.

Article 5 Response

The one question I kept asking while reading this article was, "Why does it matter so much if someone thinks a work of art is beautiful?"  Isn't beauty only one of the factors that make art "valuable" in our world?  What about the artist who made it, the circumstances behind its creation or the overall message that it conveys?  Doesn't the contextual information of a work of art have as much sway over its importance/value/regard in the art world as the aesthetic beauty of it?  If this is so, then why would art critics be so bothered by his research?  I think its really wonderful that we can map out the brain and find the specific clusters of neurons that react when one views something they like.  I don't think we need to find out if people are really lying when they say they like a work of art.  Its like making a lie detector test for people who are aloof about their taste in art.  I do, however, find it interesting the theory that specific painting movements are influenced by our brain's response to the artwork that it is interpreting.  It makes me wonder where this research is going and what it will find out next.   

Neurological aesthetics

Personally I don't understand how being able to breakdown love or desire to a neurological pattern is a negates of love's mystery. We still don't why it happens. Scientific explanations only attempt to answer how things affect one another. I think Zeiki's studies are quite fascinating but would like to know what evidence has been held against his scientific claims as I'm sure evidence on brain function is subject to subjectivity.
Perhaps if there was a way to compare classically beautiful pictures with a graph of harmonic frequencies, evidence could be concocted.I have often wondered if there is a connection between musical harmony and visual symmetry. I think the theory of reflexivity applies to most facts and impressions about beauty , which is simply that what you think about something determines what it is ( see Observable principle).
Beauty is connected to societal norms and the visual preferences ingrained in us from previous generations. If anyone ever wishes to read a great essay about objectivity and subjectivity of beauty, written by capitalist pioneer, Adam Smith, check out : The Impartial Spectator .

Mayan MIdterm

oops!  Didn't realize we were supposed to post these!  Here's mine...sorry it's late!

Exemplar for midterm:  11th grade, "the end of society" digital collage.  What made the Mayan society fall?  What could make American society fall?  Make a digital collage that depicts what you think could destroy the society you live in.  

Neuroaesthetics

I find it a bit unsettling that tastes and emotions can be deconstructed to become technical and almost mechanical sounding. On the other hand I do find Zeki’s work fascinating, but I can see why people have reacted negatively towards it. It will be really interesting to see where his next branch of research takes him, especially if he explores the context in which art is viewed. It would be intriguing to observe how differently one would react if you see a poster on the street versus if you see it in a gallery or a museum. Zeki’s insights are really powerful, and to a certain degree they do make me question taste as whole. I’m sure I’m not the only person in the world that believes some “art” should never be called that. The first time I went to the MOMA when I was twelve or thirteen years old, I remember this one piece that was, quite literally, a framed glossy piece of wall. I remember wondering why anyone would consider this to be art at all. It made me question modern and contemporary art for a very long time. Later on in college I understood a lot of what I had previously doubted, but there are still things that I suppose must just be over my head.

Universal Beauty

This is a very interesting topic that I know very little about. I feel that even with the experiments that Zeki is doing, it will be next to impossible to find or define universal beauty. Although his experiments show that certain areas of the brain respond to different stimuli and when we see something we like, the activity in whatever area increases, this does not necessarily lead to a definition of universal beauty. There are so many social factors that lead to personal preferences that must be taken into consideration. What makes one person love a piece of art and another person detest it? It would be interesting to investigate these factors as well. I wonder if he has done any experiments using works that people don't necessarily find visually stimulating or beautiful, but may find intellectually stimulating. Much of the art produced in the last century is focused more on investigating or representing a concept or idea than being an object of beauty. So I wonder whether his studies will even be relevant for much longer.
I sort of like the idea of basing the value of a piece of work based on the nuerological responses of people's brains. It would certainly shake things up in the art world and might solve the question of "Why did that piece of junk sell for $2million?!". I had to laugh at the idea of art critics and auction houses being in a state of panic.