Neuroaesthetics

The science of the aesthetic experience. I suppose I can see how this is something that scientists as well as artists would like to understand. Especially since artists attempt to evoke particular emotions through our work, and maybe understanding the many dimensions of how the brain views a piece of artwork will allow us to further explore the interaction between the viewer and art.

I suppose this study on the universal beauty is similar to the studies on what makes beautiful faces and what humans find attractive in a mate. Wouldn’t the brain react similarly if they both provoke similar experiences? I guess I find it even more interesting to think that maybe there is a formula to creating an aesthetic experience that can be measured in degrees. However, I don’t feel its possible to truly measure beauty. Like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally wouldn’t want someone telling me a piece of art has more beauty value then the next. I feel that would take away from the overall experience when viewing art. It would be like booking a hotel on hotel.com and being told that I should go to this hotel rather then this one. I guess I think that something’s shouldn’t be measured and left to each individual to decide what they think is beautiful or not.

Graham - Neuroaesthetics

I think Zeki’s research is interesting enough but I don’t understand why the article suggests that this research could ever be anything more than just research. It’s so unrealistic that this would ever effect the art world, and suggesting that it could really shake things up just seems so silly. Are they one day going to set up brain scanners in every museum, to test people’s brain reactions to paintings? Or in the auction houses like Zeki suggests, to find out what people really think? That would never happen. I also feel like studies on what is aesthetically pleasing and so similar to this one have already been done. For example people with symmetrical faces with features of a certain size are considered beautiful, and are likely to stimulate certain receptors in the brain of a person viewing them. That may be science, but it will never stop people from forming their own opinions on what they like and sticking to them. Even if brain scanners were readily available, would anyone really care? When I look at a piece of art, I can decide for myself whether or not I like it, and if a scan of my brain contradicts my opinion, it wouldn’t change the way I think.

vector portrait

Andolina - Neuroaesthetics

This was one of the most interesting articles I  have read to date.  I never would have thought famous artists  working in this way. I feel each brain sees the world as it wants to be seen, just as the famous saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I am wondering if this "innate" understanding of how the brain sees the world embodies more of us than just famous artists.

Zeki also mentions how one can deceive oneself when looking at art in its context, or say falling in love. He has a very scientific way of looking at art and the brain while looking at art. The article also mentions the values of art and how we are easily persuaded.

The part that interested me the most is when Zeki talks about someone having an "an eye", and could spot a fake from a real piece of art. I had recently read a book by Malcom Gladwell that mentioned instincts and had a story based on a piece of artwork that was a fake. 

This article does seem to bring a new and different light to art and its importance, especially on a scientific level.  

Lorenz: Neuroaesthetics

This was such a fascinating article!  One of the things that I found to be of particular interest was when it mentioned how our brain actually perceives a work of art.  First we register the colors, followed by form, then motion, etc.  If you really think about it, it is color that you notice first, and which draws you in to see more.  

I also found interesting the idea that a piece of art might seem more beautiful or important if it's located in a museum with a great reputation.  The example given of Duchamp's "Fountain" is an excellent example of this.  If we didn't know that it was supposed to be important, that it was done by a famous artist, or if it was in a small gallery as opposed to a major art museum, would we be interested in it at all?  

Neuroaesthetics

The part of Zeki’s research I find most interesting is the experiment that explores the brain’s response to art in relation to the context in which it is viewed. Does the brain react differently to work viewed in a museum/gallery versus art displayed in the streets? Is the rate we fire neurological messages dependant on if we see the art in person versus a reproduction? These are questions I would love to see explored…
Zeki’s research shows that we can measure how the brain reacts in various speeds to particular aspects of a work of art: color, form, motion, etc. The field of neuroaesthetics is fascinating and this research will undoubtedly provide new insights into the way we experience art. However, Neuroaesthetics doesn’t provide us with the full picture. Yes, our neurological makeup impacts how we perceive art, but there are many other factors that affect our experience in equally as profound and personal ways. Our memories, past experiences, particular mood- these are all factors that shape our aesthetic experience, and things that (as far as I know) can not be measured on an MRI.