Would I accept neuroaesthetics as a replacement for traditional aesthetics? Yes, although no one I'm aware of has succeeded in demonstrating it convincingly because all of the research is being done by neuroscientists who lack a sophisticated art knowledge and no (or very few) art historians or art theorists are open-minded enough to accept the work of the neuroscientists or, I suspect, to read outside their field for fear of being marginalized by their peers.
The one exception I'm aware of is art historian Barbara Marie Stafford (see her new book, Echo Objects). Another item to mention is the recent publication of Neuroarthistory, by John Onians (Yale, March 2008). I've not yet read this book but did page through it the other day and saw nothing new, simply a recap of established notions (Gombrich, etc,) but it's at least a hint of some awakening among the humanities fuddy-duddies. And I suspect we should add you to the tiny list of those who are contributing to new field linking science and art/aesthetics. Some scientists working on the neurological/cognitive science aspect of creativity/aesthetics are Robert Solso, Semir Zeki, Margaret Livingstone, Erich Harth, V.S. Ramachandran. Many others, too, and you probably know of them. I find it deplorable that people in the arts, the explainers and theorists especially, have ignored the clear advances in neuroscience over the past 15 years. It's reminiscent of the Galileo issue. No wonder art history as a field is vanishing...while the theorists are just hoping to catch the next wave in the fashionista art market. WC --- On Wed, 8/6/08, Luc Delannoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Luc Delannoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "...Aesthetics collapsed in 1970 under the weight of Theodor > Adorno's Aesthetic Theory." > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 8:26 AM > W. > > would you accept neuroaesthetics as a possible > "replacement" (evolution)? > > Luc > > > > > www.lucdelannoy.com > www.neuroartes.org > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If aesthetics is the study of feelings and emotions > > (reflectivity) of information ordered in a certain > manner > > then it lies within the domain of psychology, > neurology, and > > cognitive science. In that case aesthetics is a subset > of > > science or it does not exist as a valid inquiry. But > since > > "information ordered in a certain way" is a > > projected structuring of information, we must ask what > > cognitive, cultural, and idiosyncratic patterns induce > it. > > Presumably, the cultural inducements may have priority > over > > the cognitive since cognition seems to be much more > variable > > than cultural patterns (more flexible and more > > "fanciful"). > > > > So then, it seems to me that aesthetics as a distinct > > subject is either replaced by psychology and cognitive > > sciences or it is replaced by cultural studies. Art > > history, and its objects, and art are quaint relics of > a > > pre-scientific investigation of mind and culture. > They are > > necessary forms of responsive human endeavor but if we > > really want to know about feelings, emotions, > reflectivity, > > and preferences for ordering information, we need to > pursue > > neurology first, and cultural patterns second. > > > > Aesthetics does not exist anymore. it has been > absorbed > > into bigger, more revealing inquiries. > > > > WC > > > > .
