There is no question that neurological process is a vehicle for any
human
action including the most complex - Art. In trying to analyze the
connection
it would be methodologically correct to use natural bridge between two -
experimental psychology. The field that closely deals with both.
Boris Shoshensky
-- Luc Delannoy <[email protected]> wrote:
Geoff, is hostility in the air ? or patronizing ?
Geoff to WC:
"When you learn something about aesthetics from brain imaging and
neurosurgery
let me know what it is."
Luc to Geoff:
Where have you been in the last 20 years?
Geoff to WC
"...infer poetically.."
Luc to Geoff
You mean neuroscientists are poets ?
Neuroscience + aesthetics = neuroaesthetics is not about understanding
expressionism or impressionism per se but about studying and understanding
the
nature of the human creative process (both from the creator and receptor
perspectives.) That includes coming up with a theory of perception.
It seems you are confusing the process and the outcome or result of the
process.
Neuroaesthetics could help understand how the artist got there and how/why
the
public feels what/how/when it feels. It is not about the "artwork" per se
but
about processes (auditive, visual for example). It combines principles
from
evolutionary biology, functional brain anatomy, perceptual and cognitive
psychology, musicology, philosophy, cognitive archaelogy, anthropology.
Since we know that a brain could see an object simultaneously under
different
perspectives we understand how an artist got to cubism. A stressed brain
with
aesthetic fatigue could explain Magritte's works.
As far as the public taste you are mentioning, you might investigate the
invariants in functional brain anatomy - they might explain the reasons
why
people from different cultures at different times enjoy Don Gionnavi for
example, or Vermeer...
Understanding the auditive and visual brains can help us design proposals
for
the education system and talk straight in the eye to members of
departments of
education.
Neuroscience and neuroaesthetics in particular is not about me in front of
a
painting trying to understand the meaning of the concept of impressionism;
it
is about the well being of society at large
About reading: some of the seeds of neuroaesthetics are in De Anima by
Aristotle (see also Theophrast). Then we could jump to Montaigne and John
Dewey to read about human experience. Then jump to Ramachandran and Amy
Ione
for example, but also to the philosophers working on the relations between
art, brain and human consciousness. But then also: Alcmeon, Galeno, Thomas
Willis, Da Vinci, Galvani, Broca, Wiernicke, Brodmann I just simply cannot
drop names... I myself investigate musical consciousness.
I currently work in Mexico with a group of patients with cerebral palsy
(working on neuroplasticity to better their condition). They couldn't care
less about sarcams about the validity of neurosciences. They couldn't care
less if some people have existential anxiety when viewing voxels on a
computer
screen, voxels that "translate" their aesthetics experience of a
painting.
We paint and make music and we do that because we have learned about
neurological deficits and functional brain anatomy and because we have
learned
about the human creative processes and how music and art (with its
subcategories) could bring well being to our society.
And by the way, the falsity of mind-body split is so evident with such
patients that it amazes me to meet people who still believe that the mind
is
somewhere out there...
And that it's up to me.
My apologies to the group for this long post.
Luc
www.lucdelannoy.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Geoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:40:51 AM
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
William: Fine with me. Neuroscience doesn't scare me. When you learn
something
about aesthetics from brain imaging and neurosurgery let me know what it
is.
I have a suspicion that what you will learn about is brain imaging and
neurosurgery. Now, if you want to infer poetically from your new
knowledge,
that would be up to you. Just let me know what you've learned about hard
edge
realism or expressionism or public (or private) taste in any field of
artistic
endeavour. Infants' direction of gaze or length of gaze won't cut it with
me.
Geoff C
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Conger"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
You don't get it because you're not trying at all. You cite no experts.
You
begin with a judgment, based on a preconceived idea, faulty at the first
level
of logic, and hold to that. It's not about science vs the humanities.
It's
about the substance of the physical world and how we function in it as
physical beings. Our beliefs are a product of that physicality and they
are
themselves symbolized networks of biological life. As a noted biochemist
said,"biology does not stop at the neck".
Obviously, measuring is more than placing a ruler next to something. It
means analysis of data, deductive and inductive reasoning, testing
hypothesis,
and the like. If it's physical, it's measurable; that is, belief with
evidence. And what is not physical is merely belief without evidence. So
if
we are confined to belief, why not try to gather as much evidence for
beliefs
as we can? What is the history of mankind if not the gathering of
