Neuroesthetics
[2] Neuroesthetics is a term coined by Semir Zeki in 1999[3] and received its formal definition in 2002 as the scientific study of the neural bases for the contemplation and creation of a work of art.
[4] Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists alike have accumulated evidence suggesting that human interest in, and creation of, art evolved as an evolutionarily necessary mechanism for survival across cultures and throughout history.
Neuroaesthetics is a field of experimental science that aims to combine (neuro-)psychological research with aesthetics by investigating the "perception, production, and response to art, as well as interactions with objects and scenes that evoke an intense feeling, often of pleasure.
"[6] The recently developed field seeks among other things the neural correlates of aesthetic judgment and creativity, and how these help humans communicate and connect.
The subfield of Computational Neuroaesthetics has aimed to utilize machine learning algorithms in conjunction with neuroimaging data to predict what humans would find most aesthetically pleasing.
This field was pioneered by Fechner and Birkhoff in 1933; however it was years later that technology caught up enough to test, and prove, their hypotheses that aesthetics could be measured in a mathematical way [11] Real world applications of these models include recommending products via online advertisement.
[13] Involvement from both the rewards center of the brain and the Default Mode Network, once believed to only play a part in daydreaming, have been implicated in why humans derive pleasure from viewing and creating art.
[15] It is proposed that pleasing sensations are derived from the repeated activation of neurons due to primitive visual stimuli such as horizontal and vertical lines.
[22] It is suggested that aesthetic experience is a function of the interaction between top-down, intentional orientation of attention and the bottom-up perceptual facilitation of image construction.
Cubism is the most radical departure from Western forms of art, with the proposed purpose of forcing the viewer to discover less unstable elements of the object to be represented.
Evidence for this has been shown in testing different mechanisms in response to different environment, Joel Martínez-Soto and colleagues showed that exposure to restorative environments, such as structures with natural component led to activation of the middle frontal gyrus, middle and inferior temporal gyrus, insula, inferior parietal lobe, and cuneus linking these reactions to increased relaxation.
[36] This system resonates when people infer the intent of artistic gestures or observe the consequences of actions such as in Lucio Fontana's cut canvases.
Thinking an image was a museum piece also produced activity in the entorhinal cortex, suggesting that people's expectations draw on memories that enhance (or probably also diminish) visual pleasure.
Similarly, Lacey and colleagues[48] found that people's ventral striatum and parts of the orbitofrontal cortex were more responsive to the "art status" than to the actual content of visual images.
This alignment might involve things like finding coherence, harmony, or resonance between what we expected and what we actually perceive.The implication of these studies is that context and knowledge beyond the sensory qualities of visual images demonstrably affects people's neural activity in aesthetic experiences.
[51] Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and his fellow researchers including William Hirstein, developed a highly speculative theory of human artistic experience and the neural mechanisms that mediate it.
Although not all encompassing as there are undoubtedly many other principles of artistic experience, the theorists claim that they provide a framework for understanding aspects of visual art, style and design.
Although testing of these principles quantitatively may provide future evidence for specific areas of the brain responsible for one kind of aesthetic appeal, the theory faces substantial philosophical and historical objections.
To capture the essence of something, an artist amplifies the differences of that object, or what makes it unique, to highlight the essential features and reduce redundant information.
This may be accomplished most effectively if limbic reinforcement is fed back to early vision at every stage of visual processing leading up to the discovery of the object.
Cells in the retina, the lateral geniculate body or relay station in the brain, and in the visual cortex respond predominantly to step changes in luminance rather than homogeneous surface colors.
Although it is uncertain whether the reason for this mechanism is for effective communication or purely cognitive, the discovery of similarities between superficially dissimilar events leads to activation of the limbic system to create a rewarding process.
[10] Support for this view is highlighted by the symptoms of Capgras delusion, where sufferers experience reduced facial recognition due to impairments in the connections from the inferotemporal cortex to the amygdala, which is responsible for emotions.
Additionally, evolutionary biologists suggest that the predisposition towards symmetry is because biologically, asymmetry is associated with infection and disease,[10] which can lead to poor mate selection.
[10] In experimentation to determine specific areas, many researchers allow the viewer to decide the aesthetic appeal prior to the use of imaging techniques to account for the varying perceptions of beauty.
[8] The prefrontal cortex may be generally activated for directing the attention of the cognitive and perceptual mechanisms towards aesthetic perception in viewers untrained in visual arts.
The left lateral PFC, Brodmann area 10, may be involved in maintaining attention on the execution of internally generated goals associated with approaching art from an aesthetic orientation.
[23] The neuroaesthetics of facial recognition hold particular importance, as being drawn to faces likely increased sociability, allowing tribal environments to grow, resulting in greater protection and more availability of mates.
[24] Also, the left superior parietal lobule, Brodmann's area 7, has been shown to play a role in active image construction during the viewing of art specifically containing indeterminate forms such as soft edge paintings.
Contemporary artists like Mark Stephen Smith (William Campbell Gallery, US), Guillaume Bottazzi[66] and others have developed extensive bodies of work mapping the convergence of brain science and painting.
