Neuroaesthetics: The State of the Domain in 2017

Aaron Kozbelt

doi:10.26613/esic.1.1.25

Article

Neuroaesthetics: The State of the Domain in 2017

Aaron Kozbelt

Published/Copyright: April 1, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information

From the journal Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture Volume 1 Issue 1

Abstract

In this article, I assess the current state of neuroaesthetics by reviewing 10 recent books on neuroscientific and evolutionary aspects of aesthetic cognition. These books largely continue the main thrust of this genre since its inception. Virtually all are insightful and thought-provoking, though their individual strengths vary. Among them, Shimamura and Palmer's edited book, Aesthetic Science, provides the most useful and balanced interdisciplinary framework, making philosophy and psychology equal partners with neuroscience. This pluralistic mode, dethroning neuroscience from its usual hegemony, seems best poised to address heretofore neglected issues in neuroaesthetics research. I address several dichotomous tensions—high versus low art, the drive for creative innovation versus evolutionarily canalized aesthetic biases, and explicit versus implicit aspects of aesthetic cognition—to identify promising future research directions, which can best be fulfilled though interdisciplinary cooperation and debate, with a continued emphasis on evolutionary theory.

Keywords: neuroaesthetics; evolution; neuroscience; aesthetic cognition; art appreciation; aesthetic experience; creativity; two cultures

Works Cited

Baumgarten, Alexander G.1750. Aesthetica. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Search in Google Scholar

Chatterjee, Anjan, and Oshin Vartanian. 2014. “Neuroaesthetics.”Trends in Cognitive Sciences18 (7): 370–75.10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003Search in Google Scholar

Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.10.5962/bhl.title.2092Search in Google Scholar

Deacon, Terrence W.2010. “Colloquium Paper: A Role for Relaxed Selection in the Evolution of the Language Capacity.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA107 (Supplement 2): 9000–9006.10.1073/pnas.0914624107Search in Google Scholar

Dissanayake, Ellen. 2007. “What Art Is and What Art Does: An Overview of Contemporary Evolutionary Hypotheses.” in Evolutionary and Neurocognitive Approaches to Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, edited by Colin Martindale, Paul Locher, and Vladimir M. Petrov, 1–14. Amityville, NY: Baywood.10.4324/9781315224657-1Search in Google Scholar

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1973. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”American Biology Teacher35(3): 125–29.10.2307/4444260Search in Google Scholar

Gabora, Liane, and Scot Barry Kaufman. 2010. “Evolutionary Approaches to Creativity.” in The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by James C. Kaufman and Robert J. Sternberg, 279–300. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511763205.018Search in Google Scholar

Gombrich, Ernst H.1960. Art and Illusion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gopnik, Blake. 2012. “Aesthetic Science and Artistic Knowledge.” in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, edited by Arthur P. Shimamura and Stephen E. Palmer, 129–59. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0036Search in Google Scholar

Gould, Stephen J., and Lewontin, Richard C.1979. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.”Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Sciences205 (1161): 581–98.Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Daniel J., and Christoph Redies. 2010. “Statistical Regularities in Art: Relations with Visual Coding and Perception.”Vision Research50:1503–9.10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Samuel. (1773) 2000. “Preface to the Plays of William Shakespeare.” (4th ed.). In Samuel Johnson: The Major Works, edited by Donald Greene, 419–56. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kozbelt, Aaron. 2009. “The Evolution of Evolvability Applied to Human Creativity.”International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving19 (1): 101–21.Search in Google Scholar

Kozbelt, Aaron. 2016. “Creativity and Culture in Visual Art.” in The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture, edited by Vlad Glăveanu, 573–94. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-137-46344-9_28Search in Google Scholar

Kranjec, Alexander. 2015. “Conceptual Art Made Simple for Neuroaesthetics.”Frontiers in Human Neuroscience9 (Article 267): 1–5.10.3389/fnhum.2015.00267Search in Google Scholar

Martindale, Colin. 1990. The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Martindale, Colin. 2007. “A Neural-Network Theory of Beauty.” in Evolutionary and Neurocognitive Approaches to Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, edited by Colin Martindale, Paul Locher, and Vladimir M. Petrov, 181–94. Amityville, NY: Baywood.10.4324/9781315224657-12Search in Google Scholar

Martindale, Colin. 2009. “The Evolution and End of Art as Hegelian Tragedy.”Empirical Studies of the Arts27 (2): 133–40.10.2190/EM.27.2.cSearch in Google Scholar

Miller, Geoffrey F.2000. The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Anchor.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Stephen E., Karen B. Schloss, and Jonathan Sammartino. 2012. “Hidden Knowledge in Aesthetic Judgments: Preferences for Color and Spatial Composition.” in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, edited by Arthur P. Shimamura and Stephen E. Palmer, 189–222. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0042Search in Google Scholar

Ramachandran, Vilayanur S., and William Hirstein. 1999. “The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience.”Journal of Consciousness Studies6 (6–7): 15–51.Search in Google Scholar

Ramachandran, Vilayanur S., and Elizabeth Seckel. 2012. “Neurology of Visual Aesthetics.” in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, edited by Arthur P. Shimamura and Stephen E. Palmer, 375–89. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0086Search in Google Scholar

Reber, Rolf. 2012. “Processing Fluency, Aesthetic Pleasure, and Culturally Shared Taste.” in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, edited by Arthur P. Shimamura and Stephen E. Palmer, 223–49. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0055Search in Google Scholar

Shiner, Larry. 2001. The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226753416.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2011. “Creativity and Discovery as Blind Variation: Campbell's (1960) BVSR Model after the Half-Century Mark.”Review of General Psychology15 (20): 158–74.10.1037/a0022912Search in Google Scholar

Snow, Charles P.1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Solso, Robert. 1994. Cognition and the Visual Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Solso, Robert. 2003. The Psychology of Art and the Evolution of the Conscious Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5673.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark, ed. 2006. The Artful Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Vartanian, Oshin, 2014. “Generating Aesthetic Products in the Scanner: fMRI Studies of Drawing, Story Writing, and Jazz Improvisation.” in An Introduction to Neuroaesthetics, edited by Jon O. Lauring, 341–53. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vartanian, Oshin, 2015. “Neuroimaging Studies of Making Aesthetic Products.” in Art, Aesthetics, and the Brain, edited by Joseph P. Huston, Marcos Nadal, Francisco Mora, Luigi F. Agnati, and Camilo J. Cela-Conde, 174–85. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670000.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Vessel, Edward A., G. Gabrielle Starr, and Nava Rubin, 2012. “The Brain on Art: Intense Aesthetic Experience Activates the Default Mode Network.”Frontiers in Human Neuroscience6 (Article 66): 1–17.10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Edward O.1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.Search in Google Scholar

Zahavi, Amotz. 1997. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zeki, Semir. 1999. Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zeki, Semir. 2009. Statement on Neuroesthetics. Accessed January 11, 2016. http://www.neuroesthetics.org/statement-on-neuroesthetics.php.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-04-01

Published in Print: 2017-04-01

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.26613/esic.1.1.25

Keywords for this article

neuroaesthetics; evolution; neuroscience; aesthetic cognition; art appreciation; aesthetic experience; creativity; two cultures