I certainly appreciate Luc's comments. I am an interested layman when it comes to neuroscience but I can read much of the non-technical materials being published over the past decade. And I have talked to leading neurologists and they say my general outlook is right. The evidence pointing to very provocative and enlightening facts between brain and aesthetics/creativity is overwhelming and increasing day by day. Thanks to Luc for reminding us of Ramachandran...and of course, Montaigne and Aristotle's De-Anima (where he says that whatever is in memory is first in fantasy (imagination) and he put fantasy in with the common senses.
The blurring of the traditional domains is increasingly important to new knowledge. People trained in some fields have turfs to protect and they resist any overlapping of expertise. Where neuroscience advances upon the qualitative soft sciences, psychology must retreat; where neuroscience and psychology advance upon linguistics and "creativity" the Letters must give way. Happily, only the artists can range freely but they pay the price of bearing dismissive scorn whenever they speak. WC --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Luc Delannoy <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Luc Delannoy <[email protected]> > Subject: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 11:46 AM > 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 evidence for > beliefs? What is so taboo about wanting to do that? Why is > it good to have beliefs without evidence. As I said > earlier, this refusal to even examine the issue (brain=mind) > is a redux of the prelate refusing to look through > Galileo's telescope. > > > > I think you are just resisting the falsity of the > mind-body split. > > > > I'll say that neuroscience is the most promising > route of inquiry for new perspectives on aesthetic judgment, > just as it is for all cognition. If science can show us how > we think it can lead us to why we think. > > > > Tell me again why this is such a dangerous and > censored idea. Is it the Bible? Some religious dogma? > > > > Finally, why do you and others here use gossipy > anecdotes to illustrate your arguments? Doing that is a > ruse, an effort to make complicated, nuanced concepts simple > and everyday. Your dentist and his painless patient: My > dentist has a very high speed drill, enabling many people to > forego a local anesthetic. What's the point of these > anecdotes? Everybody knows that a general principle is not > proven or falsified by one odd exception. "Man falls > 5,000 ft. from airplane and lives!" "Woman is shot > five times in head and complains only of a mild > headache!" "Monkey art sells for thousands!"
