Cave artist had no theory or books to read...BAAAhummbug!!!!!!!!!!!
mando
On Dec 21, 2008, at 8:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
"...Or, however much I understand the
anatomy and physiology of my brain, I believe that my selection of
the true,
the beautiful and the judicious will be a process beyond the
understanding
of my neural circuits, but surely dependent on them."
Good point. My primary interest is why something is beautiful to me
and some
other is not. It is impossible to find absolute answer, but
satisfactory
theory is a must for the sake of real fine arts creation.
All fields of biology and other sciences should be involved in the
search.
Boris Shoshensky
-- "Geoff" <[email protected]> wrote:
Boris: I agree regarding the significance for any behaviour of our
neurological system. However, however much I might know regarding
how my car
engine works, the process by which I decide to Hoboken and the route I
select to get there is different from the workings of the car,
which are
essential to my getting to my destination. Or, however much I
undestand the
anatomy and physiology of my brain, I believe that my selection of
the true,
the beautiful and the judicious will be a process beyond the
understanding
of my neural circuits, but surely dependent on them (keeping in
mind that I
have not yet read Hauser's book).
Geoff C
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
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.
