Actually Komar and Melamid hired a fancy Boston firm to conduct a very elaborate survey. You can find it it all detail in their book on the Most Loved painting.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, January 21, 2010 10:32:20 AM Subject: Re: Beauty and the Brain: A Neural Approach to Aesthetics The conflation between an experiment in cognitive science and an experiment in art began with the head scientist himself,who wrote that "In a sense, artists are neuroscientists, experimenting with shape and color, trying to evoke unique, powerful responses from the visual brain," To which, the John Hopkins Gazette added "As a first step toward this neuro-aesthetic question, the Connor laboratory plans to collaborate with the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore to study human responses to sculptural shape. Gary Vikan, the Walters' director, is a strong believer in the power of neuroscience to inform the interpretation of art." I don't know how Komar and Melamid conducted their study, but they must have offered their subjects choices of various paintings, and asked them which ones they enjoyed the most -- which is basically the same thing that Connor is doing - except with different sets of objects being being involved. And Dutton did seem to conclude that there was an "invariant cognitive structure underwriting these responses". People enjoy images that resemble the kind of African vistas that humans saw back in a crucial stage of human evolution. All of which would be unacceptable to people who prefer to think of art as social discourses. But let's see what Connor comes up with. Apparently, an online version of his experiment will become available in February, giving us all the chance to participate. Coincidentally, Hans Arp is the only non-figurative sculptor whose work I enjoy viewing. (excluding, of course, all the pottery and architecture that may or may not be called sculpture). So, I'm looking forward to seeing whether I will prefer, or even be able to distinguish, the variations from the original. ............................................................. >I believe you are not engaging the point. I doubt that the researchers involved in this particular experiment are looking for some median-work, some collection of statistical averages, like "Blue Landscape" Since the task presented to viewers is, or will be, comparative, ie a viewer compares an _actual_ sculpture with a digital version in which specific features have been accentuated, one might be able to identify certain basic features of sculpture to which people respond. What is being inquired into is the formal relationships between ideal-typical brain function and features of the world that elicit specific, qualitative and first-person responses in order to see if there is an invariant cognitive structure underwriting these responses. Clearly, this is completely different than trying to produce a painting that all people would describe as beautiful or that collects the most popular features of paintings in general. Rephrased, the experiment has to do with aesthetic responses not artistic objects. It is an experiment in cognitive science, not an experiment in art. And it seems to me that you are conflating these two issues/problems. ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=1ytLPVsC6lRcrVWSX_K7NwAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
