Search Results

Neuroaesthetics is a new field, which is gaining momentum. At this stage of its development, different kinds of writings are regarded as neuroaesthetics. The earliest forays into neuroaesthetics involved descriptions of parallel organizational principles of the brain and the intent and practices of artists. Other writings consist of informative anecdotes that relate the brain to art and beauty. Such anecdotes are often of clinical patient artists in whom neurological diseases offer a window into the brain regions involved in artistic production. Finally, are writings that might be regarded as experimental neuroaesthetics. Experimental aesthetics is motivated by theory, often informed by evolutionary biology, and seeks to rigorously test hypotheses. Currently patient work and functional brain imaging methods are being used to address hypotheses about the neural response to beauty and to artwork. After reviewing the current state of neuroaesthetics, I raise challenges for the field as it moves forward. Investigators need to be wary of the risks of reduction, be clear about what is being probed by their experiments, and ask the question of what neuroscience adds to our understanding of aesthetics that cannot be derived by behavioral studies alone.

This chapter looks for regularities in the complex and ever-changing pattern of individual preferences to music, with a particular focus on age changes from early childhood through to adolescence. These questions are of vital concern to musicians, teachers, and audiences, but the approach here is from the perspective of psychologists. This chapter reviews the vast and scattered literature on the development of taste and preference, and tries to explain the main findings in terms of three main theoretical approaches: experimental aesthetics, developmental approaches, and social identity theory (SIT).

In this chapter, the authors summarize their research in the experimental aesthetics of visual art and cinema, motivated by the following assumptions: (1) vision is more complex than the mere activation of the “visual brain”; (2) our visual experience of the world is the outcome of multimodal integration processes, with the motor system as key player; (3) aesthetic experience must be framed within the broader notion of intersubjectivity, as artworks are mediators of the relationship between the subjectivities of artists/creators and beholders; and (4) empathy is an important ingredient of our response to works of art. Capitalizing on the results of their research, one privileging embodiment and the performative quality of perception and cognition, preliminary suggestions for a future research agenda are outlined. Embodied simulation, a model of perception and cognition, can provide a new take on these issues, fostering a newly based dialogue between neuroscience and the humanities.

This chapter explains the approach of the book: taking puzzling questions about the arts, often posed by philosophers, and examining how psychologists have reframed these questions so that they can be addressed empirically. The topics covered in each subsequent chapter are then previewed: Part I (Chapters 1–2) introduces the book and deals with the question of defining art, Part II (Chapters 3–7) is about art and emotion, Part III (Chapters 8–11) is about art and judgment, Part IV (Chapters 12–14) is about how art making affects us, Part V (Chapter 15) is about who becomes an artist, and Part VI (Chapter 16) concludes the book by summarizing the key ways in which psychologists have taken philosophical questions as a jumping off point for examining how we experience art.

The final chapter of this book briefly summarizes what psychologists have learned about how art works—how we experience art. The key questions and contrasting philosophical positions and commonsense views discussed in each chapter are reviewed, followed by findings from empirical studies on how ordinary people (non-philosophers, and individuals without art or art history training) think about these questions. While philosophers search for the best answer to these questions based on careful reasoning, psychologists look at how ordinary people answer these questions, without raising the question of what is “correct.” The answers that psychologists have revealed as they explore ordinary people’s responses to philosophical questions help us understand how ordinary people experience art.