Bianca Bromberger, Rebecca Sternschein, Page Widick, William Smith, II, Anjan Chatterjee

Historically, art and esthetics have been well ensconced in the humanities and have not been considered seriously within the sciences. Fechner (1876) began the field of empirical esthetics. More than a century later, neuroscience is playing catch-up, and is finally coming of age (Skov and Vartanian, 2009; Chatterjee, 2011). Theoretical positions and a few books linking neuroscience to art have appeared (Ramachandran and Hirstein, 1999; Zeki, 1999; Livingstone, 2002; Chatterjee, 2004a). Empirical studies using imaging techniques looking at our responses to beauty (Aharon et al., 2001; Ishai, 2007; Winston et al., 2007; Chatterjee et al., 2009) as well as to different kinds of artwork (Kawabata and Zeki, 2004; Vartanian and Goel, 2004; Jacobsen et al., 2005; Ishai et al., 2007; Cela-Conde et al., 2009) are being published. Recent conferences devoted to art and neuroscience (Nadal and Pearce, 2011) attest to the growing interest in the biology of esthetics. In this paper, we examine the state of one important aspect of neuroesthetics, the neuropsychology of art (Chatterjee, 2004b; Bogousslavsky and Boller, 2005; Zaidel, 2005). We outline reasons that this aspect of neuroesthetics has been relatively undeveloped and report our initial attempts to rectify this situation.

This entry was posted in art. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Bianca Bromberger, Rebecca Sternschein, Page Widick, William Smith, II, Anjan Chatterjee

  1. shinichi says:

    The Right Hemisphere in Esthetic Perception

    by Bianca Bromberger, Rebecca Sternschein, Page Widick, William Smith, II, and Anjan Chatterjee

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192953/

    Abstract

    Little about the neuropsychology of art perception and evaluation is known. Most neuropsychological approaches to art have focused on art production and have been anecdotal and qualitative. The field is in desperate need of quantitative methods if it is to advance. Here, we combine a quantitative approach to the assessment of art with modern voxel-lesion-symptom-mapping methods to determine brain–behavior relationships in art perception. We hypothesized that perception of different attributes of art are likely to be disrupted by damage to different regions of the brain. Twenty participants with right hemisphere damage were given the Assessment of Art Attributes, which is designed to quantify judgments of descriptive attributes of visual art. Each participant rated 24 paintings on 6 conceptual attributes (depictive accuracy, abstractness, emotion, symbolism, realism, and animacy) and 6 perceptual attributes (depth, color temperature, color saturation, balance, stroke, and simplicity) and their interest in and preference for these paintings. Deviation scores were obtained for each brain-damaged participant for each attribute based on correlations with group average ratings from 30 age-matched healthy participants. Right hemisphere damage affected participants’ judgments of abstractness, accuracy, and stroke quality. Damage to areas within different parts of the frontal parietal and lateral temporal cortices produced deviation in judgments in four of six conceptual attributes (abstractness, symbolism, realism, and animacy). Of the formal attributes, only depth was affected by inferior prefrontal damage. No areas of brain damage were associated with deviations in interestingness or preference judgments. The perception of conceptual and formal attributes in artwork may in part dissociate from each other and from evaluative judgments. More generally, this approach demonstrates the feasibility of quantitative approaches to the neuropsychology of art.

  2. shinichi says:

    References

    • Aharon I., Etcoff N., Ariely D., Chabris C., O’Connor E., Breiter H. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 32, 537–55110.1016/S0896-6273(01)00491-3 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Alajouanine T. (1948). Aphasia and artistic realization. Brain 71, 229–24110.1093/brain/71.3.229 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Bates E., Wilson S., Saygin A., Dick F., Sereno M., Knight R., Dronkers N. (2003). Voxel-based lesion symptom mapping. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 448–450 [PubMed]
    • Bogousslavsky J., Boller F. (2005). Neurological Disorders in Famous Artists, Basel: Karger
    • Brown S., Gao X., Tisdelle L., Eickhoff S. B., Liotti M. (2011). Naturalizing aesthetics: brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage 58, 250–25810.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.012 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Cela-Conde C. J., Ayala F. J., Munar E., Maestu F., Nadal M., Capo M. A., del Rio D., Lopez-Ibor J. J., Ortiz T. S., Mirasso C., Marty G. l. (2009). Sex-related similarities and differences in the neural correlates of beauty. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 3847–385210.1073/pnas.0900304106 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Chatterjee A. (2002). Universal and relative aesthetics: a framework from cognitive neuroscience. International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, Takarazuka, 289–292
    • Chatterjee A. (2003). “Neglect. A disorder of spatial attention,” in Neurological Foundations of Cognitive Neuroscience, ed. D’Esposito M., editor. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; ), 1–26
    • Chatterjee A. (2004a). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bull. Psychol. Arts 4, 55–59
    • Chatterjee A. (2004b). The neuropsychology of visual artists. Neuropsychologia 42, 1568–158310.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.03.011 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Chatterjee A. (2005). A madness to the methods in cognitive neuroscience? J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 847–84910.1162/0898929054021085 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Chatterjee A. (2006). The neuropsychology of visual art: conferring capacity. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 74, 39–4910.1016/S0074-7742(06)74003-X [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Chatterjee A. (2009). “Prospects for a neuropsychology of art,” in Neuroaesthetics, eds Skov M., Vartanian O., editors. (Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company; ), 131–143
    • Chatterjee A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: a coming of age story. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 53–6210.1162/jocn.2010.21457 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Chatterjee A., Thomas A., Smith S. E., Aguirre G. K. (2009). The neural response to facial attractiveness. Neuropsychology 23, 135–14310.1037/a0014430 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Chatterjee A., Widick P., Sternschein R., Smith W. B., II, Bromberger B. (2010). The assessment of art attributes. Empir. Stud. Arts 28, 207–22210.2190/EM.28.2.f [Cross Ref]
    • Cupchik G. C., Gebotys R. (1988). The experience of time, pleasure, and interest during aesthetic episodes. Empir. Stud. Arts 6, 1–1210.2190/D585-A68D-UNC2-NFDF [Cross Ref]
    • Fechner G. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel
    • Fellows L. K., Heberlein A. S., Morales D. A., Shivde G., Waller S., Wu D. H. (2006). Method matters: an empirical study of impact in cognitive neuroscience. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 850–85810.1162/0898929054021139 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Heilman K. M., Watson R. T., Valenstein E. (1993). “Neglect and related disorders,” in Clinical Neuropsychology, eds Heilman K. M., Valenstein E., editors. (New York: Oxford University Press; ), 279–336
    • Hekkert P., Van Wieringen P. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: a study in the appraisal of art. Am. J. Psychol. 109, 389–40710.2307/1423013 [Cross Ref]
    • Ishai A. (2007). Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortex. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 63, 181–18510.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.010 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Ishai A., Fairhall S., Pepperell R. (2007). Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art. Brain Res. Bull. 73, 319–32410.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.04.009 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Jacobsen T., Schubotz R., Hofel L., Cramon D. Y. (2005). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgments of beauty. Neuroimage 29, 276–28510.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Kable J. W., Glimcher P. W. (2009). The neurobiology of decision: consensus and controversy. Neuron 63, 733–74510.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Kawabata H., Zeki S. (2004). Neural correlates of beauty. J. Neurophysiol. 91, 1699–170510.1152/jn.00696.2003 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Kimberg D. Y., Coslett H. B., Schwartz M. F. (2007). Power in voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 1067–108010.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1067 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br. J. Psychol. 95, 489–50810.1348/0007126042369811 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Livingstone M. (2002). Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing. New York: Abrams
    • Mattingley J., Berberovic N., Corben L., Slavin M., Nicholls M., Bradshaw J. (2004). The greyscales task: a perceptual measure of attentional bias following unilateral hemispheric damage. Neuropsychologia 42, 387–39410.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.07.007 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Nadal M., Munar E., Capo M. A., Rosselo J., Cela-Conde C. J. (2008). Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. Spat. Vis. 21, 379–39610.1163/156856808784532653 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Nadal M., Pearce M. T. (2011). The Copenhagen neuroaesthetics conference: prospects and pitfalls for an emerging field. Brain Cogn. 76, 172–18310.1016/j.bandc.2011.01.009 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Ramachandran V. S., Hirstein H. (1999). The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J. Conscious. Stud. 6, 15–51
    • Rorden C., Karnath H.-O. (2004). Using human brain lesions to infer function: a relic from a past era in the fMRI age? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 813–81910.1038/nrn1521 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Russell P. A., George D. A. (1990). Relationships between aesthetic response scales applied to paintings. Empir. Stud. Arts 8, 15–30
    • Skov M., Vartanian O., editors. (eds). (2009). Neuroaesthetics. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc
    • Smith W. B., II, Sternschein R., Widick P., Bromberger B., Chatterjee A. (2011). Artistic production following brain damage. Leonardo 44, 405–41010.1162/LEON_a_00240 [Cross Ref]
    • van Buren B., Bromberger B., Potts D., Miller B., Chatterjee A. (2010). “Changes in painting styles of artists with Alzheimer’s disease,” in International Association of Empirical Aesthetics Annual Meeting, Dresden
    • Vartanian O., Goel V. (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. Neuroreport 15, 893–89710.1097/00001756-200404090-00032 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Warrington E. K., James M. (1991). The Visual Object and Spatial Perception Battery. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company
    • Winston J., O’Doherty J., Kilner J., Perrett D., Dolan R. (2007). Brain systems for assessing facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia 45, 195–20610.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.009 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Woods W. A. (1991). Parameters of aesthetic objects: applied aesthetics. Empir. Stud. Arts 9, 105–114
    • Wu D. H., Waller S., Chatterjee A. (2007). The functional neuroanatomy of thematic role and locative relational knowledge. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 1542–155510.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1542 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
    • Zaidel D. (2005). Neuropsychology of Art. New York: Psychology Press
    • Zeki S. (1999). Art and the brain. J. Conscious. Stud. 6, 76–96

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.