How Neuroimaging Can Aid the Interpretation of Art (original) (raw)

Abstract

Cognitive neuroscience of art continues to be criticized for failing to provide interesting results about art itself. In particular, results of brain imaging experiments have not yet been utilized in interpretation of particular works of art. Here we revisit a recent study in which we explored the neuronal and behavioral response to painted portraits with a direct versus an averted gaze. We then demonstrate how fMRI results can be related to the art historical interpretation of a specific painting. The evidentiary status of neuroimaging data is not different from any other extra-pictorial facts that art historians uncover in their research and relate to their account of the significance of a work of art. They are not explanatory in a strong sense, yet they provide supportive evidence for the art writer’s inference about the intended meaning of a given work. We thus argue that brain imaging can assume an important role in the interpretation of particular art works.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (60)

  1. Argyle, M., and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Ashton, J. (2011). Two Problems with a Neuroaesthetic Theory of Interpretation. Nonsite no. 2. Available online at: https://nonsite.org/two-problems- withneuroaesthetic-theory-of-interpretation (accessed March 15, 2021).
  3. Baxandall, M. (1979). The language of art history. New Lit. His. 10, 453-465. doi: 10.2307/468922
  4. Baxandall, M. (1985). Patterns of intention: on the historical explanation of pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  5. Belting, H. (2009). "The gaze in the image. A contribution to an iconology of the gaze, " in Dynamics and Performativity of Imagination: The Image between the Visible and the Invisible, eds B. Huppauf and C. Wulf (New York, NY: Routledge), 372-395.
  6. Berger, H. (1994). Fictions of the pose: facing the gaze of early modern portraiture. Representations 46, 87-120. doi: 10.2307/2928780
  7. Brown, S., and Dissanayake, E. (2009). "The arts are more than aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as narrow aesthetics, " in Neuroaesthetics. Foundations and frontiers in aesthetics, eds M. Skov and O. Vartanian (Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co), 43-57. doi: 10.4324/97813152 24091-4
  8. Bullot, N., and Reber, R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: toward a psycho- historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behav. Brain Res. 36, 123-137. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000489
  9. Bundgaard, P. F. (2015). Feeling, meaning, and intentionality-a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 14, 781-801. doi: 10.1007/ s11097-014-9351-5
  10. Cañigueral, R., and Hamilton, A. (2019). The role of eye gaze during natural social interactions in typical and autistic people. Front. Psychol. 10:560. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00560
  11. Carrier, D. (1991). Principles of Art History Writing. University Park, PA: The Penn State University Press.
  12. Cavallo, A., Lungu, O., Becchio, C., Ansuini, C., Rustichini, A., and Fadiga, L. (2015). When gaze opens the channel for communication: integrative role of IFG and MPFC. Neuroimage 119, 63-69. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06. 025
  13. Cela-Conde, C., Agnati, L., Huston, J., Mora, F., and Nadal, M. (2011). The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Prog. Neurobiol. 94, 39-48. doi: 10.1016/ j.pneurobio.2011.03.003
  14. Chatterjee, A. (2012). "Neuroaesthetics: Growing pains of a new discipline, " in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, eds A. P. Shimaura and S. E. Palmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 299-317. doi: 10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0066
  15. Chatterjee, A., and Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 370-375. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003
  16. Commare, L., Rosenberg, R., and Leder, H. (2018). More than the sum of its parts: perceiving complexity in painting. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12, 380-391. doi: 10.1037/aca0000186
  17. Conty, L., George, N., and Hietanen, J. (2016). Watching eyes effects: when others meet the self. Conscious. Cogn. 45, 184-197. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016. 08.016
  18. Conway, B. R., and Rehding, A. (2013). Neuroaesthetics and the trouble with beauty. PLoS Biol. 11:e1001504.
  19. Cronan, T. (2013). Against Affective Formalism: Matisse, Bergson, Modernism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio. 1001504
  20. Donald, M. (2006). "Art and cognitive evolution, " in The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity, ed. M. Turner (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3-20. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.003. 0001
  21. Elkins, J., and Fiorentini, E. (2020). Visual Worlds. Looking, Images, Visual Disciplines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Ewing, L., Rhodes, G., and Pellicano, E. (2010). Have you got the look? Gaze direction affects judgements of facial attractiveness. Vis. Cogn. 18, 321-330. doi: 10.1080/13506280902965599
  23. George, N., and Conty, L. (2008). Facing the gaze of others. Neurophysiol. Clin. 38, 197-207. doi: 10.1016/j.neucli.2008.03.001
  24. Gopnik, B. (2012). "Aesthetic science and artistic knowledge, " in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, eds A. P. Shimaura and S. E. Palmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 299-317.
  25. Hamilton, A. (2016). Gazing at me: the importance of social meaning in understanding direct-gaze cues. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371:20150080. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0080
  26. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philos. Rev. 74, 88-95. doi: 10.2307/2183532
  27. Heron, J. (1970). The Phenomenology of social encounter: the gaze. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 31, 243-264. doi: 10.2307/2105742
  28. Hietanen, J. K. (2018). Affective eye contact: an integrative review. Front. Psychol. 9:1587. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01587
  29. Huber, H. D. (2005). Paolo Veronese: Kunst Als Soziales Systems. München: Wilhelm Fink.
  30. Hutzler, F. (2014). Reverse inference is not a fallacy per se: cognitive processes can be inferred from functional imaging data. Neuroimage 84, 1061-1069. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.075
  31. Hyman, J. (2010). "Art and neuroscience, " in Beyond Mimesis and Convention Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, eds R. Frigg and M. C. Hunter (Dordrecht: Springer), 245-261. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7_11
  32. Kegel, L. C., Brugger, P., Frühholz, S., Grunwald, T., Hilfiker, P., Kohnen, O., et al. (2020). Dynamic human and avatar facial expressions elicit differential brain responses. Soc. Cogn. Affect Neurosci. 15, 303-317. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa039
  33. Kelley, M. S., Noah, J. A., Zhang, X., Scassellati, B., and Hirsch, J. (2021). Comparison of human social brain activity during eye-contact with another human and a humanoid robot. Front. Robot. AI 7:599581. doi: 10.3389/frobt. 2020.599581
  34. Kemp, W. (1998). "The work of art and its beholder, " in The Subjects Of Art History?: Historical Objects In Contemporary Perspectives, eds M. A. Cheetham, M. A. Holly, and K. Moxey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 180-196.
  35. Kesner, L. (2006). The role of cognitive competence in the art museum experience. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 21, 4-19. doi: 10.1080/09647770600302101
  36. Kesner, L. (2016). Against the affectless iconology of modern art. Umění/Art 64, 2-19.
  37. Kesner, L., and Horáček, J. (2017). Empathy-related responses to depicted people in art works. Front. Psychol. 8:228. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00228
  38. Kesner, L., Grygarová, D., Fajnerova, I., Lukavsky, J., Nekovarova, T., Tintera, J., et al. (2018). Perception of direct vs. averted gaze in portrait paintings: an fMRI and eye-tracking study. Brain Cogn. 125, 88-99. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2018.06. 004
  39. Kubišta, F. (1940). Bohumil Kubišta. Praha: Spolek výtvarných uměılců Mánes.
  40. Kubovy, M. (2019). Neuroaesthetics: maladies and remedies. Art Percept. 8, 1-26. doi: 10.1163/22134913-20191138
  41. Lombrozo, T. (2012). "Explanation and abductive inference, " in The Oxford Handbook Of Thinking And Reasoning, eds K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison (Oxford: Oxford library of psychology), doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689. 013.0014
  42. Massey, I. (2009). The Neural Imagination: Aesthetic And Neuroscientific Approaches To The Arts. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  43. Minissale, G. (2013). The Psychology Of Contemporary Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Noah, A., Zhang, X., Dravida, S., Ono, Y., Naples, A., McPartland, J., et al. (2020). Real-time eye-to-eye contact is associated with cross-brain neural coupling in angular gyrus. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14:19. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00019
  45. Noë, A. (2015). How Art Reveals The Limits Of Neuroscience. The Chronicle Of Higher Education. Available online at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how- art-reveals-the-limits-of-neuroscience/ (accessed March 15, 2021).
  46. Nummenmaa, L., and Calder, A. J. (2009). Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 135-143. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.006
  47. Panofsky, E. (1953). Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origins And Character. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
  48. Pearce, M., Zaidel, D., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., et al. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 265-279. doi: 10.1177/1745691615621274
  49. Pfeiffer, U., Vogeley, K., and Schilbach, L. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye- tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37, 2516-2528. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev. 2013.07.017
  50. Poldrack, R. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 59-63. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005 .12.004
  51. Rampley, M. (2017). The Seductions of Darwin: Art, Evolution, Neuroscience. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, doi: 10.5325/j.ctv1
  52. Reitstätter, L., Brinkmann, H., Santini, T., Specker, E., Dare, Z., Bakondi, F., et al. (2020). The display makes a difference: a mobile eye tracking study on the perception of art before and after a museum's rearrangement. Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, doi: 10.16910/jemr.13.2.6
  53. Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., et al. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 393-414. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000660
  54. Senju, A., and Johnson, M. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 127-134. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009
  55. Srp, K., Pelikánová, G., and Novotná, Z. (eds) (2014). Bohumil Kubišta/ Zářivý Krystal. Praha: Arbor Vitae.
  56. Stawarska, B. (2006). Mutual gaze and social cognition. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 5, 17-30. doi: 10.1007/s11097-005-9009-4
  57. Vartanian, O., and Skov, M. (2014). Neural correlates of viewing paintings: evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Brain Cogn. 87C, 52-56. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.004
  58. Vassiliou, F. (2020). Aesthetic disinterestedness in neuroaesthetics: a phenomenological critique. Aesthetic Invest. 4, 77-95.
  59. Wollheim, R. (1987). Painting as an Art. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
  60. Zrzavý, J. (1949). Bohumil Kubišta, in: Život a dílo Bohumila Kubišty ve vzpomínkách současníku. Praha: Aventinum.