Hi David:

I have dipped in and out of this very interesting thread, so please forgive any oversights my comments here. First, I think questions of cultural comparisons should be raised with any investigation of the role of human biology on perception, but most especially on aesthetics. To what extent, and in what ways, can we deal with a universal biological human aesthetic response? Even if humans have identical biological responses to stimuli, those responses may be different valued and interpreted across cultures. 

Second, I think the work of psychologist J. J. Gibson should be considered in this exploration. (Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.) Some of his useful observations include the idea that animals (and humans as animals) never perceive in a vacuum as most psychological tests of visual perception had been conducted up to that time. Rather, we perceive in an "ambient visual array" that is constantly in motion. This explains why we can visualize that which is all around us even when it is not within our line of vision, or when there are obstacles such as walls in the way. Additionally, our visual perception can neither be separated from our environment nor from other past, present and future sensory stimuli. Perception is holistic. He develops these observations into his theory of "affordances," by which he means that animals apprehend visual stimuli directly from what it "affords" a living organism in a particular environment for their prospects of individual and species survival. 

There are issues with the application of Gibsonian theory to cross-cultural human productions. Tim Ingold (2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge) has done the most extensive integration of Gibsonian theory into a cross-cultural anthropological framework. Ingold developed a theory of "skills" as a means by which meaning arises directly out of perceptual interaction with specific environments. It should be noted that Gibson's "ecological theory of perception" argues against the cognitivists who posit that the mind generates interpretive frameworks for perceptual data. Gibson argues instead that meanings and values arise directly out of the perceptual experience. Ingold supports and elaborates this view. 

In my own work, most particularly, "Beavers and Sheep: Visual Appearance and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Algonquin-Anglo Relations" (full citation available in my RG profile), I attempted to integrate the Gibsonian theory of perception with Lakoff and Johnson's (1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) theory of "metaphors we live by" As an anthropologist, I see human culture as saturated in symbols, as well as narrative frameworks. I can't set aside the role of symbols and narratives in the production of aesthetic meaning and value. 

I am still working through these issues, so I am looking forward to the seeing the directions this discussion takes. 

Thanks for the link, Manuel. I read the article just now, and found Phlip Ball's extreme point of view interesting, though rather vague. The title, "Neuroesthetics is killing your soul," is particularly revealing. He doesn't really address the fundamental issues of this emerging field, setting up a sort of "straw man" critique, creating a caricature then knocking down his own creation. A critical review of one of Zeki's books would have been a more worthwhile undertaking, and something that could have contributed to a genuine discussion in this field.

Art resonates in the minds of the people who experience it. New insights into how the mind works as a function of neural activity can only expand our understanding of aesthetic phenomena. On a theoretical level this seems evident to me, and I am making an effort to integrate the findings of the last 25 years into my personal vision of the visual arts and the aesthetic experience.

My question asks if anybody has tried applying these insights to the production of art, in a practical sense. It would be interesting to hear about such attempts, successful or not.

A colleague named Adip Sabag, giving a lecture on research theory and methodology, once said that "The first rule of research is not to pay attention to people when they tell you that it can't be done."

Thank you for your words of caution, Manuel. I should add that my working concept of neuroaesthetics and neuroscience is broad and overlaps a lot with the psychology of perception; of course the conceptual border between the study of the nervous system and the study of the mind (including the powerful illusion of colorful, stereoscopic vision) is necessarily quite blurry, at least from my transdisciplinary point of view.

As an undergrad student in 1974 I was fortunate to have taken a psychology course with a researcher in the field of visual perception named Stanley Weintraub at the University of Michigan. The next year I enrolled in a visual arts program at Northern Michigan University, and a course called Psychological Aspects of the Visual Arts helped me make the connection between this field and studio production. Two decades later, reading Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (there's that word again) showed me some of the possibilities of bridging the psychology of visual perception and neuroscience. Another two decades later, I find that it's time to catch up with the revolution in our understanding of the neural basis of perception, consciousness, and the aesthetic experience.

By the way, we have been discussing eye-tracking, saccades and fixations in relation to art on another question page:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Eye_Tracking_Devices_and_Art2

Lia Cook is an artist and educator that may be a good lead for you. She is professor at The California College of Art and is leading some interesting work with neuroscience and art. http://www.liacook.com/works/new-work-neuroscience-research/

Fascinating! Thank you, Isaac. This is just the sort of thing I was hoping to find when I asked the question.

Manuel: Who are the people that are "too eager to apply untested principles" in the field of neuroaesthetics, what "untested principles" are you refering to, and what evidence shows that the application of these "untested principles" has been excessive? I am interested in your thoughts on this matter, since as a scientist I avidly seek evidence that may refute the hypotheses that seem to best explain what I have experienced. We should be looking for theoretical and methodological flaws in neuroaesthetic research, in order to evaluate its heuristic potential.

I just located and downloaded a critique of the field of neuroaesthetics that seems to be more reasonable and balanced than Philip Ball's essay, mentioned earlier on this thread.

Conway, Bevil R.; Rehding Alexander, “Neuroaesthetics and the trouble with beauty,” in Plos Biology, vol. 11, no. 3, March 2013, pp. 1-5 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001504&representation=PDF, access: march 22, 2014).

I suspect that much of the criticism of neuroaesthetic research ultimately derives from the vestiges of Cartesian "ghost in the machine" dualism that is firmly embedded in the collective psyche of Western civilization.

Any thoughts on this are welcome, of course.

Here are some links for those who might like to read a bit more about neuroaesthetics:

INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR NEUROAESTHETICS

n. d. International Network for Neuroaesthetics (http://neuroaesthetics.net/, access: February 6, 2014).

INTRODUCTION TO NEUROESTHETICS

n. d. Introduction to neuroesthetics (http://www.neuroesthetics.org/, access: February 6, 2014).

ISHIZU, Tomohiro; ZEKI, Semir

2011 “Toward a brain-based theory of beauty,” in Plos One, vol. 6, no. 7, July 6, 2011 (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021852&representation=PDF, access: March 22, 2014).

JACOBSEN, Thomas

2010 “Beauty and the brain: culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation,” in Journal of Anatomy, vol. 216, no. 2, pp. 184-191 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.2010.216.issue-2/issuetoc, access: January 11, 2013).

MOSKOWITZ, Clara

2014 “Equations are art inside a mathematician’s brain,” in Nature, March 5, 2014 (http://www.nature.com/news/equations-are-art-inside-a-mathematician-s-brain-1.14825, access: March 22, 2014).

NEUROESTETICA.ORG

n. d. Neuroestetica.org, the official website of the Italian Society of Neuroesthetics Semir Zeki (http://www.neuroestetica.it/, access: February 6, 2014).

Here are some books about -or related to- the field of neuroaesthetics.

CHATTERJEE, Anjan

2014 The aesthetic brain, how we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

HOFFMAN, Donald D.

2000 Visual intelligence, how we create what we see, reprint, New York, W. W. Norton & Company.

LIVINGSTONE, Margaret

2008 Vision and art, the biology of seeing, reprint, New York, Abrams.

ONIANS, John

2007 Neuroarthistory, from Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki, New Haven/London, Yale University Press.

SHIMAMURA, Arthur

2013 Experiencing art in the brain of the beholder, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

STARR, G. Gabrielle

2013 Feeling beauty, the neuroscience of aesthetic experience, Cambridge/London, The MIT Press.

ZEKI, Semir

2009 Splendors and miseries of the brain; love, creativity, and the quest for human happiness, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.

I've put this collection together over the last few months, and it's going to take me several more to try to digest it.

I'm on this thread to learn.....very interesting!

Hello, Miranda. With your multidisciplinary background in biology, psychology, and music, your input is most welcome.

Thank you, Aria, this is an excellent source. Miranda, there are some chapters on musical education in the book that can be accessed via Aria's link.

I have found some useful information on the limitations of applying neuroscience in education on another question board at ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_research_findings_from_the_neurosciences_benefit_education?cp=re65_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=wFsNiw22Etrn_AS7SWoLzeklF9pZZ3ez&pli=1#view=53302441d4c118c5708b460e

You guys may be interested in Vision-Space that models visual awareness. A new form of illusionary space based on perceptual structure and not optical projection. www.pacentre.org

There are papers in the library section and over 20 online presentations. My background is visual art but I have spent a lot of time with vision scientists and they are currently evaluating the output from our post production software tool that generates Vision-Space moving image media. Vision is entirely non photographically rendered. The main point is that we actually need to START with the phenomenon and work back. Neuroscience should be looking to the visual artist to describe phenomenal field. Once we have that understanding we can start to think about how it's generated by the biological system from the input in the light array.

There is a lot of interesting material on your site, John. I gave it a quick look and will return when I have more time. Thank you! I'm off to teach a class on pre-Hispanic art from the Gulf Coast region of Mesoamerica.

Here is a related thread I recently initiated:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_contemporary_visual_artists_are_applying_principles_from_fields_like_neuroscience_neuroaesthetics_and_visual_perception

I like your work, John. I think the blurry border between neurocience, the psychology of perception, and the visual arts is a good place for doing creative work while contributing to our understanding of vision and aesthetics.

I think what's required is the acknowledgment that there is such as thing as 'perceptual structure'. We generate it…so artists have a say because they are in touch with it…scientists are also players because the physical world (micro particles EMR) have to give rise to or calibrate it, we as a biological system have to generate it, we as individuals behave in accordance with it and if the system gets screwed up it become atypical. Perceptual structure is the elephant in the room…the link zone. Vision-Space is a first attempt to create a programming architecture that mimics or illustrates aspects of visual awareness but we need to keep moving towards a system that generates it from process that conform to what's known with respect to neural firing etc. For that we require the input from the scientists. The issue is to get them to accept a starting point that's by and large 'subjective' in origin. A setting out point defined by the experiential ontology and phenomenology.

Hallo Everyone! I am new here, so please excuse me for possible "mistakes" (and excuse my bad English also...)

I am very interested in the theme and hope to learn something more (I am going to read all the related articles you posted). Maybe my post is a bit off-topic, but I would like anyone who has a better knowledge of these themes to give me some tips about neuroaesthetics applied not to the general "visual arts" but to the more restricted theatre iconography field. I am currently working on a project aimed at the building and implementation of a database of shakespearean iconography. Though I am not a neuroscientist, I think there might be some connections between the vaste research field on mirror neurons and related researches in performance studies, and the topic of this thread. What do you think? Thank you!

Here is the latest Vision-Space (VS) presentation where I try to give some idea of how VS might work with simulation. We have previously rigged the VS post production tool up to a basic depth-map camera and that worked OK, so the the move to real-time VS even at this early stage of development is possible. We are working with Cardiff Uni (computer science) on this.

The presentational is however based around paintings and the ongoing intuitive exploration of phenomenal field. I think that by understanding phenomenal field and perceptual structure we can think again about how we approach and think about (in scientific terms) the visual system and what its doing. If we have something wrong at the level of 'approach' then outcomes from ill conceived experimentation will be confusing, overly complex or even misleading. I have just read Jeff Hawkins' book On Intelligence. While I am not aligned with the 'brain theory' the process he describes for neural processing is likely to be ubiquitous?

For those of you who have watched some of the other VS presentations you can skip the first 3mins or so background stuff.

Vision-Space: Exploring Implicit Spatial Awareness

http://youtu.be/WMh9j60ERxU

Bravo, John! Your explanation is very clear, at least to me, and extremely interesting, as well as very pertinent to this thread. (As a suggestion, perhaps a novice would benefit from a closer, longer look at the concept and diagram of visual acuity, including a bit on the fovea and the retina, in this presentation; I would also suggest not inviting the viewer to skip ahead, because the first part is good for setting the stage, even for people like myself who have seen your earlier videos.) I shall use this in the pilot program on neuroaesthetics that will begin here at the University of Guanajuato in two weeks; I have a couple of art students with modest grants that will enable them to dedicate their summer vacations to exploring this field. (Although I'm moving away from the label neuroaesthetics and toward "Art in the embodied mind," as I think the latter phrase implies a wider thematic scope.) Thanks for sharing the video here.

I approve the move from neuroaethetics towards 'art and the embodied mind'. Perception is not at the end of a neurone and neither is aesthetics. We will not understand art by studying neurone behaviour. If we can use art to penetrate phenomenal field and the nature of perceptual structure then we can get a vantage point ( a proper one not based on an assumption) to consider what neural firing is doing/achieving? The experiential ontology?

That's right, John. These ReearchGate discussions and all of the links people have provided are helping me get a more solid footing.

Hi, Valeria, it's nice to meet you.

The only texts I have seen relating neuroscience to theater are in this book:

*Learning, arts, and the brain, the Dana Consortium report on arts and cognition, organized by Michael S. Gazzaniga,* Carolyn Asbury y Barbara Rich, editores, New York/Washington, Dana Press, 2008 http://www.dana.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=88374, access: June 12, 2014).

A search for the word "theater" in this book yields some interesting results. It's not exactly what you are asking, but I am hoping you will find some useful ideas.

Thank you! :)

I have been drilling though this as I had an application in to do a PhD...refused of course!

Vision-Space: Our self-organizing mind, 1/f noise and a possible role for ipRGC receptor functions


http://youtu.be/4xpk9f8M9vo

John, one advantage of your Vision-Space animation concept is that the viewer's attention is drawn to the focal point chosen by the creator, rather than having the freedom to let one's eyes roam about the image. This would seem to give greater control to the artist over the way his or her work is experienced.

Hello, David,

Is it possible to find out more info on where your art students are taking their investigations in this field? Were leads to Lia Cook's work earlier helpful? Would a connection help?

I recently came upon this work that you may be interested in or may already be aware of. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/art-human-mind_n_5569280.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

http://dornsife.usc.edu/bci/links/

I am very interested in bringing this conversation to my community at SAIC.

Dear Isaac:

Many thanks for the links.

I am still at a preliminary stage, collecting books, articles, and web publications, reading them, and working out a graduate level course plan for January 2015. At present I have two advanced undergrad students with scholarships, working on projects in "Summer Scientific Research" programs, funded by the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the National Council of Science and Technology. One has been spending the last few weeks reviewing the literature and looking for applications of neuroaesthetics in the production of art. The final report will be out soon, in Spanish, and I'll post it on my ResearchGate profile. It is a preliminary, very tentative view of this problem, but we have to start somewhere. The other student is looking at the cognitive aspects of face recognition and applying them to the interpretation of masks made from agave leafs by contemporary Otomi artist José Luis Romo Martín. (I recently uploaded a brief article on these art objects that I wrote for an exhibition catalog.) In the next few months I plan on working with her to prepare an article for publication somewhere.

A few hours ago I posted an updated list of contemporary artists involved with neuroaesthetics and related fields, including Lia Cook, on another thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_neuroscience_have_an_interest_in_art_education?_tpcectx=home_feed

Best regards,

David

Hi David,

There is a new literature in neuroaesthetics that has emerged from the discovery of mirror neurons and an analogous network in humans. I'm sure it would be good for at least one class worth of material! I admit up front that I am self-promoting, as I have published in this field.

Start with Freedberg & Gallese (2007), who wrote a theoretical article predicting that observers should be able to simulate depicted actions via the mirroring system.

I published a series of studies demonstrating that observers are capable of simulating the actions of painters via the information embedded in their brushstrokes in abstract, gestural paintings. (Taylor et al., 2012).

Leder et al. (2012) showed that these simulations actually influence aesthetic appraisal.

Umilta et al. (2012) showed that observing gestural paintings alters activity in motor cortex.

There is also a rich analogous field in music if you are interested in reading on the neuroaesthetics of auditory media.

Citations below:

Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(5), 197-203.

Taylor, E. T., Witt, J. K., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Uncovering the connection between artist and audience: Viewing painted brushstrokes evokes corresponding action representations in the observer. Cognition, 125(1), 26-36.

Leder, H., Bär, S., & Topolinski, S. (2012). Covert painting simulations influence aesthetic appreciation of artworks. Psychological science, 23(12), 1479-1481.

Umilta, M. A., Berchio, C., Sestito, M., Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2012). Abstract art and cortical motor activation: an EEG study. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 6.

Thank you, Eric. This is just what I am looking for. I shall follow up on the sources you register and take a look at the articles you have posted here on ReseachGate.

OK, Eric I managed to download, file, and catalog all of the sources you mentioned, and integrate them into a reference list for future study and for sharing with graduate students in the arts. A preliminary reading shows me that this is all very useful, cutting-edge stuff. Thanks again.

Here is the article my student prepared with a bit of support, as part of the summer research program at the University  of Guanajuato:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264417409_La_neuroesttica_y_las_artes_visuales_un_acercamiento_preliminar?ev=prf_pub

Conference Paper La neuroestética y las artes visuales: un acercamiento preliminar

Hi David:

I have dipped in and out of this very interesting thread, so please forgive any oversights my comments here. First, I think questions of cultural comparisons should be raised with any investigation of the role of human biology on perception, but most especially on aesthetics. To what extent, and in what ways, can we deal with a universal biological human aesthetic response? Even if humans have identical biological responses to stimuli, those responses may be different valued and interpreted across cultures. 

Second, I think the work of psychologist J. J. Gibson should be considered in this exploration. (Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.) Some of his useful observations include the idea that animals (and humans as animals) never perceive in a vacuum as most psychological tests of visual perception had been conducted up to that time. Rather, we perceive in an "ambient visual array" that is constantly in motion. This explains why we can visualize that which is all around us even when it is not within our line of vision, or when there are obstacles such as walls in the way. Additionally, our visual perception can neither be separated from our environment nor from other past, present and future sensory stimuli. Perception is holistic. He develops these observations into his theory of "affordances," by which he means that animals apprehend visual stimuli directly from what it "affords" a living organism in a particular environment for their prospects of individual and species survival. 

There are issues with the application of Gibsonian theory to cross-cultural human productions. Tim Ingold (2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge) has done the most extensive integration of Gibsonian theory into a cross-cultural anthropological framework. Ingold developed a theory of "skills" as a means by which meaning arises directly out of perceptual interaction with specific environments. It should be noted that Gibson's "ecological theory of perception" argues against the cognitivists who posit that the mind generates interpretive frameworks for perceptual data. Gibson argues instead that meanings and values arise directly out of the perceptual experience. Ingold supports and elaborates this view. 

In my own work, most particularly, "Beavers and Sheep: Visual Appearance and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Algonquin-Anglo Relations" (full citation available in my RG profile), I attempted to integrate the Gibsonian theory of perception with Lakoff and Johnson's (1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) theory of "metaphors we live by" As an anthropologist, I see human culture as saturated in symbols, as well as narrative frameworks. I can't set aside the role of symbols and narratives in the production of aesthetic meaning and value. 

I am still working through these issues, so I am looking forward to the seeing the directions this discussion takes. 

Dear Cory:

Thanks for your very insightful contribution to this thread. I am still at a very incipient stage in assimilating research in this area. I have been reading Gibson since I was an undergraduate art student in the mid-seventies. The Ingold reference looks very useful and I think it will help me to tie perceptual studies with my research in cultural studies. His book just went into my Amazon cart. Once I get a solid footing in recent research in consciousness, perception, and neuroaesthetics, I plan on going back to Mesoamerican concepts involving what we today call art (through ethnohistorical sources, language, and material culture), looking both for the biological common denominators and the cultural differences.

Greetings from Guanajuato,

David

Hi David.

Not sure if you are already aware of this and although it has just passed, my attention has been drawn to The Minerva Foundation 2014 Conference on Neuroesthetics which this last weekend featured Johanna Drucker as a presenter and conference organizer. This year's theme is “Seeing Knowing: Vision, Knowledge, Cognition, and Aesthetics.” It was held at Stanley Hall, UC Berkeley – Saturday, Sept. 6, 8am-5pm / Sunday, Sept. 7, 9:30am-5:30pm. Information/registration: http://www.minervaberkeley.org

Regards

David Paton

Thanks, David. I wasn't aware of this meeting or of the foundation. I'll certainly keep an eye on their work in the future.

Hi David:

I should have suspected you'd be familiar with Gibson! I'm glad you find the Ingold reference helpful. Indeed, it is such a huge area of research with so many angles yet to be fully integrated at the intersection of biology and culture. This is a great discussion to tie some of those threads together! 

David, I am working on the uses of neuroscientific findings in the areas of memory, mirror neurons, and the effects of proximity on behavior.  Not sure if my work overlaps with yours, but more than willing to share.

Dear Jane:

Your interests, on the blurry border between theater and neuroscience, are indeed similar to mine, on the equally blurry border between visual arts and neuroscience (plus verbal art, multiculturalism, etc.). Sometimes I deal with theater and music students, in addition to visual arts students, in my classes in postgraduate programs in the arts. If you have come across any particularly useful publications along these lines I would be interested in reading them, as well as anything you may write.

This book just arrived in the mail:

Gregory Hickok, The myth of mirror neurons: the real neuroscience of communication and cognition, New York/London, W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.

Hickok claims that the role of mirror neurons in many aspects of human behavior and culture has been exaggerated over the last decade or so. He backs up to 1992 and attempts to sort out what really works from what doesn't. It is written for the layman but at first glance seems to have some useful insights into the workings of the human mind, including our vision, taking recent research trends and findings into account.

Have other followers of this thread looked at this recent contribution, and have comments to share?

I send my best wishes for a happy and fruitful new year to all who have contributed to this thread.

David

David,

I have read much of Hickok's criticism in his on-line journal and find it valid in some ways, and not in others. I am glad that he is questioning the theory. My belief that MN's play a part in observed behavior and responses is backed up by many, many studies indicating their utility as well as my own anecdotal experience working with actors. For actors, the concept of mirror neurons as motor neurons is sufficient because at the bottom of the craft is action. I am however not convinced that they are a cause of empathy.

Thank you, Jane, for your comments on Hickok's writings.

I am beginning to understand that paleonueroaesthetics may be useful in constructing a theoretical foundation for defining a common denominator in human (and protohuman) aesthetics. We have had a very productive conversation over the past several weeks on this thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_primate_species_other_than_Homo_sapiens_engaged_in_acts_of_aesthetic_creation

There is a lot to read here, over 250 posts, including some very interesting reflections, references, and data.

Jane: I came across this RG question page discussing Hickok's book and the reactions to it by scholars in the field of neuroscience; if you haven't yet seen it, you may be interested in checking it out: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_knows_commentaries_opinions_on_Gregory_Hickoks_The_myth_of_mirror_neurons?tpr_view=f32dfd32-5210-4fb8-b25b-52eb4d001263_1

The seventh section of the bibliography I recently translated into English and uploaded to ResearchGate has recent sources on the embodied mind, neuroaesthetics and art education: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280949470_Art_in_the_embodied_mind_a_bibliography_%28updated_August_14_2015%29

Data Art in the embodied mind: a bibliography (updated August 14, 2015)

Hello David,

Your question is very interesting and maybe a bit ahead of time... Neuroscience is only recently having a better understanding of how neuronal networks structure influence cognition. As an art educator I’m very interested in the field of neuroaesthetics. I believe practical applications for the arts classroom will come from this branch of the sciences.

In my researched I’m interested in the links between neuronal network formation/development, cognitive (learning) styles and the basic elements of art. By now, we can affirm that neuronal network development conditions cognitive style (or learning style). If all goes well, the arts class room may provide teachers evidence that will help them on their learning styles diagnosis. It is very innovative and exploratory research, but preliminary results indicate that artistic expression may reveal the cognitive style of the creator with great accuracy. Let me know if you would like to further exchange on the subject.  

Pedro: I will get back to you on this after a hiatus of several days, as next week I will be intensely involved in an international congress that I am helping to organize. I am certainly interested in your work and in corresponding with you about this topic. Please excuse my present lack of time to go into this in more detail.

No worries David :)

There is a great book looking at the relationship of music and the arts related to medical processing, "From Scales to Scalpels," that may also be of interest in this summary and as it relates to the neurological processing of many intricate details and for memory and processing.

Visual arts and neuroscience is a much unexplored field. In my research I’m working with visual telemetry and how different brain structures influence expression with basic elements of art (formal expression).

The article joint in this comment may help... if you would like I’m open for a Skype discussion.

I'm back from the congress, involving studied in all disciplines of groups speaking Otopamean languages in central Mexico. (Sometimes I think I'm spreading myself to thin thematically, but somehow it all fits together.)

I am doing my best to obtain, read, and assimilate research in the field of neuroaesthetics. It is extremely useful for the purpose of constructing an aesthetic theory fot the 21st century, although sometimes I feel that some of it tends to decapitate human beings and focus on just the head. Broadening the perspective to include the entire body makes sense to me, since we are not brains in jars. For this reason I call my graduate seminar "Art in the embodied mind"; initially I considered calling it "Neuroaesthetics." Of course this is just part of the problem, since the body exists and feels within multiple contexts that should not be ignored: social, urban, geographic, cosmic, etc. For now the relationship of art and the embodied mind seems to be a reasonable scope: not too close, not too broad.

This is all new to me, and I haven't managed to contribute anything as far as original research yet, but I have put together a lengthy bibliography for my students, which I have shared on this (and other) ResearchGate question pages. For newcomers to this discussion I shall repeat the link here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280949470_Art_in_the_embodied_mind_a_bibliography_%28updated_August_14_2015%29

Data Art in the embodied mind: a bibliography (updated August 14, 2015)

Pedro:

Many thanks for the article from Neuroimage. I just downloaded it and will read it as soon as I can find the time.

Thank you for the extensive list of references.

In my research I'm attempting to understand how cognitive style (different brain structures) express themselves trough formal elements of visual arts, if you have any queues they will be greatly appreciated. 

Pedro, that is the ultimate goal of this line of research, from my perspective as an educator in an art department with emphasis on production in the visual arts. Working out the theoretical framework is a challenge, and using this to produce objects and/or acts of aesthetic creation and production is an even bigger challenge. I agree with you that there is a huge potential here, and that the field is at a very incipient stage. (Although most visual artists have understood what is happening on an intuitive level, and have used this knowledge, since the dawn of art. Understanding how art works on a phenomenal, cognitive, neuroscientific and embodied level can give us the visual equivalent of grammar in linguistics, and much more.) The last section of the bibliography I posted has examples of artists working within (or close to, or at least somewhat related to) the theoretical framework of neuroscience and/or embodiment.

Dear David,

I use some neuroscientific research (scientific papers about how memory works...) in the teaching of visual arts production in my course about Image, Memory and arts (Faculty of Arts). I put it with the rest of the references because once I had a student interested in medical images (x-ray...) and the scientific part of the memory. Nevertheless, my students prefer other references, more related with psicology, psiquiatry, sociology or anthropology (apart from the history of art or the arts). I also refer to some scientific experiments about image and perception/memory in my classes and this is something my students appreciate. As an art teacher... I need them to be creative and so I try everything I think that can be of any interest or help, but neuroscientific research it's not what they are looking for (at least in my experience of 10 years teaching visual arts). Most of them consider that explaining too much the mental process in a scientific way doesn't help their creative or artistic process.

Rebeca: thank you for sharing your experiences. This is very useful to me, since I face similar problems. Many art students come to the academic setting with popular prejudices about "art" being all about creativity and "science" being excessively rational. The trick is to help them see the basic unity of experience, and that art and science necessarily involve both creative and rational processes, albeit in varying proportions. (Think, for example, of Escher's use of geometry in creating impossible environments in the minds of viewers, or of Einstein's flights of fantasy that led to breakthroughs in the field of cosmology and physics.)

Part of the problem is that in our global society there is a crude distortion of science, corresponding to 19th and early 20th century science, which people like to set up as a "straw man" and criticize, when the epistemology of scientific thought has gone far beyond this. I still see theses and dissertations where students think their task is to set up a hypothetical answer to a question (often something that is absurdly obvious, una perogrullada), and then select evidence to "prove" it, rather than working within the contemporary scientific paradigm, which involves asking a genuine question, then setting up multiple working hypotheses that might answer this question, and trying to refute each one, to determine which deserve to remain on the discussion table. I think this method works just as well in the study of the arts as in any other field, as humans and all we do are part of nature, and science is the best tool we have come up with as a species to understand nature. In an academic arts program, besides producing art, students study art, and without the framework of science we would probably just be wasting our time.

You mention students' preferences. This is something we must be attuned to as educators, but it is also important to try to help students to expand their horizons. If they leave a program with the same preferences and prejudices they had when they entered it, then something has gone wrong; we might even say that education didn't happen.

As for the social sciences, they are an important part of the big picture. Embodiment theory is the best grand framework I have found for teaching art, as it considers the mind as a consecuence of the lived, experienced body in its social and environmental contexts, as I am beginning to understand. This perspective permits a deeper understanding of vision, for example, as the "grand illusion" of visual experience is the result of the evolution of animal bodies surviving in specific contexts. Embodiment is a semifocused transdisciplinary paradigm amenable to the study of what we call the arts and I think it is essential to forge a theory of aesthetics that is in harmony with what is understood today about the human experience.

It's easy to say this here, on an RG question page, and a bit harder to solve in the classroom, although slowly but surely I think I am figuring out how to achieve this, in part thanks to the input of people like you on virtual threads like this.

I have shared the updated version of my bibliography on other threads, but I suppose I should post it here as well. I prepared it for my graduate seminar "Art in the Embodied Mind." It includes a lot of good, up-to-date sources related to this topic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289251031_Art_in_the_embodied_mind_a_bibliography_updated_4_January_2016

Data Art in the embodied mind: a bibliography (updated 4 January 2016)

Autists have brain structures that show similar patterns. Currently working on the analysis of 25 drawings created by autistic children, they have huge similarities when it comes to the formal elements of the visual arts… will let you know once the work is completed and published.

Systemizing and Empathizing theory (Simon-Baron Cohen, 2005) is an excellent descriptor of cognitive preferences. These reflect on artistic expression in amazing ways, but mostly through the artist’s two main capabilities, one to understand, build, create systems and the other to be in relation with his/her social universe (environment).

Your project sounds fascinating, Pedro. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Thanks for the tip for more reading!

Here is a paper written by an undergrad student (with a little help from her mentor) as part of a summer science program at the University of Guanajuato. It may be of interest to the followers of this question (at least for those who read Spanish).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288832279_El_arte_en_la_mente_encarnada_la_utilizacion_de_ilusiones_geometrico-opticas_para_la_creacion_artistica

Article El arte en la mente encarnada: la utilización de ilusiones g...

The call for papers for the Body of Knowledge conference, to be held at the University of California at Irvine in December 2016, should be posted on this thread. Here it is:

http://sites.uci.edu/bok2016/

The organizers of the conference A Body of Knowledge: Embodied Cognition and the Arts recently put up a video with highlights and videos of the keynote presentations. I recommend these highly. Here is the link:

http://sites.uci.edu/bok2016/

A digital proceedings volume is in preparation and will be freely available on the University of California's eScholarship web site. I'll post the link when it is on line.

Thanks David.

No problem, Paul. Enjoy!