Hi Folks.
Just want to add a few thoughts to the conversation. Sorry it has taken me
so long to respond to some of the early comments. I've been having computer
problems and am only now (finally!) able to catch a moment.
First of all, while I am a visual artist, I think Bruno Deschênes made an
excellent start by bringing music into the discussion. I think we lose
something of real value if we work with the assumption that visual art
covers the territory, or that visual art is somehow primary. Reminds me of
the way scientists used to (still do?) reduce everything to physics. I also
think that we lose something intrinsically important if we lose sight of the
fact that specialists and people with abnormalities deviate (and I mean this
strictly in a scientific sense) from a generic norm. This means we need to
interprete laboratory-based studies on the brain, perception, imaging,
visualization, etc. VERY carefully.
To return to Bruno's point, as he mentioned, the areas of the brain that
apply to visual modalities would not apply across the board to all art.
Even thinking in terms of visual and aural differences does not cover that
conceptual terms translate differently from art to art. Scale, for example,
has totally different meanings in art and music. My point: even
definitions can be slippery.
This is an important given the way that people seem to even mix perception
and the brain -- as if brain activity and how we interpret what we see has
been precisely correlated by scientists who study these areas. This is not
the case and often different assumptions are brought into psychophysical and
brain models. Moreover, these differences relate to a question David raised
regarding how artistic judgment is generated. In my opinion, this kind of
question is too general. It lumps together too many areas that have not
been resolved even in a narrow sense -- and thus critically reflects on who
is making the judgment and how who is drawing the conclusions is defining
the axiomatic assumpitons. Assuming "we like certain images and not others"
seems to be an incredibly naive assumption.
Not to pick on David (hi David!), but when he said that "about 90% of our
perceptions are visually based" he was overlooking that we evaluate our
perceptions MORE or LESS. It really depends on how we look, what we are
looking at, and the assumptions we bring to our gaze. What I believe is key
here is that for all intents and purposes the eyeball is a camera obscura,
admitting light in and allowing none to escape. Moreover, our brain fuses
the information taken in by what our TWO eyes see. Seems to me that we need
to establish better connections between the physical world and the brain
before we can even begin to address the details here. Again, we also need
to be clear that visual details should not be assumed to apply to all arts.
Since areas of the brain specialize, it seems unlikely one conclusion fits
all.
Given this, I must admit I remain puzzled by the way many people suggest it
is a given that we like certain works of art and not others -- as if these
likes and dislikes are universal and unchanging over time. Even Peg
AtKisson's experiment, which seems to speaks to the 'fact' that the brain
responds to familliar patterns, even those it does not consciously
recognize, does not address the larger historical picture or art in general.
While I find it useful and interesting perceptually, as I said before, I
think we need to be real clear about what we can cover when we apply
scientific conclusions to art. Applying these kinds of laboratory-based
studies to art might narrow things a bit too much since there is no
mechanism for including learning, differentiating who was looking, and/or
how we distinguish a specialist from others.
I must say I question the assumption that people know good art and that our
conclusions about good art last in general. For example, contrary to what
many people seem to say about good art, the appeal of art seems to often
differ dramatically over time. Probably the best example of this is late
19th century Western art (Impressionism, Cezanne, etc.). While it is all
the rage today, many of these artists were virtually unknown when they
lived. Some say that the way in which the critics got it 'wrong' is why no
one ever trusts what critics conclude today. Additionally, as someone noted
earlier, we often don't like the art of other cultures because it is not
familiar to us. Even if we stick to the West we find that various periods
are often under-valued today. For example, the narrative art of the Middle
Ages is often absolutely wonderful. Yet it is often treated with distain
today because people no longer have a context for it. People also fail to
appreciate the artistic skills and inventions that were used to develop and
to create these images. Instead, we often just see them as archaic. I
will abstain from commenting on history more, at least at this point.
One last thought. Glenn wrote:
> But strangely enough, there is some sort of
> "emperor's new clothes" phenomenon that allows the party lines to be
> more influential then ever, despite the fact that few people really
> buy them. In the 1950's, Barnett Newman was able to say that
> aesthetics was to artists what ornithology must be for the birds. In
> today's contemporary art world, it is hard to find recent work in
> major galleries or museums that isn't about the "aboutness" that the
> culturati like to chew on. Many of the people who talk about art for
> a living only want art that gives them stuff to talk about. Somewhere
> along the line it seems to have been forgotten that the most profound
> aspects of a visual work of art are often beyond the pale of lexical
> description.
I've often wondered about the way critics and art historians seem more
interested in the 'narrative' they find in the work than the visual a
painter, for example, works with when developing the image the viewer
eventually sees. The painter, of course, is both the creator and the first
viewer, so she has a very unique position because she is testing and
evaluating as the art emeges.
Equally bothersome to me is the way many scientists in consciousness studies
use a similar technique in general and when they speak of art. They, too,
have adopted the language/logic prototype -- at the expense of the visual.
This prejudice goes back to Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, so it is
long-embedded and deeply implicit in conversations regarding consciousness
and the brain. Just as I opt for seeing music is not the same as visual
art, I think we need to be really clear on the differences between optical
and verbal hypothesis.
Enough. Looking forward to some good discussions!
All the best.
Amy
___________________________________________
Amy Ione
PO Box 12748
Berkeley, CA 94748-3748 USA
Phone: 1 (510) 548-2052
Fax: 1 (510) 548-2054
email: ione@lmi.net
URL: http://users.lmi.net/ione
==============================================================
Post Message: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
Web Archive: http://pks.bu.edu/artwithbraininmind-l
Unsubscribe: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 25 2008 - 04:03:00 EDT