I am interested in the implications of mirror neurons for art -- in fact I
gave a talk at the psychology department at Yale on this topic this fall.
Here they are as summarized in a short publication last year. I would be
interested to discuss with people the following issues.
[i] how do mirror neurons enable us to understand painting and sculpture at
other periods. For example, work of Jackson Pollock and other 'action
artists'.
[ii] how do mirror neurons change our appreciation of ballet -- according
to neuroscience, when we see a ballet, we see it with our motor cortex. How
might this change our understanding of the aesthetics of movement art?
Might not there be an aesthetic based upon our enjoyment of movements our
motor cortex might empathize with even though they are beyond its own
abilities? Could not this also underlie the enjoyment people have in sport?
[iii] how do mirror neurons enable us to bring up to date art theory as
developed by German aestheticist and their concern for Einfühling "feeling
oneself into" -- I thinking here of the work of such people as Robert
Vischer, Theordor Lipps, Heinrich Wölfflin, Adolf von Hildebrand, Bernard
Berenson and Alexander Truslet?
John Skoyles
--Motor perception and anatomical realism in Classical Greek art Medical Hypotheses (1998) 51, 69-70. John R. Skoyles
Abstract -The rise of anatomical realism in sculpture with the Classical Greeks puzzles art historians. Recently, it has been discovered that the motor cortex perceives motor actions. I argue that Classical artists discovered a new aesthetic based on using art to stimulate not just, as previously, the visual cortex, but also the motor one. -- Anatomical realism in art starts with the Classical Greeks (1). As put by the art historian Martin Robinson, the Classical Greeks innovated the portrayal of the 'rhythms of the living body -- taut and relaxed muscles, straight and bent limbs -- instead of the anatomical surface-patterns [of the earlier Archaic Greeks]' (1). Why they started this is a mystery.
The recent finding that the motor cortex engages in perception (2-4), however, sheds light upon this problem. Evidence comes from various sources that the motor cortex not only executes actions but sees them:
* Neurons in the F5 premotor cortex in monkeys discharge both when performing a hand action and also when seeing the same action done by another monkey or their experimenter (2)
* The patterns of motor evoked potentials in people's hand muscles during an action are also evoked by transcranial stimulation when people look at the same action done by another (3).
* PET imaging detects activation in the caudal part of the left inferior frontal gyms of the motor cortex when people look at hand actions (4).
* This link between motor action and perception also applies to the movements of facial expressions: similar electromyographic (EMG) activations occur when people look at facial expressions as when they make them (5).
This link between perception and the motor cortex, changes bow we understand the aesthetic of anatomical realism. Presently, realism is understood in terms of artists' capturing visual likeness - and thus surface similarity. The above research opens up the possibility that realism might also result from artists' capturing the motor look (through accurately representing its muscle tautness and pose) of a body in action (or state of rest). Thus while Archaic Greek and other artists might have sought to stimulate the look of a body as recognized by the viewer's visual cortex, Classical Greek artists went further and sought to stimulate the viewer's motor cortex and so give them a sensation of a living body. It was to do this that they learnt how to detail the body not only in surface terms (as before) but also anatomical ones and what art historians call the 'rhythms of the living body'.
This proposal makes a strong prediction. If Classical Greek artists, but not Archaic ones, sought realism which activated the motor cortex, then their works should also activate the motor cortex of modern viewers. This should be detectable with MRI or PET brain scanners by comparing brain activation in response to Archaic and Classical works.
One would further predict that good artists (both ancient and modem) discover ways to heighten the sensation of movement in a body and so the activation of the motor cortex. Thus anatomically real works should stimulate it even more than real bodies. For instance, most of us are familiar with how the work of Auguste Rodin heightens the sensation of movement and posture. I would predict the greater a work gives this aesthetic sense, the greater it activates the motor cortex. The recent discovery that the motor cortex engages in perception therefore could be important, not only for research into the nature of aesthetics and the history of art but also into motor perception and the functions of the motor cortex.
References
1. Robinson M. The History of Art. Vol. 1. Oxford. Oxford: University Press, 1975: 175.
2. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Galese V, Fogassi L. Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cogn Brain Res 1996; 3: 131-141.
3. Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G. Motor facilitation during action observation. J Neurophysiol 1995:73: 2608-2611.
4. Dimberg U. Facial reactions to facial expressions. Psychophysiology 1982; 19:443-447.
5. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Matelli M et al Localization of grasp representation in humans by PET, 1: Observation versus execution. Exp Brain Res 1996:111:246-252.
Dr. John R. Skoyles 6 Denning Rd, Hampstead, NW3 1SU London, UK
Check out my Golden House-Sparrow award winning homepage http://www.skoyles.greatxscape.net/
============================================================== 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 : Sun Sep 07 2008 - 04:03:27 EDT