Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty

This article addresses the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. It first, critically, considers one of the most influential approaches to the psychophysics of aesthetic perception, viz. neuroaesthetics. Hereafter, it outlines constitutive tenets of aesthetic perception in terms of a particular intentional relation to the object. The argument comes in three steps. First, I show the inadequacies of the neuroaesthetics of beauty in general and Semir Zeki’s and V.J. Ramachandran’s versions of it in particular. The neuroaesthetics of beauty falls short, because it develops hypotheses of aesthetic experience which have no consequences for the understanding of what art is, that is, how artists produce visual meaning effects in their works. This is so because they make the rewarding feeling of beauty the cornerstone of aesthetic experience. Next, I show why and how aesthetic experience should be defined relative to its object and the tools for meaning-making specific to that object, and not relative to the feeling (of beauty) it may elicit. Finally, I sketch the import this fact may have on a research program in empirical aesthetics.

[1]  Svein Magnussen,et al.  Expertise in Pictorial Perception: Eye-Movement Patterns and Visual Memory in Artists and Laymen , 2007, Perception.

[2]  E. Krupinski,et al.  The Role of Formal Art Training on Perception and Aesthetic Judgment of Art Compositions , 2017 .

[3]  S. Zeki,et al.  Toward A Brain-Based Theory of Beauty , 2011, PloS one.

[4]  J. Petitot,et al.  Morphology and structural aesthetics: from Goethe to Lévi-Strauss , 2009 .

[5]  Peer F. Bundgaard The grammar of aesthetic intuition: on Ernst Cassirer’s concept of symbolic form in the visual arts , 2011, Synthese.

[6]  Edmund Husserl,et al.  Nachwort zu meinen "Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie" , 1930 .

[7]  Marcus T. Pearce,et al.  The Copenhagen Neuroaesthetics conference: Prospects and pitfalls for an emerging field , 2011, Brain and Cognition.

[8]  Marion Vorms,et al.  Book review: R. Frigg & M. C. Hunter, eds. 2010. Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in art and science. Dordrecht: Springer. , 2012 .

[9]  E. Husserl,et al.  Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung : zur Phänomenologie der anschaulichen Vergegenwärtigungen : Texte aus dem Nachlass (1898-1925) , 1980 .

[10]  John Hyman,et al.  Art and Neuroscience , 2010 .

[11]  M. Nadal,et al.  Introduction to the special issue: Toward an interdisciplinary neuroaesthetics. , 2013 .

[12]  Mohan Matthen,et al.  Seeing, doing, and knowing , 2005 .

[13]  Roman Frigg,et al.  Beyond mimesis and convention : Representation in art and science , 2010 .

[14]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[15]  J. Searle Expression and Meaning: The logical status of fictional discourse , 1975 .

[16]  Dustin Stokes,et al.  Aesthetics and Cognitive Science , 2009 .

[17]  Bence Nanay Perceiving pictures , 2011 .

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[19]  H. Day Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics , 1981 .

[20]  Peer F. Bundgaard Toward a Cognitive Semiotics of the Visual Artwork — Elements of a grammar of intuition , 2009 .

[21]  L. Moisan,et al.  Maximal meaningful events and applications to image analysis , 2003 .

[22]  Mohan Matthen,et al.  Seeing, Doing, and Knowing: A Philosophical Theory of Sense Perception , 2005 .

[23]  C. Lévi-Strauss,et al.  The Cambridge companion to Lévi-Strauss , 2009 .

[24]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[25]  Jean Petitot Non-Generic Viewpoints as a Method of Composition in Renaissance Paintings , 2009 .

[26]  Alberto Fernández,et al.  Activation of the prefrontal cortex in the human visual aesthetic perception. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[28]  A. L. Yarbus,et al.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967, Springer US.

[29]  S. Zeki The neurology of ambiguity , 2004, Consciousness and Cognition.

[30]  D. Yves von Cramon,et al.  Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty , 2006, NeuroImage.

[31]  R. Mansfield,et al.  Analysis of visual behavior , 1982 .

[32]  Nicolas J. Bullot,et al.  The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation , 2013, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience , 1999 .

[34]  François Molnar,et al.  About the Role of Visual Exploration in Aesthetics , 1981 .

[35]  Semir Zeki,et al.  Art and the brain , 1998 .

[36]  F. Brentano Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint , 1874 .

[37]  Marcos Nadal,et al.  Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. , 2008, Spatial vision.

[38]  S. Zeki,et al.  Neural correlates of beauty. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[39]  L. Pessoa,et al.  Perceptual completion: A case study in phenomenology and cognitive science , 1999 .

[40]  Per Aage Brandt Form and Meaning in Art , 2006 .

[41]  S. Vogt,et al.  Hemispheric specialization and recognition memory for abstract and realistic pictures: A comparison of painters and laymen , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[42]  Alva Noë,et al.  Action in Perception , 2006, Representation and Mind.

[43]  Richard Wollheim,et al.  Painting as an Art , 2023 .

[44]  Leslie G. Ungerleider Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[45]  Margaret S. Livingstone,et al.  Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing , 2002 .

[46]  Semir Zeki,et al.  Artistic Creativity and the Brain , 2001, Science.

[47]  S. Zeki,et al.  Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain , 2000 .

[48]  Anjan Chatterjee,et al.  Neuroaesthetics: A Coming of Age Story , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.