Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

History, Causal Information, and the Neuroscience of Art: Toward a Psycho-Historical Theory

  • Chapter
Brain Theory

  • 323 Accesses

Abstract

Scientists in the behavioral and brain sciences argue that experimental studies of the perceptual, hedonic, and cognitive responses to works of art are the building blocks of an emerging science of aesthetic and artistic appreciation. This science is referred to with terms such as psychobiology of aesthetics (Berlyne 1971), neuroaesthetics (Chatterjee 2011), science of art (Ramachandran & Hirstein 1999), or aesthetic science (Shimamura & Palmer 2012). Proponents of a scientific approach to art often defend a psychological approach to art theory. Here, I use the term ‘psychological approach’ broadly to denote methods that attempt to explain aesthetic and artistic phenomena by means of reference to mental and brain mechanisms. Research in the psychology of art does not essentially differ from neuroaesthetics with respect to their relations to art history and philosophical aesthetics. Both neuroscientists and psychologists tend to think that art appreciation depends on internal mechanisms that reflect the cognitive architecture of the human mind (Kreitler & Kreitler 1972; Leder et al. 2004; Zeki 1999). Like neuroscientists, psychologists present artworks as ‘stimuli’ in their experiments (Martindale et al. 1990; McManus et al. 1993; Locher et al. 1996). Both traditions are dominated by the psychological approach understood as an attempt to analyze the mental and neural processes involved in the appreciation of artworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arnheim, R. (1956/1974). Art and Visual Perception. A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, W. (1936/2008). The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Second Version, trans. E. Jephcott, R. Livingstone & H. Eiland. In The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media, ed. M. W. Jennings, B. Doherty & T. Y. Levin (pp. 19–55). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1979/1987). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullot, N. J. (2009). Material Anamnesis and the Prompting of Aesthetic Worlds: The Psycho-Historical Theory of Artworks. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(1), 85–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullot, N. J. and R. Reber (2013a). The Artful Mind Meets Art History: Toward a Psycho-historical Framework for the Science of Art Appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(02), 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullot, N. J. and R. Reber (2013b). A Psycho-historical Research Program for the Integrative Science of Art. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, P. (2006). The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, P. (2009). Mindreading Underlies Metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 164–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: A Coming of Age Story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(1), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. J. (2001). Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clottes, J. (2005). Return to Chauvet Cave: Excavating the Birthplace of Art — The First Full Report. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coremans, P. B. (1949). Van Meegeren’s Faked Vermeers and De Hooghs: A Scientific Examination. Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1989). The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World, 1940 — 1985. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croce, B. (1902/1909). Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic [1902], trans. D. Ainslie. London: Macmillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croce, B. (1921). The Essence of Aesthetic, trans. D. Ainslie. London: William Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G. (1995). Imagination and Simulation: Aesthetics Meets Cognitive Science. In Mental Simulation: Evaluations and Applications, eds. M. Davies and T. Stone (pp. 151–169). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G. (2004). Arts and Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G. P. Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danto, A. C. (1964). The Artworld. Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danto, A. C. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danto, A. C. (1998). After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danto, A. C. (2009). Andy Warhol. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, D. (2007). Telling Pictures: the Place of Narrative in Late Modern “Visual Art.” In Philosophy and Conceptual Art, eds. P. Goldie and E. Schellekens (pp. 138–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1971). Intentional Systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(4), 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms. Montgomery: Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1990). The Interpretation of Texts, People and Other Artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50 (Issue Supplement), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, G. (1962). Is Psychology Relevant to Aesthetics? The Philosophical Review, 71(3), 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, G. (1984/1997). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art [1984]. Evanston, IL: Chicago Spectrum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, G. (2000). The Institutional Theory of Art. In N. Carroll (Ed.), Theories of Art Today (pp. 93–108). Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining Behavior: Reasons in a World of Causes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducasse, C. J. (1964). Art and the Language of the Emotions. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 23(1), 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (1979). Artistic Crimes: The Concept of Forgery in the Arts. British Journal of Aesthetics, 19(4), 302–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (2005). Aesthetic Universals. In The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, 2nd edn, ed. B. N. Gaut & D. M. Lopes (pp. 279–292). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (2009). The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure & Human Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1992). An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fechner, G.T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik [Elements of Aesthetics]. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf & Härtel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1993). Déjà Vu All Over Again: How Danto’s Aesthetics Recapitulates the Philosophy of Mind. In Danto and His Critics, ed. M. Rollins (pp. 41–54). London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedberg, D. (1989). The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedberg, D. & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, Emotion and Empathy in Esthetic Experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, M. (1998). Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H. (1986). The Emotions. Cambridge/ Paris: Cambridge University Press/ Editions de la Maisons des Sciences de l’Homme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A. (2003). The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • German, T. P. & Johnson, S. C. (2002). Function and the Origins of the Design Stance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3(3), 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich, E. H. (1979). The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. London: Phaidon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich, E. H. (2000). Concerning “The science of art”: Commentary on Ramachandran and Hirstein. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(8–9), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A. and Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, C. (1961). Art and Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. L. (2000). The Work of the Imagination. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3): 61–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpinen, R. (2011). >Artifact (revised version). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/

    Google Scholar 

  • Julius, A. (2002). Transgressions: The Offences of Art. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawabata, H. & Zeki, S. (2004). Neural Correlates of Beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 1699–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and Understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 227–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. & Wilson, R. A., eds. (2000). Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. (1999). Function, Goals and Intention: Children’s Teleological Reasoning about Objects. Cognition, 3(12), 461–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. & Carey, S. (2007). The Essence of Artifacts: Developing the Design Stance. In Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, ed. E. Margolis & S. Laurence (pp. 212–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreitler, H. & Kreitler, S. (1972). The Psychology of the Arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambie, J. A. & Marcel, A. J. (2002). Consciousness and the Varieties of Emotion Experience: a Theoretical Framework. Psychological Review, 109(2), 219–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamiell, J. T. (1998). “Nomothetic” and “Idiographic”: Contrasting Windelband’s Understanding with Contemporary Usage. Theory & Psychology 8(1): 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). a Model of Aesthetic Appreciation and Aesthetic Judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, P. (1991/2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher, P. J. (2003). An Empirical Investigation of the Visual Rightness Theory of Picture Perception. Acta Psychologica, 114(2), 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher, P., Gray, S., & Nodine, C. (1996). The Structural Framework of Pictorial Balance. Perception, 25, 1419–1436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. (1980). Prospects for a Science of Aesthetic Perception. In Perceiving Artworks, ed. J. Fisher (pp. 213–39). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, E. and Laurence, S., eds. (2007). Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. J. (1906). An Experimental Study of Fechner’s Principles in Aesthetics. Psychological Review, 13, 142–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C. (1984). The Pleasures of Thought: A Theory of Cognitive Hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C. (1990). The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous Findings for Berlyne’s Psychobiological Theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matan, A. & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental Changes within the Core of Artifact Concepts. Cognition, 78(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus, I. C., Cheema, B. & Stoker, J. (1993). The Aesthetics of Composition: a Study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11(2), 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and Development of Everyday Social Explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. (2004). Varieties of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1995). Causal Attribution across Domains and Cultures. In Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate, ed. D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (pp. 577–613). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. (1985). The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. ed. (2006). The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility, and Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panofsky, E. (1995). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, G. & Carlson, A. (2008). Functional Beauty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, M. L. (1987). How We Understand Art: A Cognitive Developmental Account of Æsthetic Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretz, I. (2006). The Nature of Music from a Biological Perspective. Cognition, 100(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickford, R. W. (1972). Psychology and Visual Aesthetics. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, V. S. (2001). Sharpening Up “The Science of Art.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(1), 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 199–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegl, A. (1890/1992). Problems of Style. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1995). Startle. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(2), 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (2005). Deeper than Reason: Emotion and Its Role in Literature, Music, and Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskill, M. (1976/1989). What Is Art History? 2nd edn [1976]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruben, D. H. (1990). Explaining Explanation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimamura, A. P. & S.E. Palmer, eds. (2012). Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, J., ed. (2003). The Sociology of Art: A Reader. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vartanian, O. & Goel, V. (2004). Neuroanatomical Correlates of Aesthetic Preference for Paintings. NeuroReport, 15, 893–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. L. (1973). Pictures and Make-Believe. The Philosophical Review, 82(3), 283–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. L. (1978). Fearing Fictions. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. L. (1987). Style and the Products and Processes of Art. In The Concept of Style (2nd edn), ed. B. Lang (pp. 72–103). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ Discrimination of Paintings By Monet and Picasso. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63(2), 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windelband, W. (1894/1998). History and Natural Science. History and Theory 8(1): 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wölfflin, H. (1920/1950). Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art, trans. M. D. Hottinger. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeki, S. (1999). Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Nicolas J. Bullot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, Belgium

    Charles T. Wolfe

Copyright information

© 2014 Nicolas J. Bullot

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bullot, N.J. (2014). History, Causal Information, and the Neuroscience of Art: Toward a Psycho-Historical Theory. In: Wolfe, C.T. (eds) Brain Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230369580_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation