The emerging field of neuroaesthetics

 

Neuroaesthetics is a relatively new field of research. It has received criticism from other fields of science questioning their aim and scope of study, the nature of neuroaesthetics, and their possible contributions to science itself. Despite this, neuroaesthetics continuous to steadily grow and there does not seem to be any chance of it stopping.

            One particular paper tackles the question of subjectivity and objectivity of beauty. In “Is beauty in the eye of the beholder or an objective truth? A neuroscientific answer” Dr. Norberto Grzywacz and colleagues recognize that through evolution human brains have developed mechanisms for processing visual information. With this in mind, the cognitive processes of visual preferences, with some cultural variability, have also largely evolved in some direction creating universal objectivity. The researchers looked at early Renaissance portraits and measured their symmetry, balance, and complexity. These particular characteristics were chosen due to their evolutionary importance, dedicated circuitries in the brain and their presence in art. They found that the Renaissance painters did not maximize the use of symmetry, balance, or complexity and instead the painters used different degree combinations of the three. Their data resulted in what they refer to as the ‘neuroaesthetic space’ in where preferences of the three characteristics studied are found in this space suggesting that these three variables work universally, and therefore show some objectivity, to determine aesthetic value. Next, the researchers focused on the learning of aesthetic values to determine subjectivity. For this they looked at the process of reinforcement learning and motivational state circuitries in the brain.  They found that motivational states help us choose actions that are best for ourselves and that because of these states learning could give rise to subjective experiences of beauty. Ultimately, the researchers conclude that while we may all be born with objective biases of beauty, over time our subjective experiences individualize these biases through learning.

            While the previous paper partially studied beauty in art, neuroaesthetics, as argued by Marcus T Pearce and his colleagues in “Neuroaesthetics: the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience”, is not simply limited to art and should not reduce aesthetic value simply to beauty. In this article, many of the controversies and criticisms regarding the field are addressed. The scientific quest of neuroaesthetics is to understand the aesthetic value of various objects both evolutionarily and cognitively. Beauty alone does not define the aesthetic value, so do other psychological states, such as experience of the sublime, hatred, fear, awe, pleasure, and many others. Another familiar criticism states that science can not deal with the personal and subjective nature of the aesthetic experience since it can not be measured independently from the experiencing subject. The paper responds by mentioning that this has not stopped psychology and cognitive neuroscience from developing methods to measure subjective experiences such as responding to facial stimuli. In addition, the studying of emotions deals with a rather subjective topic. Yet, it has not stopped scientists from entering the field and as a result has greatly developed and contributed to the overall scientific knowledge. The field of neuroaesthetics aims to study the aesthetic value at various levels ranging from subjective experience to cellular and genetic levels and become integrated with other fields of science to do so.

            Neuroaesthetics is still arguably in its developing stages. As such, it is not surprising that criticisms arise and that some are left unattended. Nonetheless, Norberto and his colleagues carefully conducted their research and laid out their findings in a way that agreed with the paper written by Marcus Pearce and his colleagues. We learned that the creation of the aesthetic value is partly due to our own individualized experiences, specifically interpreted by our ability to learn and our emotional states, and the universality of human evolution. These findings, at least Marcus would hope, would be integrated into other fields of research that would lead them further ahead in their scientific quest.

           

Works cited

Aleem H., Pombo M., Correa-Herran I., Grzywacz N.M. (2019) Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder or an Objective Truth? A Neuroscientific Answer. In: Contreras-Vidal J., Robleto D., Cruz-Garza J., Azorín J., Nam C. (eds) Mobile Brain-Body Imaging and the Neuroscience of Art, Innovation and Creativity. Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, vol 10. Springer, Cham.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24326-5_11

Pearce, Marcus T., et al. “Neuroaesthetics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 11, no. 2, SAGE Publications, Mar. 2016, pp. 265–79, doi:10.1177/1745691615621274.