Image: iStock/aaM Photography, Ltd.
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
The notion of “the aesthetic” is a concept from the philosophy of art of the 18th century according to which the perception of beauty occurs by means of a special process distinct from the appraisal of ordinary objects. Hence, our appreciation of a sublime painting is presumed to be cognitively distinct from our appreciation of, say, an apple. The field of “neuroaesthetics” has adopted this distinction between art and non-art objects by seeking to identify brain areas that specifically mediate the aesthetic appreciation of artworks.
However, studies from neuroscience and evolutionary biology challenge this separation of art from non-art. Human neuroimaging studies have convincingly shown that the brain areas involved in aesthetic responses to artworks overlap with those that mediate the appraisal of objects of evolutionary importance, such as the desirability of foods or the attractiveness of potential mates. Hence, it is unlikely that there are brain systems specific to the appreciation of artworks; instead there are general aesthetic systems that determine how appealing an object is, be that a piece of cake or a piece of music.
We set out to understand which parts of the brain are involved in aesthetic appraisal. We gathered 93 neuroimaging studies of vision, hearing, taste and smell, and used statistical analyses to determine which brain areas were most consistently activated across these 93 studies. We focused on studies of positive aesthetic responses, and left out the sense of touch, because there were not enough studies to arrive at reliable conclusions.
The results showed that the most important part of the brain for aesthetic appraisal was the anterior insula, a part of the brain that sits within one of the deep folds of the cerebral cortex. This was a surprise. The anterior insula is typically associated with emotions of negative quality, such as disgust and pain, making it an unusual candidate for being the brain’s “aesthetic center.” Why would a part of the brain known to be important for the processing of pain and disgust turn out to the most important area for the appreciation of art?
Our interpretation of the result comes from cognitive theories of emotion that argue that aesthetic processing is, at its core, the appraisal of the value of an object -- in other words, an assessment of whether an object is “good for me” or “bad for me.” The nature of this appraisal depends very strongly on what my current physiological state is. The sight of chocolate cake will lead to positive aesthetic emotions if I’m famished but to feelings of disgust if I’m sick to my stomach. Objects that satisfy current physiological needs will lead to positive aesthetic emotions (e.g., pleasure). Those that oppose these needs will lead to negative emotions (e.g., repulsion).
How does the anterior insula fit into this story? In thinking about the contrast between internal and external environments, the anterior insula seems to be much more associated with the former than the latter. It is part of the brain’s “interoceptive” system, evaluating the state of the organs of our body. Other parts of the brain, then, respond directly to objects in the external environment: the sensory pathways of the brain. (One part of the cortex that seems particularly important for processing information across many sensory modalities is the orbitofrontal cortex.)
Brain areas such as the anterior insula and orbitofrontal cortex that are activated by pleasant smells or tastes are also the parts of the brain that are active when we are awed by Renaissance paintings or Baroque concertos. There is virtually no evidence that artworks activate emotion areas distinct from those involved in appraising everyday objects important for survival. Hence, the most reasonable evolutionary hypothesis is that the aesthetic system of the brain evolved first for the appraisal of objects of biological importance, including food sources and suitable mates, and was later co-opted for artworks such as paintings and music. As much as philosophers like to believe that our brains contain a specialized system for the appreciation of artworks, research suggests that our brain’s responses to a piece of cake and a piece of music are in fact quite similar.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentTo your last point:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as philosophers like to believe that our brains contain a specialized system for the appreciation of artworks, research suggests that our brain’s responses to a piece of cake and a piece of music are in fact quite similar.
Perhaps a philosopher has ventured into such territories, but I think few philosophers make this mistake. Having just slogged through "Philosophical Investigations" by Ludwig Wittgenstein (LW), the take away in the difference between the aesthetic of the apple and the work of art can be found in language games which for LW is not limited to "yum!" or an art critique but embedded in our practices (culinary, aesthetic theory, galleries, etc.,) that span the generations and determine in advance what counts for an aesthetic experience of an apple or work of art.
Aesthetics has been a pattern of life for humans for a long time, attracting religious and scientific explanations alike. I think LW would say the goo of the brain may tell us something interesting and useful about aesthetics, but don't expect to find "it", aesthetics, in the brain.
So, was Steven Pinker right when he said that music was just "auditory cheesecake?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWait, how does this business about the orbitofrontal cortex explain the fact that you looked at studies in which people had made <i>postive</i> aesthetical appraisals, and found activity in the anterior insula?? I get that our aesthetic senses are the result of a biological importance-appraisal system, but why would an area of the brain that usually makes <i>negative</i> appraisals be activated during <i>positive</i> judgements?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPinker's argument is that the development of music (and it's appreciation) was not evolutionarily adaptive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat the appreciation of art utilizes the same reward areas says nothing about the evolutionary importance of art... many pieces of art require expert knowledge to appreciate, or an understanding of the greater social context. These types of evaluations no doubt utilize other cortical areas specialized for language and vision and audition, but the final appreciation is still channeled through "old" reward structures.
But that is exactly what we would expect of evolution... co-opting existing resources for new situations for the organism. Perhaps "beauty" evolved to define in-group and out-group boundaries and hijacking the reward system was an effective way to establish a categorical boundary. I dunno... that's a just-so story. But I don't think this study offers much to the "auditory cheesecake" hypothesis.
This article doesn't explain how so many modern artists can get "beauty" so wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the roman empire times, people in charge of fighting crime received the advise that when in doubt between two persons about who commited the crime, blame and punish the ugliest of them. Do the same rules apply for art works and people ?. The Bible advises never to praise the beauty of a man, this is both for men and women not doing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often take pleasure in gazing at ordinary objects. I take special pleasure in gazing at artworks because of the complexity of composition, color, etc. The artwork, to me, is like a number of pleasing objects in one object. Surely this is also what happens with beautiful building and rooms. When looking at modern architecture - uncluttered - I find myself consciously pleased by the underlying mathematical relations. So I think the pleasure of art is due to the multiplicity of perceptions blending and separating, blending and separating. I am not surprised that the brain has no special setup for art since the brain can be very efficient and use its abilities in multiple ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too enjoy noticing everyday objects all the time. It's very probably the original inspiration for creating things that we call "art". Visual appreciation comes from the same place as an appreciation of a beautiful landscape or an Oreo cookie. However, I do not believe, not even remotely, that there is a special place in the brain strictly for art appreciation. For those who suggest that one, nice try. Those very same people can walk into a room full of poorly crafted, ugly art and tell you how deep the meaning is (laughs). Art's first function is to look pretty. Anything else worked into that is a pleasing extra.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claim being resisted by this study is 'the perception of beauty occurs by means of a special process distinct from the appraisal of ordinary objects' No doubt the paper has some citations that show this view is currently held. My cursory check on two texts discussing aesthetic 'experience' suggest that these days it is not confined to being produced by especially beautiful objects. You can get it from almost any object. But what is thought to be characteristic is its intensity... 'arresting intense and utterly engrossing.' Pain is rather like that too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe experience of course need not be a pleasant one. Try the movies. Nor need it be functional. Now if you want an 'object' to give this experience to the subject then you need the appropriate recipe for making it. Tchaikovsky (unwisely) confesses he did not feel the experience which listeners would have while he was writing the music. The Aesthetic experience is in the the object, not communicated or shared. It is a 'fiction'. Again try the movies.
The experience of crushed raspberries in full cream yoghourt with vanilla sugar is arresting intense and utterly engrossing for me, at least for a moment. But I don't experience this it while making it or do I communicate it.
Further examination of the object may show the mechanism by which the experience is created and which can be reproduced
Stephen Pinker is right. We can afford quite of lot of fun without damaging our capability to breed.
Not sure about the cheese cake though.
I forget to mention the sublime, Beauty's 'shock and awe' brother, especially since John Martin paintings of his idea of the Apocalypse is on in London http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/johnmartin/default.shtm. Here we see either Martin's bad dreams of a forecast of what is to come to frighten us. But certainly "arresting intense and utterly engrossing" aesthetic experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut before I go I will have seen Magritte's 'This is not a Pipe' which is just a joke. Will that trigger the 'anterior insula'.
there must be levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisglad the recognition of pleasure.
whipped by the wind, are we timeless?