The Stanford Center for Law and Biosciences has decided to leave the WordPress servers for greener pastures: namely, the Stanford Law School blog aggregator.
This address will no longer be updated. All posts from this address have been migrated to the new address:
Please update your bookmarks and RSS feeds accordingly.
I almost laughed out loud when I read Jonah Lehrer’s mediation on neuroscience and art (Unlocking the Mysteries of the Artistic Mind, Psychology Today July/August 2009). The gist is that neuroscience—which has yet entirely to explain how memory works—may be on the verge of unraveling the human response to art. Great art’s ability to evoke the sublime or challenge expectations amounts, apparently, to a series of readily explicable tricks.
Take cubism, for instance. It turns out we’re not really responding to Picasso’s bold challenge to sequential representation or some still deeper current of imagination. Rather, Picasso is using “careful distortion” such as emphasis or exaggeration to “intensify reality.” Art, in other words, is an optical illusion, and artists the fledgling “neuroscientists” who first figured this out. (Cats apparently introduce a subtle whine to their purring that our brains find it difficult to ignore. Behold! Cats are neuroscientists.)
The position Lehrer synthesizes is the modern day equivalent of saying that pushpin is as good as poetry. It is utterly inadequate as an account of our relationship with visual art. Even if the allure of Cézanne’s minimal Mona Lisa could be explained through the insight that “[t]he mind delights in filing in blanks,” what of Magritte’s Ceci Nes’t Pas Une Pipe? Or what about Duchamp’s Mona Lisa? Does Duchamp exploit the “neural mustache bias”?
Maybe I’m over-reading Lehrer. Maybe the idea is that neuroscience is to art what physics is to tennis. Andy Roddick couldn’t tell you much about friction or momentum, but these phenomena sure make it difficult to return his serve.
If so, “neuroaesthetics” confuses mechanism with meaning. And it probably doesn’t add much even there: everyone knows that certain techniques of art, such as perspective, trick the brain in some way. Knowing the exact mechanism cannot resolve any central “mystery” of art.
The brain is ridiculously complex and good neuroscientists spend a lot of time learning about it. This cannot leave much room for the study of art. Maybe neuroaesthetics should focus on unlocking the nagging mystery of, say, the placebo effect, and leave art its little mustache.