One of the most exciting recent developments in mainstream art history is its confrontation with the cognitive sciences and neurology. This study is based on the problems these disciplines face before they can contribute to each other. The authors inspect several critical issues resulting from this encounter, especially in the new field of neuroesthetics. The authors argue that it is a language barrier between the disciplines, rather than any fundamental conceptual division, that causes the lack of understanding on both sides. Shared terms in arts and neuroscience are elusive, and the different connotations of extant terms in these separate disciplines must be addressed. The authors propose technoscience art as a ground in which joint terminology may be developed, an audience familiar to the concerns of both sides can be formed, and a new generation of scientifically knowledgeable artists and scientists can interact for their mutual benefit.
ArnheimR. (1956). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. New York: Faber and Faber.
2.
ArnheimR. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
BaldwinR. (1972). Kinetic art: On producing illusions by photic-stimulation of alpha brain waves with flashing lights. Leonardo, 5(2), 147–149.
4.
BaldwinR. B. (1974). Kinetic art: On the use of subliminal stimulation of visual perception. Leonardo, 7(1), 1–5.
5.
BaumgartenA. (1954). Reflections on poetry: Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten's meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BenseM. (1965). Aesthetica: Einführung in die neue Aesthetik. Baden-Baden, Germany: Agis-Verlag.
7.
BentivoglioM. (2003). Musical skills and neural functions: The legacy of the brains of musicians. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999(1), 234–243.
8.
BogousslavskyJ. (2003). The neurology of art: The example of Giorgio de Chirico. European Neurology, 50(4), 189–190.
9.
CarrierD. (1986). Theoretical perspectives on the arts, sciences and technology. Leonardo, 19(1), 77–80.
10.
CarrollN. (1986). Art and interaction. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 45(1), 57–68.
11.
CarrollN. (2002). Aesthetic experience revisited. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 42(2), 145–168.
12.
ChangeuxJ.-P. (1994). Art and neuroscience. Leonardo, 27(3), 189–201.
13.
CohenH. (1988). How to draw three people in a botanical garden. Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 846–855.
14.
CupchikG. C. (1994). Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models. Poetics, 23, 177–188.
15.
DalyS. (1984). The ganzfeld as a canvas for neurophysiologically based artworks. Leonardo, 17(3), 172–175.
16.
DantoA. (2001). The madonna of the future. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
DixonR. (1995). The Baumgarten corruption: From sense to nonsense in art and philosophy. London: Pluto Press.
18.
EflandA. (1968, July). An interview with Charles Csuri. In Cybernetic serendipity: The computer and the arts [Special issue], Studio International:81–84.
19.
FreedbergD., & GalleseV. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 197–203.
20.
GoodmanN. (1968). Language of art. New York: Bobbs-Merill.
21.
HammermeisterK. (2002). The German aesthetic tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
IppolitoJ. (1997). Trusting aesthetics to prosthetics. Art Journal, 56(3).
23.
KandelE., & MackS. (2003). A parallel between radical reductionism in science and in art. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1001(1), 272–294.
24.
KawabataH., & ZekiS. (2004). Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(4), 1699–1705.
25.
LakoffG. (2006). The neuroscience of form in art. In TurnerM., The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
McMahonJ. (1999). Towards a unified theory of beauty. Literature and Aesthetics, 9, 7–27.
27.
McMahonJ. (2000). Perceptual principles as the basis for genuine judgments of beauty. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(8–9), 29–35.
28.
McMahonJ. (2003). Perceptual constraints and perceptual schemata: The possibility of perceptual style. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61(3), 259–272.
29.
MendezM. (2004). Dementia as a window to the neurology of art. Medical Hypotheses, 63(1), 1–7.
30.
MolesA. (1966). Information theory and esthetic perception. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
31.
OtteA., De BondtP., Van de AudenaertK., & DierckR. (2003). The exceptional brain of Maurice Ravel. Medical Science Monitor, 9(6), 154–159.
32.
PalmerJ. (2003). ESP in the ganzfeld: Analysis of a debate. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(6–7), 51–68.
33.
PopperF. (1987). Editorial: Technoscience art: The next step. Leonardo, 20(4), 301–303.
34.
PreziosiD. (1989). Rethinking art history: Meditations on a coy science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
RamachandranV. (2001). Sharpening up the “science of art”: An interview with Anthony Freeman. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(1), 9–29.
36.
RamachandranV., & HirsteinW. (1999). The science of art. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–41.
37.
RavinJ., & RavinT. (1999). What ailed Goya?Survey of Ophthalmology, 44(2), 163–170.
38.
RayT. (1992). Evolution, ecology and optimization of digital organisms. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, 92–08–042.
RollinsM. (2001). The invisible content of visual art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 59(1), 19–27.
41.
RollinsM. (2003). The mind in pictures: Perceptual strategies and the interpretation of visual art. The Monist, 86(4), 608–632.
42.
RollsE. (2000). The orbitofrontal cortex and reward. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 284–294.
43.
RosenboomD. (1972). Method for producing sounds or light flashes with alpha brain waves for artistic purposes. Leonardo, 5(2), 141–145.
44.
SahlasD. (2003). Dementia with Lewy bodies and the neurobehavioral decline of Mervyn Peake. Archives of Neurology, 60(6), 889–892.
45.
SeeleyW. (2006). Naturalizing aesthetics: Art and the cognitive neuroscience of vision. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 5(3), 195–213.
46.
SilviaP. (2005). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342–357.
47.
SpenceC., & DriverJ. (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
48.
StaffordB. (2004). Romantic systematics and the genealogy of thought: The formal roots of a cognitive history of images. Configurations, 12, 315–348.
49.
StewartE. (2002). De Kooning's dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, 17(5), 313–317.
50.
TijusC. (1988). Cognitive processes in artistic creation: Toward the realization of a creative machine. Leonardo, 21(2), 167–172.
51.
WeibelP. (2003). The intelligent image: Neurocinema or quantum cinema. In JeffreyS. & PeterW., Future cinema: The cinematic imaginary after cinema. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
WessellL.Jr. (1972). Alexander Baumgarten's contribution to the development of aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 30(3), 333–342.
53.
WolpawJ., BirbaumerN., McFarlandD., PfurtschellerG., & VaughanT. (2002). Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(6), 767–791.
54.
ZekiS. (1999). Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
55.
ZekiS. (2001). Closet reductionists. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(2), 45–46.
56.
ZekiS. (2002). Neural concept formation and art: Dante, Michelangelo, Wagner. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9, 53–76.
57.
ZekiS., & LambM. (1994). The neurology of kinetic art. Brain, 117(3), 607–636.
