By Natasha Cullen, Amy Krimm, Francesca Mamino, Marie Post, Gabriella Wassef, and Xianyangzi Yu
Introduction
Mention to someone you’re studying ‘neuroaesthetics’ and they will often look at you with a mix of curiosity and confusion. What exactly is neuroaesthetics?
Coined from a series of meetings in the early 1980s and first featured in publication in 1988, neuroaesthetics was seen as an emerging field focusing on the “biological foundations of aesthetics” (Rentschler et al, 1988; Skov, 2022). The field was popularised by Professor Semir Zeki, who is often attributed with inventing the phrase in the late 1990s. Today, Neuroaesthetics is still an emerging field. It takes an interdisciplinary approach to studying the neurological and psychological basis of our aesthetic experiences (Magsamen, 2019).
Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, a Professor of Neurology, Psychology, and Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, is a pioneer in this field. As the founding director of the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics, Chatterjee has contributed extensive research on the cognitive processes underlying beauty, language, aesthetics, and the brain. His work is premised on the understanding that aesthetic experiences are valuable, transformative and vital elements of human life. Despite Chatterjee’s, and many others' research displaying the importance of arts and aesthetics, many still view them as insignificant and not worth funding. In his lecture “The Brain on Aesthetics”, Chatterjee breaks down his research by exploring how the brain responds to beauty in people, places, and things.
People
Our visual brain is primed to quickly identify people, especially their faces. Brain areas, such as the fusiform face area and the lateral occipital complex, are involved in processing faces and seem to automatically evaluate beauty. However, Chatterjee says this evaluation does not come without biases. On a day-to-day basis, we see the influence of ‘pretty privilege’ in who is hired for jobs, who receives kindness, and who is perceived as trustworthy. So, what cognitive processes drive our perceptions of facial beauty? And, what are the consequences of such judgments?
Interested in faces as objects of beauty, Chatterjee and colleagues found that we subconsciously allocate additional attention to beautiful faces. How can this bias for beauty play out in real life?
If you take one look at villains in popular movies, such as Scar in The Lion King, or Voldemort in Harry Potter, it becomes apparent that Hollywood has equated ‘scarred’ with ‘evil.’
Fig. 1. Voldemort from Harry Potter as an example of a Hollywood villain with a facial anomaly.
Chatterjee presented a study revealing that people with facial anomalies are considered less trustworthy and intelligent than typical faces (Workman et al, 2021). Additionally, participants who believe that the world-is-just (i.e. people get what they deserve) tend to have less prosocial behaviour and less empathy towards individuals with facial anomalies. As Chatterjee explained, this research is important in recognising and addressing the psychological hardships faced by people who look different.
Places
Beauty isn’t just limited to faces. Places like the Taj Mahal and the La Sagrada Familia attract millions of visitors each year. With 95% of our time spent indoors (Mannan & Al-Ghamdi, 2021), it’s important to consider the aesthetics of indoor spaces. Our brain responds to beauty in architecture the same way we respond to beauty in other contexts, according to initial research conducted with architects in Copenhagen.
Research by Coburn and colleagues (2020) revealed three dimensions to the brain’s response to beauty in built environments: coherence (how organised the space is), hominess (how “cosy” the space feels), and fascination (how interesting the space is). The balance between these dimensions will depend on the type of space being designed––for example, a hotel room or office space may feel more “coherent”, but less “homey”. Chatterjee explained that this research could allow architects to design better buildings through science-backed research.
Chatterjee also recognized the importance of exploring how the aesthetics of built environments may impact our wellbeing. A pilot study from his lab found that biophilic design (design that brings the outdoors inside) boosted participants’ mood (Berger, 2022).
Fig. 2. A biophilic room designed by researchers from the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics.
Architects are beginning to catch on, with future mental health facilities incorporating biophilic and organic elements to create healthier environments (Caballar, 2021). The spaces we spend time in impact us, so it’s important for them to positively affect our wellbeing.
Things
After exploring ‘people’ and ‘places’, Chatterjee concluded his lecture with ‘things’, discussing our aesthetic experience of inanimate objects, particularly art.
Chatterjee is well-known for co-creating the Aesthetic Triad Model which outlines three key systems that interact to create aesthetic responses in the brain: sensory-motor, emotion-valuation, and knowledge-meaning (Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014).
Fig. 3. Aesthetic Triad. Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2014
This segment of Chatterjee’s talk focused on the sensory-motor aspect, delving into how Parkinson's patients and healthy controls perceive movement in abstract artworks. A study completed in Chatterjee’s lab by Humphries et al (2020) tested whether motor functions in the brain contribute to aesthetic experiences. Here, participants viewed, outlined their preferences, and ranked their liking of high-motion paintings by Jackson Pollock and low-motion paintings by Piet Mondrian.
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Examples of artwork displayed to participants
(left) Jackson Pollock. (1946). Eyes in the Heat. [Oil and enamel on canvas]. Guggenheim Museum. New York City/ United States of America.
(right) Piet Mondrian (1913). Tableau No. 2/ Composition No. VII. [Oil on canvas]. Guggenheim Museum. New York City/ United States of America.
The researchers discovered that, despite stable preferences for abstract art among Parkinson’s patients, their capacity to perceive motion within both high-motion and low-motion pieces was notably diminished. This provides useful insight into the role of the motor system and sheds light into how Parkinson's disease affects the brain's aesthetic responses.
Conclusion
Places like the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics play an important role in applying neuroaesthetics research to the real world. Aesthetics have a myriad of impacts, from using art to help dementia patients to examining the effects of ‘refresh’ rooms in mental rehabilitation centres on stress and anxiety. Yet, when budget cuts loom and funding drops, the arts are the first to go. Despite the overwhelming research, aesthetic beauty is still seen by far too many as a want and not a need. The insurmountable cost of living crisis for artists and crippling cuts to museums, galleries, and art institutions, including Goldsmiths, has created what some are calling a ‘national emergency’ in the UK. Chatterjee’s lecture provides key scientific insight into the transformative influence of the arts, something incredibly relevant in the current moment.
References
Berger, M. (2022, July 25). Can nature-inspired designs affect cognition and mood? Penn Today.https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-neuroaesthetics-can-nature-inspired-designs-affect-cognition-and-mood
Caballar, R. (2021, October 7). Neuroaesthetics: Mental Health Facilities of the Future. Proto.life. https://proto.life/2021/10/neuroaesthetics-mental-health-facilities-of-the-future/
Chatterjee, A., Thomas, A., Smith, S. E., & Aguirre, G. K. (2009). The neural response to facial attractiveness. Neuropsychology, 23(2), 135, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014430
Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(7) 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003
Coburn, A, Vartanian. O., Kenett, Y. N., Nadal, M., Hartung, F., Hayn-Leichsenring, G., Navarrete, G., González-Mora, J, L., Chatterjee, A. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 126:217-241. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009.
Humphries, S., Rick, J., Weintraub, D., & Chatterjee, A. (2020). Aesthetics in motion: The beauty of action paintings as revealed by Parkinson’s disease. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ujzf6
Magsamen S. (2019). Your Brain on Art: The Case for Neuroaesthetics. Cerebrum : the Dana forum on brain science, 2019, cer-07-19.
Mannan, M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2021). Indoor Air Quality in Buildings: A Comprehensive Review on the Factors Influencing Air Pollution in Residential and Commercial Structure. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(6), 3276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063276
Mondrian, P. (1913). Tableau No. 2/ Composition No. VII. [Oil on canvas]. Guggenheim Museum. New York City/ United States of America.
Pollock, J. (1946). Eyes in the Heat. [Oil and enamel on canvas]. Guggenheim Museum. New York City/ United States of America.
Rentschler, I., Herzberger, B., & Epstein, D. (1988). Biology and art. Biological aspects of aesthetics. Springer
Skov, M. (2022). Neuroaesthetics as a scientific discipline. The Routledge International Handbook of Neuroaesthetics Routledge. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781003008675-1
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), 10446–10453. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301227110
Workman, C. I., Humphries, S., Hartung, F., Aguirre, G. K., Kable, J. W., & Chatterjee, A. (2021). Morality is in the eye of the beholder: the neurocognitive basis of the “anomalous‐is‐bad” stereotype. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1494(1), 3-17.
Comments