<<

OPINION ARTICLE published: 17 February 2015 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00080

Neuroesthetics is not just about

Dahlia W. Zaidel* University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] Edited by: Oshin Vartanian, Defence and Development Canada – Toronto Research Centre, Canada Reviewed by: Luca Francesco Ticini, The University of Manchester, UK

Keywords: esthetics and brain, brain and art, and brain, attention-attraction, biology and esthetics

Esthetics is about beauty. Beauty- animals, the end goal of the attention- reactions in reflect a biologically generating sources are everywhere around attraction is selective in that it leads to conserved pathway subserving attention- us – in , art, food, colors, , nature, survival of the species, for humans there attraction. That is, in the , and more. An evolutionary approach is an advantageous outcome of sorts. their purpose has shifted to fit human- explains why the brain would not generate Applying the biological origins unique and existence constraints, esthetic reactions if no useful purpose for to humans, esthetic responses could be while still retaining the adaptive neural survival could be served. Neural processes viewed upon as a specialized-type of attrac- mechanism. are strongly selected if they maximize sur- tion, a honing in to particular objects, art But what of art, specifically? It is vival. Indeed, from early on, infants aged works, persons, colors, events, ideas, and so produced spontaneously only by humans 2–3 months show esthetic reactions to faces on. Whether or not the end goal is related and is ubiquitously practiced through- (Langlois et al., 1991; Hoss and Langlois, to survival in the way it is with animals out the world. It is not immediately 2003) and children aged 3 have prefer- may not be the case with all beauty sources, obvious how art is necessary or criti- ences for friendship based on facial beauty although that this is the case has been cal for human survival and why it trig- (Dion, 1973). Since adult preferences could suggested by others (Brown et al., 2011). gers esthetic responses. The early purpose not have been learned so early, nor could With some sources, the critical benefit of of creating art may not necessarily have the concept of beauty itself, this ontoge- attention-attraction is clear and obvious, been motivated by esthetics, but rather by netic evidence suggests a fundamentally as in food coloring (die if we ingest food group membership identification (Lewis- useful biological and adaptive function for with the wrong colors), faces (maximize Williams, 2002). The archeological record esthetics, one that goes beyond enjoyment. reproductive success if we correctly deci- shows that only minimal and sporadic There must have been strong selective pher facial signals), babies’ looks (invest art was present at the time Homo sapiens pressures to preserve esthetic responses, enormous energy in raising and protecting emerged, around 200,000 years ago, even not only to faces but to a whole range them); with some human-unique sources, as human-unique cognition was already of seemingly unrelated sources as well. such as art,this is less obvious (attraction to evident then and in the preceding thou- The biological roots have been theoretically the depicted message, to the artistic fitness sands of years (McBrearty, 2007). A closer linked by Charles Darwin in 1871 to sex- qualities of the ),ideas (inspiration for link between art and esthetics could have ual selection strategies used by animals to human advancement), and some even less intensified 45,000–35,000 years ago, a time draw attention to healthy, fit mates (typ- obvious such as scenery of lush foliage or range when humans began to produce art ically males) able to mate successfully and chromatic sunsets (might be related to safe regularly and prolifically. produce viable offspring (Darwin, 1981). A habitat selection). The biological notion proposes that great deal of energy is invested in maintain- Given that human brain has whenever art is created it showcases the ing physical characteristics that maximally sculpted a mind capable of symbolic, artist’s genetic qualities such as artistic tal- showcase health and fitness (Zahavi, 1978; abstract, and highly creative cognition, it ent, skill, , and cognitive ability; Miller, 2000). The peacock’s tail is a clas- is reasonable to assume that the original it is in the brain of the viewer where the sic such example. To humans, these mat- biological animal mating intent of the dis- esthetic reaction is formed. The argument ing displays are beauty sources that trigger has undergone adaptive alterations draws parallels between the energy invest- esthetic responses. But it is not a given now expressed as esthetic responses. Oth- ment in physiological features used by ani- that the same is elicited in animals. It is erwise, we would have to assume that mals to display their fitness (e.g., the pea- proposed here that what may be elicited esthetic responses factor into animals’ mat- cock’s long tail) and ’ mental and instead is something akin to attention- ing choices and that this capacity has been physical energy investment in their artwork attraction to enormous energy investment passed on to humans. However, absence (weeks, months, and even years on a single emphasizing physical and genetic . of any evidence, or even of current valid piece). The display is the means by which In other words, focused attention with empirical ,precludes attribut- to evaluate the artistic cognitive fitness long-term implications is fundamentally ing such responses to animals. What is and the displaying animal’s survival-related at the heart of the display’s purpose. For reasonable to assume now is that esthetic genes.

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 9 | Article 80 | 1 Zaidel is about beauty

However, looking upon art as a sys- Ishai, 2007; Tsukiura and Cabeza, 2011). Lewis-Williams, D. (2002). The Mind in the Cave: Con- tem of reveals another key Discussions of esthetics’ biological roots sciousness and the Origins of Art. London: Thames and Hudson. to its practice and value to humans, and (Zahavi, 1978; Miller, 2000; Zaidel, 2013) Luhmann, N. (2000). Art as a Social System. Stanford: therein lies the purpose of the esthetic and human brain evolution (for review, Stanford University Press. reaction, namely to pull the viewer in to Zaidel et al., 2013) have bolstered the link McBrearty, S. (2007). “Down with the revolution,” in the artwork through attention-attraction. between brain evolution and esthetics. Rethinking the Human Revolution, eds P.Mellars, K. The benefits of group size increase, gener- Beauty is not a distinct and sepa- Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, and C. Stringer (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research), ationally retained and transmitted cultural rate component embedded in color, food, 133–152. skills (which include art), and social coop- nature, scenery, ideas, or even faces. Beauty Miller, G. F. (2000). The Mating Mind: How Sexual eration (Powell et al., 2009) are considered is not “put in” the artwork by the artist as a Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. New major contributors to expansion and suc- distinct entity, but rather it is an emergent York, NY: Doubleday. cessful development of early Homo sapi- property in the brain of the beholder. In Nadal, M. (2013). The experience of art: from . Prog. Brain Res. 204, 135–158. ens (Wadley, 2001; Culotta, 2010). Multi- addition to its biological pathway and evi- doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00007-5 layered and hierarchical social organiza- dence for certain universal preferences, the Powell,A.,Shennan,S.,and Thomas,M. G. (2009). Late tion consisting of both kin and non-kin esthetic reaction is shaped by the viewer’s Pleistocene demography and the appearance of is a critical feature of human society (Hill cultural experiences, life events, , modern . Science 324, 1298–1301. et al., 2011), and art has become a use- genetic inheritance, and possibly sex, age, doi:10.1126/science.1170165 Rose, F. C. (ed.) (2004). of the : , ful communicative system with social pur- and health status. Individual variability in , . London: Imperial College Press. pose (Luhmann, 2000), not unlike lan- the intensity and range of the reactions Tsukiura, T., and Cabeza, R. (2011). Remembering guage in this regard. Here, it is proposed has not been systematically investigated, beauty: roles of orbitofrontal and hippocampal that the esthetic reaction to art is actu- and much remains to be explored. How- regions in successful encoding of attrac- ally a neural manifestation of the biolog- ever, the fact that so many varied sources tive faces. Neuroimage 54, 653–660. doi:10.1016/ jneuroimage.2010.07.046 ical attention-attraction, be it a symbol, in human life trigger esthetic responses Wadley, L. (2001). What is cultural modernity? A gen-

figurative or non-figurative art, geometri- strongly points to biological, adaptive, and eral view and a South African perspective from cal, abstract, and so on. Art is currently neural underpinning having to do with Rose Cottage Cave. Camb. Arhaeol. J. 11, 201–221. widely produced for ornamentation, enter- attention-attraction. doi:10.1017/S0959774301000117 tainment, conceptual contemplation, cul- Zahavi, A. (1978). Decorative patterns and the evolu- tion of art. New Sci. 19, 182–184. tural and group bonding, propaganda, and REFERENCES Zaidel, D. W. (2005). of Art: Neurolog- much more. Its practice would not have Bogousslavsky, J., and Boller, F. (eds) (2005). Neurolog- ical Disorders in Famous Artists. Basel: Karger. ical, Cognitive, and Evolutionary Perspectives. Hove, increased and expanded richly into multi- Brown, S., Xiaoqing, G., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S. UK: Press. ple mediums for the past 45,000 years had B., and Liotti, M. (2011). Naturalizing : Zaidel, D. W. (2009). “Brain and art: neuro-clues from it not proven to have an adaptive value. brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory intersection of disciplines,” in Neuroaesthetics, eds M. Skov and O. Vartanian (Amityville, NY: Bay- Moreover, the fact that people living far modalities. Neuroimage 58, 250–258. doi:10.1016/ wood), 153–170. apart nevertheless resonate to art indepen- j.neuroimage.2011.06.012 Culotta, E. (2010). Did modern humans get smart Zaidel, D. W. (2013). Art and brain: the relationship dently of its geographical origin and cul- or just get together? Science 328, 164. doi:10.1126/ of biology and evolution to art. Prog. Brain Res. tural context reinforces the notion that it is science.328.5975.164 204, 217–233. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6. 00011-7 a human communicative system with bio- Darwin, C. (1981). The Descent of Man and Selection in Zaidel, D. W., Nadal, M., Flexas, A., and Munar, E. logical neural origins. An example is that Relation to Sex, 2nd Edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton (2013). An evolutionary approach to art and aes- University Press. of European artists such as Picasso, Van thetic experience. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 7, Dion, K. K. (1973). Young children’s stereotyping Gogh, Modigliani, and many others, whose 100–109. doi:10.1353/pbm.2013.0029 of facial attractiveness. Dev. Psychol. 9, 183–188. work was influenced by art from Oceania, doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.007 Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares the Far East, and . Similarly, the fact Hill, K. R., Walker, R. S., Bozicevi´c,M., Eder, J., Head- that the research was conducted in the absence of any that we, today, have esthetic reactions to art land, T., Hewlett, B., et al. (2011). Co-residence commercial or financial relationships that could be created in distant prehistoric times, such as patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique construed as a potential conflict of interest. human social structure. Science 331, 1286–1289. cave art, without knowing the context in doi:10.1126/science.1199071 Received: 29 November 2014; accepted: 02 February which it was created, highlights the biolog- Hoss, R. A., and Langlois, J. H. (2003). “Infants prefer 2015; published online: 17 February 2015. ical nature of the responses (Zaidel, 2005, attractive faces,”in The Development of Process- Citation: Zaidel DW (2015) Neuroesthetics is not 2009). ing in Infancy and Early Childhood, eds O. Pascalis just about art. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9:80. doi: The neural basis of esthetics has already and A. Slater (New York, NY: Nova Science Publish- 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00080 ers), 27–38. been established through neuropsycho- This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers in Ishai, A. (2007). Sex, beauty, and the orbitofrontal cor- Human Neuroscience. logical observations of artists with brain tex. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 63, 181–185. doi:10.1016/ Copyright © 2015 Zaidel. This is an open-access article damage (Rose, 2004; Bogousslavsky and j.ijpsycho.2006.03.010 distributed under the terms of the Boller, 2005; Zaidel, 2005), physiological Jacobsen, T. (2013). On the electrophysiology of aes- Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or brain recordings in healthy subjects making thetic processing. Prog. Brain Res. 204, 159–168. reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00008-7 original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the esthetic judgments (for review, Jacobsen, Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., and original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance

2013), functional brain neuroimaging of Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reactions to art works (for review, Nadal, preferences for attractive faces. Dev. Psychol. 27, reproduction is permitted which does not comply with 2013) as well as in esthetic of faces (e.g., 79–84. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79 these terms.

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org February 2015 | Volume 9 | Article 80| 2