Aesthetics and Cognitive Science
Phil/Psy/SPM 379
W 1:30-4:20: Stager 212
Margaret
Livingstone, http://neuro.med.harvard.edu/site/faculty/livingstone.html
Professor William Seeley
Office: 323 Stager
Office Hours: MW 12:00-1:00
Or email to make an appointment,
(I can generally also be found on the ice at
The
Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday. Bring your skates!)
Course Description:
An examination of philosophical issues surrounding
attempts to naturalize aesthetic experience by integrating research in
aesthetics and cognitive science. In this context naturalizing refers to attempts to explain aesthetic experiences by
reference to the natural psychological processes underlying perception and
cognition. The aim of the course is to introduce students to the
interdisciplinary field of cognitive science, and to investigate the role
psychology and cognitive neuroscience can play in explanations of art and
aesthetic experience. The first part of the course introduces issues in
aesthetics. The second part examines the role an understanding of the
perceptual relationship between viewers and works of visual art can play in an explanation
of the aesthetic experiences we associate with art in general. This section
investigates the general methodology underlying the interdisciplinary study of
aesthetics and cognitive science, and the application of current theories of
perception to an understanding of aesthetic experiences.
Course Resource Page: http://abacus.bates.edu/~wseeley/AeCS.html
Course Goals:
1. Provide a general understanding of the
objectives and interdisciplinary methods of cognitive science via their
application in explanations of art and aesthetic experience.
2. Evaluate how aesthetic experiences are differentiated
from ordinary perceptual experiences in traditional and contemporary
philosophical literature.
3. Naturalizing
aesthetics is an instance of a more general philosophical project. The goal of
this project is to investigate, and if possible explain or resolve, traditional
philosophical problems in terms natural psychological processes. This course
will provide students with the philosophical background to evaluate attempts to
naturalize aesthetics.
Requirements:
Students will be required to write two papers: a short
paper (6-8 pages) on an assigned topic to
be assigned at session 7; and a term paper (12-14 pages) on a topic of
their own choice due at the end of the reading period. Students must see me to
discuss the topic of their term papers no later than Session 10. In addition
students will be responsible, on a rotating basis, for preparing a short
introduction to the reading for each seminar (as assigned).
Texts:
Carroll,
Noel (1999). Philosophy of Art,
Course
Packet
COURSE
OUTLINE AND
Session 1. Introductory Lecture:
The
goal of this session is to introduce students to the key concepts and basic
model for the interdisciplinary study of cognitive science and aesthetics:
a) the
philosophical definition of aesthetics: the study of sensory cognition and
the phenomenal character of the experiences associated with artworks.
b) the
definition of an interpretation: the application of background art
historical and cultural knowledge in the identification of the content of a
work of art.
c) a
basic philosophical conflict between the role of interpretation and
the philosophical definition of aesthetics: it has been argued that what
differentiates aesthetic from ordinary perceptual experiences is not their
phenomenal content, but rather how viewers interpret them relative to
background art historical and cultural knowledge, e.g. conceptual art like the
"readymades" of Marcel Duchamp.
d) the
definition of a constructivist theory of vision and its implications for
the field of aesthetics:
- expectations
and background knowledge concerning the structure and function of scenes and
objects play an integral role in the construction of visual appearances;
- therefore
the conceptual contributions of background art historical and cultural
knowledge cannot be so easily separated from the phenomenal content of
aesthetic experiences
e) a solution
suggested by a constructivist theory of vision to the conflict between the idea
of an interpretation and the philosophical definition of aesthetics: background
art historical and cultural knowledge plays a role in the construction of the
phenomenal content of aesthetic experiences.
Session 2. Some Background in Aesthetics: Aesthetic
Experience and Interpretation:
The goal of this session is to examine in detail: a)
the central notion of a theory of aesthetics, i.e. that what individuates
artworks from ordinary objects is the unique phenomenal character of aesthetic
experiences, and b) a standard objection to theories of aesthetics, i.e. that
they cannot adequately account for the role of interpretation in aesthetic
experiences.
- Arthur
Danto (2000) "The Work of Art and the Historical Future," The
Madonna of the Future, University of
- Noel Carroll,
"Art and Interaction," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
XLV, No. 1.1986, pp. 57-68.
Session 3. The Fry-Ruskin Thesis:
The Fry-Ruskin Thesis consists of three claims:
a)visual artists derive the content of their works from a careful examination
of the underlying structure of natural appearances, b) viewers reconstruct the
representational content of these works from visual cues derived from this
examination, and c) as a result an intuitive understanding of the structure of
appearances plays a key role in the production of aesthetic experiences. The
goal of this session is to evaluate a) the Fry-Ruskin Thesis as a theory of
aesthetics, and b) Gombrich's criticism that it rests on a naive view of vision
built upon the impossible notion of an innocent, or unbiased, eye.
- John
Ruskin (1857) "from The Elements of Drawing,"
- Roger
Fry, "The Artist's Vision," Vision and Design, Dover Publishers
Inc,
- E. M.
Gombrich's (2000) "The Analysis of Vision in Art," Art and
Illusion,
Session 4. The Constructivist Hypothesis:
The goal of this session is to: a) introduce the idea
that the structure of appearances is actively constructed by the visual
system, b) introduce a general constructivist model for the study of
cognitive science and aesthetics which suggests that artists' close examination
of the structure of appearances is in fact a close examination of the way the
visual system constructs visual representations, and c) discuss a solution this
strategy suggests for the problem of interpretation.
- Diana
Raffman (1993) Language Music, MIT Press,
- Ellen
Winner(1982) "What's in a picture," Invented Worlds, Harvard
University Press,
- Stephen
E. Palmer (1999) "Classical Theories of Vision," Vision Science:
Photons to Phenomenology, MIT Press,
Session 6. Kinetic Art and Calder's Mobiles:
The goal of this session is to evaluate a case study
which exemplify the bottom-up approach:
Semi Ski's claim that Alexander Calder's sculpture
consciously exploits the receptive field properties of motion sensitive
neurons.
- Anjan
Chatterjee (2003). "Prospects for a Cognitive Neuroscience of Visual
Aesthetics," Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, Volume 4. Number
2, pp 55-60 (neuroscience)
- Semir
Zeki and M. Lamb (1994). "The neurology of kinetic art," Brain,
117, pp. 607-636. (cognitive science and aesthetics)
- V.S.
Ramachandran and R. L. Gregory (1978) "Does Color Provide an Input to
Human Motion Perception?" Nature, Volume 275, September 7, pp.
55-56. (scientific report)
- Margaret
Livingstone (2000). "Is It Warm? Is It Real? Or Just Low Spatial Frequency?"
Science,290, November 17, p. 1299 (neuroscience).
Session 7. Discussion of Zeki's Thesis:
Zeki's theory does not address the issue of
interpretation. The goal of this discussion is to evaluate two potential
difficulties for Zeki's theory: a) Jennifer McMahon's claim that Zeki's theory
is limited by the fact that it can only explain the perceptual content of
highly abstract works which exploit formal visual elements in relative
isolation, e.g. Calder's use of motion, and b) the claim discussed in Sessions2
and 3 that the value of the formal structure of an artwork is derived from an
interpretation.
- Clement
Greenberg (1960). "Modernist Painting," ed. John O'Brian, The
Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume 4,
- Noel
Carroll (1999). "Form and Function," The Philosophy of Art
(excerpts on eDisk),
- Arthur
Danto (2000) "Art and Meaning," Theories of Art Today,
MIDTERM PAPER TOPIC ASSIGNED
Session 8. A Top-Down Approach: A Theory of Perceptual
Beauty:
The goal of this session is to examine McMahon's claim
that the phenomenal character of the experience of beautiful artworks, objects,
and natural scenes involves an intuitive awareness of the role of perceptual
schema in the top-down processes subserving form perception.
- Jennifer
Anne McMahon (1999) "Towards a Unified Theory of Beauty," Literature
and Aesthetics, 9, pp. 7-27. (philosophy and cognitive science)
- Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz (1684) "Meditation of Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas," Philosophical
Papers and Letters translated and edited by Leroy E. Loemker, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, 1989, pp. 291-295. (philosophy)
- Moses
Mendelssohn, "Of the Main Principles of the Fine Arts and Sciences," Philosophical
Writings, ed Daniel Dahlstrom (
- Noel
Carroll (1991) "Beauty and the Genealogy of Art Theory," The
Philosophical Forum, XXII, No. 4,pp. 307-334.
Session 9. A Top Down Approach: Form Perception:
The goal of this session is to examine evidence
supporting McMahon's central claim that viewers can be intuitively aware of key
aspects of the perceptual form of a scene or object without being able to
appropriately identify them.
- Stephen
Palmer, "Four Stages of Visual Perception," Vision Science,
Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 85-93. (cognitive science)
- Jenni
A.
- Alan
J. Parkin (1996) "Visual Agnosia," Explorations in Cognitive
Neuropsychology, Psychology Press,
* (supplemental)Marr,
David and H. K. Nishihara (1978) "Visual Processing: Artificial
intelligence and the sensorium of sight," TechnologyReview,81, pp.
2-23.
* (supplemental)Jennifer
Anne McMahon (2001) "Beauty," in eds. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver
Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp.
227-238. (philosophy)
Session 10. Art and the Imagination:
The goal of this session is to a) introduce a general
model for the role of the imagination in the production of aesthetic
experiences due to Gregory Currie, b) introduce the claim that viewing a work
of visual art involves a "simulated" act of seeing, and c) discuss
the relationship between this model and the constructivist hypothesis.
- Kendall
Walton (1992) "Mimesis as Make-believe," Art Issues 21, pp.
22-27. (philosophy)
- Gregory
Currie and Ian Ravenscroft (2002). "Chapter 1, Projections and
Recreations," Recreative Minds(
- Gregory
Currie (1995) "Visual Imagery as the Simulation of Vision," Mind
and Language, Volume 10, Number 1/2, March/June, pp.25-44. (philosophy and
cognitive science)
Session 11. What is Mental Imagery?:
Currie appeals to Stephen Kosslyn's model of visual
mental imagery to explain the idea of a "simulated act of seeing."
The goal of this session is to discuss a) the top down role of memory and
background knowledge in Stephen Kosslyn's model for mental imagery, b)
behavioral, neuropsychological, and neurophysiological evidence that supports
the claim that mental imagery is in fact a type of visual experience, and c)
the resolution that this model suggests to the problem of interpretation.
- Currie
and Ravenscroft, "Chapter 4, Imagery: Capacities and Mechanisms," Recreative
Minds. (philosophy)
- Stephen Kosslyn (1996) "Resolving
the Imagery Debates," Image and Brain, MIT Press,
- Kosslyn et al
(1999) "The Role of Area
17 in Visual Imagery: Convergent Evidence from PET and rTMS," pp.
167-170. (cognitive neuroscience)
Session 12. Imagery Feedback, Attention &
Diagnosticity
The goal of this session is to a) introduce evidence
for what Kosslyn calls "imagery feedback" in ordinary vision, b)
introduce the concept of diagnosticity
in object (a feature or set of features are diagnostic
if they are sufficient to enable a someone to perceptually recognize an object
or scene), c) introduce the idea that the formal structure of an artwork
contains a set of diagnostic cues that function to direct/constrain viewers'
perceptual and interpretive experiences.
- William
Thompson and Stephen Kosslyn, "Neural systems activated during visual
mental imagery," Brain Imaging: The Systems, eds. Toga and
Mazziotta, (
- Marvin
Chun and Rene Marois (2002). "The dark side of visual attention," Current
Opinion in Neurobiology 12 (cognitive neuroscience) (eDisk)
- Nancy
Kanwisher and Ewa Wojciuk (2000). "Visual Attention: Insights from Brain
Imaging," Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 1, pp. 91-100. (cognitive
neuroscience)
- Phillipe
Schyns (1998). Diagnostic recognition: Task constraints, object information,
and their interactions," Cognition 67, pp. 147-162 (excerpt)
Session 13. Discussion: Art, Imagination, Mental
Imagery, and the Problem of Interpretation:
The goal of this session is to evaluate imagery
feedback and diagnostic recognition theory as possible mechanisms for a solution
to the problem of interpretation: they suggest complimentary roles for the
phenomenal content of aesthetic experience and background art historical and
cultural knowledge.
- Arthur
Danto (2001). "Seeing and Showing," Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 59:1, pp. 1-9. (philosophy) (eDisk)
- Noel
Carroll: "Modernity and the plasticity of perception, Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 59:1,pp. 11-17. (philosophy) (eDisk)
- Mark
Rollins (2004). "What Monet Meant: Intention and Attention in Understanding
Art," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62:2, pp.175-188.
(philosophy) (eDisk)
- Noel
Carroll (1988). "Art, Practice, Narrative," The Monist 71:2,
pp. 140-156.(philosophy) (packet)
- Stephen
Davies (2005). "Beardsley and the Autonomy of the Work of Art," Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63:2, p. 179-183.
Session14. Art, Aesthetics and the Constructivist
Hypothesis
- Noel
Carroll(2002). "Aesthetic Experience Revisited," British Journal
of Philosophy, 42:2, pp. 145-171.
FINAL PAPER DUE