1

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 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 due at the midterm; 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.

Texts:

Required texts:

-Zeki, Semir (1999). Inner Vision, Oxford University Press, New York.

-Carroll, Noel (1999). Philosophy of Art, Routledge, New York.

-Course packet available through Yale RIS (http://www.yale.edu/ris/sub_store_bookstore.html).

Additional supplemental texts are on reserve at Cross Campus Library.

The following books provide useful background in aesthetics, cognitive science, and cognitive neuroscience:

Invented Worlds: The Psychology of the Arts, Ellen Winner, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,1982.

Image and Brain, Stephen M. Kosslyn, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,1994.

Visual Agnosia, Martha Farah, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,1994.

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Vision, Martha J. Farah, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, 2000.

Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See, Donald D. Hoffman, W. W. Norton and Company, New York,1998.

Creating Mind, John E. Dowling, W. W. Norton and Company, New York,1998.

Vision and Design, Roger Fry, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY,1981.

Beyond Aesthetics, Noel Carroll, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001.

BACK TO TOP

2. Syllabus and Lecture Overview:

A. Aesthetics and The Constructivist Hypothesis:

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:

i. expectations and background knowledge concerning the structure and function of scenes and objects play an integral role in the construction of visual appearances;

ii. 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.

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.

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.

B. Bottom-Up Approaches:

Bottom-up approaches to aesthetics and cognitive science fix on the neurophysiological structure of early visual processes. The focus of these theories is on the way artists' exploit shallow visual effects that are the products of these processes.

Session 5. A Bottom-Up Approach: The Neurophysiology of Aesthetic Experience:

The goal of this session is to: a) introduce Semir Zeki's claim that artists are intuitive neurophysiologists whose works reveal an understanding of the role of the early visual brain in the construction of the structure of appearances, and b) discuss Zeki's thesis within the context of Fry and Ruskin's formalist conception of the practice of painting as a rigorous examination of the structure of appearances.

Session 6. Calder's Mobiles and the Mona Lisa:

The goal of this session is to evaluate a case study which exemplify the bottom-up approach: Semir Zeki's claim that Alexander Calder's sculpture consciously exploits the receptive field properties of motion sensitive neurons.

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 Sessions 2 and 3 that the value of the formal structure of an artwork is derived from an interpretation.

C. Top-Down Approaches:

Constructivist theories of vision argue that form perception involves top down processes which match sensory data to perceptual schema containing prior knowledge about the shapes and relative sizes of particular types of objects. Top-down approaches focus on the way artists exploit these processes in the construction of their works.

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.

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. 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.

Session 10. Discussion: McMahon's Theory of Beauty:

The goal of this session is to a)discuss McMahon's theory in the context of the Fry-Ruskin Thesis, b) evaluate her application of the theory to Cubism, and c) evaluate an objection that whereas the theory can help explain the phenomenal content traditionally associated with aesthetic experience, it cannot account for the role of interpretation in the experiences associated with art.

D. Art and the Imagination:

Stephen Kosslyn argues that visual mental imagery, the act of visualizing something in your imagination, is an internal, non-perceptual visual experience caused either by recollecting or conceptualizing something. Gregory Currie suggests a role for the imagination in the production of aesthetic experiences which exploits the processes responsible for visual mental imagery.

Session 11. Art and the Imagination:

The goal of this session is to a)introduce Gregory Currie's general model for the role of the imagination in the production of aesthetic experiences, b) introduce Currie's 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.

Session 12. 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.

Session 13. Discussion: Art, Imagination, Mental Imagery, and the Problem of Interpretation:

The goal of this session is to a)discuss the role of mental imagery in Currie's theory of art and the imagination, and b) evaluate the theory as a resolution to the problem of interpretation that provides complimentary roles for the phenomenal content of aesthetic experience and background art historical and cultural knowledge.

BACK TO TOP

3. Readings and Reserve List

A. Readings

Session 1: Introduction

Session 2: Aesthetic Experience and the Problem of Interpretation

1. Arthur Danto (2000). Art and Meaning. Theories of Art Today (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), pp. 130-140. (philosophy)

2. Arthur Danto (2001). The Work of Art and the Historical Future. The Madonna of the Future (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 416-431. (philosophy)

3. Noel Carroll (1991). Beauty and the Genealogy of Art Theory. The Philosophical Forum, XXII, No. 4, pp. 307-334.

Session 3: The Fry-Ruskin Thesis

1. John Ruskin (1857). footnote pp. 27-28. The Elements of Drawing (Mineola, NY: Dover Publishers Inc, 1981). (art criticism)

2. Roger Fry (1919). The Artist's Vision. Vision and Design, (Mineola, NY: Dover Publishers Inc, Mineola, NewYork,1981, pp. 33-38. (art criticism)

3. E. M. Gombrich (1960). The Analysis of Vision in Art. Art and Illusion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 291- 314. (psychology and art criticism)

Session 4: The Constructivist Hypothesis

1. Ellen Winner (1982). What's in a Picture. Invented Worlds (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 81-111 (psychology of art textbook)

2. Stephen E. Palmer (1999). Classical Theories of Vision. Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology(Cambridge, MAMIT Press), pp. 47-59. (psychology text book)

3. Kandel et al (1995). Construction of the Visual Image, Chapter 21. Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior, pp. 387-485. (introductory level textbook)

Session 5: A Bottom-Up Approach: The Neurophysiology of Aesthetic Experience:

1. Diana Raffman (1993). Language Music, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-15; 31-35. (philosophy and cognitive science)

2. Chatterjee, Anjan (2003). Prospects for a Cognitive Neuroscience of Visual Aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, Volume 4. Number2, pp 55-60 (cognitive science)

3. Semir Zeki (1999). Inner Vision (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 1-21;58-89. (philosophy and cognitive science)

Session 6: Calder's Mobiles and Mona Lisa's Smile:

1. Zeki, S. and M. Lamb (1994). The Neurology of Kinetic Art. Brain, 117,pp. 607-636. (cognitive science and aesthetics)

2. 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)

3. Margaret Livingstone (2000). Is It Warm? Is It Real? Or Just Low Spatial Frequency? Science,290, November 17, p. 1299 (neuroscience).

4. Richard Latto (1995). The Brain of the Beholder. In eds. Richard Gregory, John Harriss, Priscilla Heard, & David Rose, The Artful Eye, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 66-75.

Session 7: Discussion of Zeki's Thesis:

1. Clement Greenberg (1961). Modernist Painting. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, V. 4, ed, John O'Brian, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995, pp. 85-93.

2. Noel Carroll (1988). Art, Practice, Narrative. The Monist, Volume 71,Issue 2, pp. 140-156.

3. Jennifer McMahon (2000). Commentary on Semir Zeki's Inner Vision. Leonardo Online Reviews,http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/reviews/a-raw.html. (philosophy)

Session 8: A Top-Down Approach: A Theory of Perceptual Beauty:

1. 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. RESERVE

2. Clive Bell (1913). The Aesthetic Hypothesis. Art, (New York: Perigree Books, 1981), pp. 15-34. (art criticism) RESERVE

3. Jennifer Anne McMahon (1999). Towards a Unified Theory of Beauty. Literature and Aesthetics, 9, pp. 7-19. (philosophy and cognitive science)

4. 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 9: A Top Down Approach: Form Perception:

1. Martha Farah (1992). Perceptual Classification Deficit. Visual Agnosia, First Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 30-33. (cognitive science)

2. Jenni A. Ogden (1996). Vision Without Knowledge: Visual Object Agnosia and Prosopagnosia. Fractured Minds, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 125-141. (cognitive science)

3. Alan J. Parkin (1996). Visual Agnosia. Explorations in Cognitive Neuropsychology, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 38-57. (cognitive science)

Session 10: Discussion: McMahon's Theory of Beauty:

Patrick Cavanaugh (1999). Pictorial Art and Vision. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 648-651. (cognitive science)
Noel Carroll (1999). Art and Form. Philosophy of Art (New York: Routledge), pp. 108-152. (philosophy)

Session 11: An Integrated Approach: Art and the Imagination:

Kendall Walton (1992).Mimesis as Make-believe. Art Issues 21, pp. 22-27. (philosophy).
Gregory Currie (1991).Book review: Mimesis as Make Believe. The Journal of Philosophy, Volume 90, pp. 367-370. (philosophy).
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 12: What is Mental Imagery?:

1. Stephen Kosslyn (1996). Resolving the Imagery Debates. Image and Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 2-21. (cognitive science)

2. William Thompson and Steven Kosslyn (2000). Neural Systems Activated during Visual Mental Imagery. In eds. Arthur W. Toga and John C. Mazziotta, Brain Mapping: The Systems, Academic Press, New York, 2000, pp. 535-540. (cognitive neuroscience)

3. Chris Frith and Raymond J. Dolan (1997). Brain mechanisms associated with top down processing in perception. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Volume 352,Number 1, pp. 1221-1230.

4. S. M. Kosslyn et al(1999). The Role of Area 17 in Visual Imagery: Convergent Evidence from PET and rTMS. Science, Volume 284,Number 5411, April, pp. 167-170. (cognitive neuroscience).

Session 13: Discussion: Art, Imagination, Mental Imagery, and the Problem of Interpretation:

Paul Guyer (1996). Kant and the Experience of Freedom, Chapter 2 & pp. 131-141, New York: Cambridge University Press. (philosophy)
Noel Carroll (2002). Aesthetic Experience Revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 42, Number 2, pp. 145-168.
Noel Carroll (1986). Art and Interaction. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XLV, No. 1, pp. 57-68. (philosophy)

B. Course Packet List

1. Carroll, Noel (1986). Art and Interaction. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism," XLV, No. 1, Fall, pp. 57-68.

[PACKET 1-13]

2. Danto, Arthur (2000a). The Work of Art and the Historical Future. The Madonna of the Future, University of California Press, pp. 441-444.

[PACKET 14 -22]

3. Danto, Arthur (2000b). Art and Meaning. Madonna of the Future, University of California Press, pp. xvii-xxx.

[PACKET 23-31]

4. Gombrich, E. H. (1960). The Analysis of Vision in Art. Art and Illusion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2000, pp. 291-314.

[PACKET 32-58]

5. Ruskin, John (1857). Letter I, Exercise i, paragraphs 5-6. The Elements of Drawing, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 1971, pp. 27-29.

[PACKET 59-61]

6. Fry, Roger (1909). An Essay in Aesthetics. Vision and Design, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 1981, pp. 12-19.

[PACKET 62-66]

7. Fry, Roger (1919). The Artist's Vision. Vision and Design, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 1981, pp. 33-38.

[PACKET 67-71]

8. McPherson, Fiona (2002). The Scope and Place of Philosophy in Perception, www.girton.cam.ac.uk/users/fem30/pp/intro.html

[PACKET 72]

9. Raffman, Diana (1993). Language Music, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-15.

[PACKET 73-82]

10. Zeki, Semir (1999). Inner Vision, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-21.

[PACKET 83-94]

11. Palmer, Stephen E. (1999). Classical Theories of Vision. Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 47-59.

[PACKET 95-109]

12. Zeki, Semir (1999). Art and the Brain. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 6, June/July, pp. 76-96.

[PACKET 110-131]

13. Zeki, Semir (1994). The Neurology of Kinetic art," Brain, 117, pp. 607-636.

[PACKET 132-161]

14. Ramachandran, V. S. and R. L. Gregory (1978). Does Color Provide an Input to Human Motion Perception? Nature, Volume 275, September 7, pp. 55-56.

[PACKET 162-165]

15. Livingstone, Margaret S. (2000). Is It Warm? Is It Real? Or Just Low Spatial Frequency? Science, 290, November 17, p. 1299.

[PACKET 166]

16. McMahon, Jennifer Anne (2000). Commentary on Semir Zeki's Inner Vision. Leonardo Online Reviews, http://mitpress.mit.edu/ejournals/Leonardo/reviews/sep2000/bk_INNVIS_mcmahon.html

[PACKET 167-172]

17. McMahon, Jennifer Anne (2001). Beauty. In eds. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp.227- 238.

[PACKET 173-186]

18. McMahon, Jennifer Anne (1999). Towards a Unified Theory of Beauty. Literature and Aesthetics, 9, pp. 7-19.

[PACKET 187-205]

19. Farah, Martha (1992). Perceptual Classification Deficit. Visual Agnosia, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 30-33.

[PACKET 206-209]

20. Ogden, Jenni A. (1996). Vision Without Knowledge: Visual Object Agnosia and Prosopagnosia. Fractured Minds, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 125-141.

[PACKET 210-228]

21. Parkin, Alan J. (1996). Visual Agnosia. Explorations in Cognitive Neuropsychology, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 38-57.

[PACKET 229-247]

22. Cavanaugh, Patrick (1999). Pictorial Art and Vision. MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, eds. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 648-651. http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Articles/cavanaugh1.html.

[PACKET 248-251]

23. Walton, Kendall (1992). Mimesis as Make-believe. Art Issues 21, pp. 22-27.

[PACKET 252-258]

24. Currie, Gregory (1991). Book Review: Mimesis as Make-Believe. Journal of Philosophy, Volume 90, July, pp.367-370.

[PACKET 259-263]

25. Currie, Gregory (1995). Visual Imagery as the Simulation of Vision. Mind and Language, Volume 10, Number 1/2, March/June, pp. 25-44.

[PACKET 264-275]

26. Kosslyn, Stephen M. (1996). Resolving the Imagery Debates. Imagery and the Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 2-21.

[PACKET 276-298]

27. Kosslyn, S. M., A. Pascual-Leone, O. Felician, S. Camposano, J. P. Keenan, W. L. Thompson, G. Ganis, K. E. Sukel, N. M. Alpert (1999). The Role of Area 17 in Visual Imagery: Convergent Evidence from PET and rTMS. Science, Volume 284, Number5411, April, pp. 167-170.

[PACKET 299-302]

28. Thompson, William L. and Stephen M. Kosslyn (2000). Neural systems activated during visual mental imagery: a review and meta-analysis. In eds. Arthur W. Toga and John C. Mazziotta, Brain Mapping: The Systems, Academic Press, New York, 2000, pp. 535-542.

[PACKET 303-312]

29. Greenberg, Clement (1960). Modernist Painting. Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume 4, ed. John O'Brian, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995, pp. 85-93.

[PACKET 313-319]

30. Carroll, Noel (1991). Beauty and the Genealogy of Art Theory. The Philosophical Forum, Volume XXII, No. 4, Summer, pp. 307-334.

[PACKET 320-335]

Akins, Kathleen (1996). Of Sensory Systems and the Aboutness of Mental States. Journal of Philosophy, Volume 93, Number 7, July, pp. 337-372.

[PACKET:336-371]

Winner, Ellen (1982). What's In a Picture? Chapter 3. Invented Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 81-111.

[PACKET:372-402]

Carroll, Noel (2002). Aesthetic Experience Revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 42, Number 2, April, pp. 145-168.

[PACKET:403-426]

McMahon, Jennifer Anne (2000). Perceptual Beauty as the Basis for Genuine Judgments of Beauty. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 7, No. 8/9, August/September, pp. 29 -35.

[PACKET:427-433]

Ramachandran, V. S and William Hirstein (2000). The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience," Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 6, No. 6/7, June/July, pp. 15-51.

[PACKET:434-470]

Chatterjee, Anjan (2003). Prospects for a Cognitive Neuroscience of Visual Aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, Volume 4. Number 2, pp 55-60.

[PACKET:471-477]

Chatterjee, Anjan (2004). The Neuropsychology of Visual Artistic Expression. Neuropsychologia, Volume 42, pp. 1568-1583.

[PACKET:478-494]

Frith, Chris and Raymond J. Dolan (1997). Brain Mechanisms Associated with Top Down Processing in Perception. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Volume 352, Number 1, pp. 1221-1230.

[PACKET:495-506]

Carroll, Noel (1988). Art, Practice, and Narrative. The Monist, 71(2). pp. 140-156.

[PACKET:507-523]

Rickey, George (1963). The Morphology of Movement. Art Journal, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 220-231.

[PACKET:524-535]

C. Reserve List & Supplementary Sources

Reserve List:

1. Course Packet: CSES391b

2. Ashcraft, Mark H., Fundamentals of Cognition, Prentice Hall, New York, 1998.

3. Ashcraft, Mark H., Human Memory and Cognition, Scott, Foresman, Glennview, Ill, 1989.

4. Bechtel, William (1988). Philosophy of science : an overview for cognitive science, Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum.

5. Bell, Clive, Art, Perigree Books, New York, 1981.

6. Boyd, Richard, Philip Gasper, and J.D. Trout (1995). The Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

7. Carroll, Noel, Beyond Aesthetics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001.

8. Carroll, Noel, Philosophy of Art, Routledge, New York, 1999.

9. Dickie, George, Richard Sclafini, and Ronald Roblin, Aesthetics, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989.

10. Currie, Gregory and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) Recreative Minds, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 71-88.

11. Davies, Stephen, Definitions of Art, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1991.

12. Farah, Martha Visual Agnosia, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

13. Farah, Martha Visual Agnosia, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

14. Farah, Martha, The Cognitive Neuroscience of Vision, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, 2000.

15. Fry, Roger (1920) Vision and Design, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 198.

16. Gombrich, E. H., Art and Illusion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2000.

17. Gombrich, E. H., Julian Hochberg, and Max Black, Art, Perception, and Reality, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1994.

18. Gregory, Richard, The Artful Eye, edited by Richard Gregory, John Harriss, Priscilla Heard, and David Rose, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.

19. Guyer, Paul, The Dialectic of Disinterestedness: I. Eighteenth-century Aesthetics. Kant and the Experience of Freedom, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996.

20. Heiko, Hecht, Robert Schwartz, and Margaret Atherton, Looking Into Pictures, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.

21. Hubel, D. H. Eye, Brain, and Vision, Scientific American Library, New York, 1995.

22. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Special Issue: Art and the Brain, ed. Joseph A. Goguen, Volume 6, Number 6-7, 1999.

23. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Special Issue: Art and the Brain, ed. Joseph A. Goguen and Eric Myin, Volume 7, Number 8-9, 2000.

24. Kandel, E.R, J. H. Schwartz, and T. M. Jessel, Essential of Neural Science and Behavior, McGraw Hill, New York, 1995.

25. Kosslyn, Stephen M. and Richard A. Anderson, Frontiers in Cognitive Neuroscience, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

26. Kosslyn, Stephen M., Image and the Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.

27. Kosslyn, Stephen M, and Oliver Koenig, Wet Mind, Free Press, New York, 1995.

28. Richard Latto (1995). The Brain of the Beholder. In eds. Richard Gregory, John Harriss, Priscilla Heard, & David Rose, The Artful Eye, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 66-75.

29. Livingstone, Margaret S., Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing, Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York, 2002.

30. Marr, David, Vision, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1982.

31. "Art and the Mind," A special issue of The Monist, Volume 86, Number 4, eds. N. J. Bulloy and P. Ludwig.

32. Palmer, Stephen, Vision Science: from Photons to Phenomenology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.

33. Posner, M. I. and Marcus E. Raichle, Images of Mind, Scientific American Library, New York,1997.

34. Pylyshyn, Zenon W, Computation and Cognition: Towards a Foundation for Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984.

35. Rock, Irvin, Perception, Scientific American Library, New York, 1984.

36. Rollins, Mark, "What Monet Meant: Intention and Attention in Understanding Art," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62:2, 2004, p. 175-188.

37. Ruskin, John, The Elements of Drawing, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 1971.

38. Schwartz, Robert ed., Perception, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 2004.

39. Toga, Arthur W. and John C. Mazziotta, Brain Mapping: The Systems, Academic Press, New York, 2000.

40. Wartenberg, Thomas E. The Nature of Art, Harcourt College Publishers, New York, 2002.

41. Winner, Ellen, Invented Worlds: The Psychology of Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

42. Zeki, Semir, Inner Vision, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.

43. Zeki, Semir, A Vision of the Brain, Oxford University Press, Blackwell Scientific Publishers, 1993.

Supplementary Reading List:

1. Symposium on the Historicity of the Eye. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Volume 59, Number 1, Winter, 2001, pp. 1-44. (philosophy-online resource)

1.Danto, Arthur, Seeing and Showing, pp. 1-9.

2.Carroll, Noel, Modernity and the Plasticity of Perception, pp. 11-18.

3.Rollins, Mark, The Invisible Content of Art, pp. 19-27.

4.Davis, Whitney, When Pictures Are Present, pp. 29-38.

5.Danto, Arthur, The Pigeon within Us All: A Reply to Three Critics, pp. 39-44.

2. Art and Mind, The Monist, Volume 96, Number 4, October 2003, pp. 521-701. (philosophy - online resource)

1. Carroll, Noel, Art and Mood: Preliminary Notes and Conjectures, pp. 521-555.

2. Currie, Gregory andJon Jureidini, Art and Delusion, pp. 556-578.

3. Mark DeBellis, Schenkerian Analysis and the Intelligent Listener, pp. 579-607.

4. Rollins, Mark, The Mind in Pictures: Perceptual Strategies and the Interpretation of Visual Art, pp. 608-631.

5. Lopes, Dominic McIver, Pictures and the Representational Mind, pp. 632-652.

6. Hopkins, Robert, Pictures, Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, pp. 635-675.

7. Hyman, John, Subjectivism in the Theory of Pictorial Art, pp. 676-701.

3. Akins, Kathleen (1996). Perception, New York: Oxford University Press. (philosophy and cognitive science)

4. Albers, Josef (1975). Interactions of Color, New Haven: Yale University Press. (art theory)

5. Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby (1992). The Adapted Mind, New York: Oxford University Press. (evolutionary epistemology)

6. Bruce, Vicki and Andy Young (1998). In the Eye of the Beholder, New York: Oxford University Press. (face perception and art)

7. Curd, Martin and J. A. Cover (1998). The Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, New York: W. W. Norton and Company. (philosophy)

8. Currie, Gregory (1995). Imagination and Simulation: Aesthetics Meets Cognitive Science. In eds. Martin Davies and Tony Stone, Mental Simulation, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, 1995, pp. 151-169.

9. Beardsley, Monroe (1981). Aesthetics, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishers. (philosophy)

10. Currie, Gregory and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) The Simulation Programme, Chapter 3. Recreative Minds, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 71-88.

11. Currie, Gregory and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) Imagery: Capacities and Mechanisms, Chapter 4. Recreative Minds, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 71-88.

12. Currie, Gregory (2001) Imagination and Make-Believe. In eds. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp. 253-262.

13. Davis, Steven (2000). Color Perception: Philosophical, Psychological, Artistic, and Computational Perspectives, New York: Oxford University Press. (philosophy and cognitive science)

14. Dowling, John E., Neurons and Networks, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2001. (behavioral neuroscience of vision)

15. Farah, Martha J. and Todd E. Feinberg (2000). Patient-Based Approaches to Cognitive Neuroscience, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (neuropsychology of vision)

16. Freeland, Cynthia (2001). But Is It Art?, New York: Oxford University Press. (philosophy)

1. Gaut, Berys and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp. 181-192 (REFERENCE).

17. Goldman, Alan (2001). The Aesthetic. In eds. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp. 181-192 (REFERENCE).

18. Gombrich, E. H. (2002). The Story of Art, Phaidon Press, New York. (art history and psychology of art)

19. Greenberg, Clement (1999). Homemade Esthetics, New York: Oxford University Press. (art criticism)

20. Greenberg, Clement (1993). The Collected Essays, Volume 4, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (art criticism)

21. Hoffman, David, Visual Intelligence, W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York, 1998. (psychology)

22. Kant, Immanuel (1989). A Critique of Judgment, trans. James Creed Meredith, New York: Oxford University Press.

23. Kitcher, Phillip (1984). 1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences. Philosophical Review, Volume 93, pp. 335-373. (philosophy of science)

24. Kornblith, Hilray (1997). Naturalizing Epistemology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (philosophy)

25. Kosslyn Stephen M. (1980). Image and Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (cognitive neuroscience of vision)

26. Kosslyn, Stephen M. and Richard A. Anderson, Frontiers in Cognitive Neuroscience, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

27. Kosslyn, Stephen M. Carol S. Rabin (1999). Imagery. MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, eds. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 387 - 389. (cognitive neuroscience of vision)

28. Kostelanetz, Richard (1989). Esthetics Contemporary, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (art criticism, art theory, and philosophical aesthetics)

29. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1989). Philosophical Papers and Letters, translated and edited by Leroy E. Loemker, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

30. Mallarme, Stephane (2001). Mallarme in Prose, New York: New Directions. (art criticism and literary theory)

31. Marr, David and H. K. Nishihara (1978). Visual Processing: Artificial Intelligence and the Sensorium of Sight. Technology Review, 81, pp. 2-23.

32. McMahon, Jennifer Anne (2000) "Perceptual Beauty as the Basis for Genuine Judgments of Beauty," Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 7, No. 8/9, August/September, pp. 29-35. (aesthetics and cognitive science)

33. Milner, A. David and Melvin A. Goodale (1998). The Visual Brain in Action. Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, http://psyche.cs.monash.edu/au/v4/psyche-4-12-milner.html

34. Mishkin, M., L. G. Ungerleider, and K. A. Macko (1983). Object Vision and Spatial Vision: Two Cortical Pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6, pp. 414-417.

35. Noe, Alva and Evan Thompson (2002). Vision and Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (philosophy and cognitive science)

36. Pelli, D. G. (1999). Close Encounters-An Artist Shows that Size Effects Shape. Science, V. 285, pp. 844-846.

37. Ramachandran, V. S and William Hirstein (2000) "The Science of Art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience," Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 6, No. 6/7, June/July, pp. 15-51.

38. Richard Latto (1995). The Brain of the Beholder. The Artful Eye, eds. Richard Gregory, John Harriss, Priscilla Heard, and David Rose, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 66-94. (psychology of art and cognitive neuroscience of vision)

39. Ruskin, John (1857). Letter I, Exercise i, paragraphs 5-6. The Elements of Drawing, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 1971, pp. 27-31 and 48-56. (art criticism)

40. Ruskin, John (2004). Selected Writings, New York: Oxford University Press. (art criticism)

41. Salmon, Wesley et al (1992). Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, New York: Prentice Hall. (philosophy)

42. Stilling, Neil A., Steven E. Weisler, Christopher H. Chase, Mark H. Feinstein, Jay, L. Garfield, and Edwina L. Rissland (1995). Cognitive Science: An Introduction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (cognitive science)

43. Stolnitz, Jerome (1960). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art Criticism, New York: Houghton-Mifflin. (philosophical aesthetics)

44. Tarr, Michael J. and Heinrich H. Bulthoff (1998). Object Recognition in Man Monkey and Machine. eds. Michael J. Tarr and Heinrich H. Bulthoff, Object Recognition in Man Monkey and Machine, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 1998. (general vision theory)

45. Thompson, William L. and Stephen M. Kosslyn (2000). Neural Systems Activated During Visual Mental Imagery: A Review and Meta-analysis. In eds. Arthur W. Toga and John C. Mazziotta, Brain Mapping: The Systems, Academic Press, New York, 2000, pp. 535-560.

46. Walton, Kendall (1990). Mimesis as Make Believe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (art and imagination)

47. Willats, John (1997). Art and Representation, Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press. (psychology, picture perception and art)

48. Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, editors, MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.

49. Yantis, Steven (2001). Visual Perception, New York: Psychology Press. (general vision theory)

50. Young, Andrew W. (1998). Face and Mind, New York: Oxford University Press. (face perception)

BACK TO TOP

4. Supplemental Bibliography and Links

A.Links

1. ASA: Aesthetics On-Line

http://www.aesthetics-online.org/

2. Color, Vision, and Art

http://webexhibits.org/colorart/ag.html

3. What is Cognitive Science?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/

4. Bill Warren Lab

http://www.cog.brown.edu/Research/ven_lab/index.html

5. Vision and Art: How is visual information used in art?

http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/art/

6. Mona Lisa Smiles, Margaret Livingstone

http://neuro.med.harvard.edu/faculty/livingstone.html

7. Art and Optics (on David Hockney's book, Secret Knowledge)

http://webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/grundy.html

8. Painter's Eye Movements, Miall & Tchalenko

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/leonardo/v034/34.1miall.html#top

9. Drawing & Cognition Homepage, John Tchalenko

http://www.arts.ac.uk/research/drawing_cognition/john.htm

10. Mark Harden's Artchive

http://www.artchive.com/ftp_site_reg.htm

11. Thomas Eakins: Scenes from Modern Life

http://www.pbs.org/eakins/img_1870.htm

12. "Making Sense of Marcel Duchamp"

http://www.understandingduchamp.com/

13. MoMA Collection

http://moma.org/collection/index.html

14. "Art, The Mind, and The Brain," Gregory Currie

http://www.uqtr.ca/AE/vol_1/currie.html

15. Cognitive Science, Humanities, and the Arts

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/cogsci/index.html

16. Neuroscience of Dance

http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/a/adale/Neurodance/titlepage.html

17. Philosophy of Neuroscience

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/

18. Harvard Vision Lab

http://visionlab.harvard.edu/VisionLab2/Welcome.html

19. Dale Purves' Lab

http://www.purveslab.net/

20. Image Understanding Lab

http://geon.usc.edu/

21. Gestalt Psychology and Vision

http://iit.ches.ua.edu/systems/gestalt.html

22. KISMET

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/humanoid-robotics-group/kismet/kismet.html

23. The Emerging Brain, Reith Lectures 2003

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecturer.shtml

24. Paul Thagard's List of Cognitive Science Websites

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/resources.html

25. Dictionary of the Philosophy of Mind

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/

26. The Brain Glossary &Interactive Brain Map

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/glossary.shtml

B. Supplemental Bibliography

Aesthetics:

1. Beardsley, Monroe C. (1978). The Aesthetic Point of View. In ed. J. Margolis, Philosophy Looks at the Arts, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp. 624.

2. Bywater, William G. (1975). Clive Bells Eye, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.

3. Carrier, David (1977). American-Type Formalism. In ed. David Goldblatt and Lee B. Brown, Aesthetics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1997, pp. 23-29.

4. Carroll, Noel (2001). Formalism. In ed. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes. The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp. 87-96.

5. --------- (2000). Art and the Domain of the Aesthetic. The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 40, Number 2, April, pp. 199-208.

6. --------- (1999). The Philosophy of Art, Routledge, New York.

7. --------- (1989). Clive Bells Aesthetic Hypothesis. In ed. George Dickie, Richard Sclafini, and Ronald Roblin, Aesthetics, Second Edition, New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 84-95.

8. Crowther, Paul (1985). Greenberg's Kant and the Problem of Modernist Painting. British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 25, Number 4, Autumn, pp. 317-325.

9. Curtin, Deane W. (1982). Varieties of Aesthetic Formalism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Volume XLI, Number 3, Spring.

10. Danto, Arthur (1988). Foreword to Color for Philosophers. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, pp. ix-xii.

11. --------- (1964). The Artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, volume 61, number 19, pp. 571-584.

12. --------- (1965). Clive Bell and the Method of Principia Ethica. The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 5, Number 2, April, pp. 139-143.

13. --------- (1964). The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, No. 1, pp. 56-66, reprinted in ed. George Dickie, Richard Sclafini, and Ronald Roblin, Aesthetics, Second Edition, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989, pp. 342-355.

14. Ekman, Rosalind, (1970). The Paradoxes of Formalism. The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 10, Number 4, October.

15. Fry, Roger (1934). Reflections on British Painting, Ayer Company Publishers, London, 1934.

16. Gabo, Naum (1962). Of Diverse Arts, Pantheon Books, New York.

17. Goldblatt, David and Lee B. Brown (1997). Aesthetics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

18. Goldman, Alan (1998). Aesthetic Value, Westview Press, Boulder Colorado.

19. Gombrich, E. H. (1984). Meditations on a Hobby Horse or the Roots of Artistic Form. Meditations on a Hobby Horse, Fourth Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984, pp. 1-11.

20. --------- (1960). The Limits of Likeness. In ed. David Goldblatt and Lee B. Brown, Aesthetics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1997, pp. 35-40.

21. Gould, Carol S. (1994). Clive Bell on Aesthetic Experience and Aesthetic Truth. The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 34, Number 2, April, pp. 124-133.

22. Greenberg, Clement. (1999). Esthetic Judgment. Homemade Esthetics, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 10-22.

23. --------- (1999). Homemade Esthetics, Oxford University Press, New York.

24. --------- (1995). The Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume 4, ed. John O'Brian, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

25. --------- (1973). Intuition and Esthetic Experience. Homemade Esthetics, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999, pp. 3-9.

26. --------- (1965). Avant-Garde and Kitsch. Art and Culture, Beacon Press, Boston, pp. 3-21.

27. Harrison, Charles and Paul Wood (2001). Art in Theory: 1648-1815, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts.

28. Harrison, Charles and Paul Wood (2001). Art in Theory: 1825-1900, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts.

29. --------- (2000). Art in Theory: 1900-1990, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts.

30. Hofstadter, Albert and Richard Kuhns (1976). Philosophies of Art and Beauty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

31. Hume, David (1989). Of the Standard of Taste. In ed. George Dickie, Richard Sclafini, and Ronald Roblin, Aesthetics, Second Edition, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989, pp. 242-253.

32. Hutcheson, Francis (1989). An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, in ed. George Dickie, Richard Sclafini, and Ronald Roblin, Aesthetics, Second Edition, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989, pp. 219-222.

33. Margolis, Joseph (1997). Interpretation. In ed. David Cooper, A Companion to Aesthetics, Blackwell, Malden, MA, 1997, pp. 232-238.

34. Mondrian, Piet (1945). Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art, Wittenborn and Company, New York.

35. Stolnitz, Jerome (1961). On the Origins of Aesthetic Disinterestedness. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Volume 2, pp. 131-143.

36. --------- (1960). Beauty: Some Stages in the History of an Idea. Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 185-204.

37. --------- (1960). Art and Criticism, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

38. Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw (1974). The Great Theory of Beauty and Its Decline. The History of Aesthetics, Volumes I & II, Mouton, The Hague.

39. Wallis, Brian, (1984). Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation, The New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York.

Philosophy of Mind & Cognitive Science:

1. Abell, Catherine and Gregory Currie (1999). Internal and External Pictures. ed. Mark Rollins, Philosophical Psychology: Special Symposium: Aesthetics and Cognitive Science, Volume 12, Number 4, December, pp. 429-446.

2. Aguirre, G. K. and M. J. Farah (1998). Human visual object recognition: What have we learned from neuroimaging? Psychobiology, Volume 26, Number 4, pp.322-332.

3. Akins, Kathleen A.(2001) More than Mere Coloring: A Dialogue Between Philosophy and Neuroscience on the Nature of Spectral Vision. in Carving our Destiny, S. Fitzpatrick and J. T. Breuer, editors. Joseph Henry Press: Washington, D.C., p. 1, http://www.sfu.ca/neurophilosophy/members/akins/appessay.htm

4. Anderson, John R.(1978). Arguments Concerning Representations for Mental Imagery. Psychological Review, Volume85, Number 4, July, pp. 249-277.

5. Bartels, A. and S. Zeki(1998). The Theory of Multistage Integration in the Visual Brain. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Volume 265, pp. 2327-2333.

6. Basso, Anna, Edoardo Bisiach, and Claudio Luzzatti (1980). Loss of Mental Imagery: A Case Study. Neuropsychologia, Volume 18, pp. 435-442.

7. Bechtel, William and Jennifer Mundale (1999). Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States. Philosophy of Science, 66, June, pp. 175-207.

8. Bechtel, William, Pete Mandik, and Jennifer Mundale (2001). Philosophy and the Neurosciences, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts.

9. Biederman, Irving(1995). Visual Object Recognition. in Stephen M. Kosslyn and Daniel N. Osherhorn, Visual Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp. 121-165.

10. --------- (1987). Recognition-by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding. Psychological Review, Volume 94, pp. 115-147.

11. Bickle, John, Mandik, Peter, The Philosophy of Neuroscience, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/neuroscience/>.

12. Bisiach, Edoardo and Claudio Luzzatti (1978). Unilateral Neglect of Representational Space. Cortex, Volume 14, pp. 129-133.

13. Cabeza, Roberto and Alan Kingstone (2001). Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts .

14. Crick, Francis and Christoph Koch (1995). Are We Aware of Activity in Primary Visual Cortex? Nature, Volume 375,May 11, pp. 121-123.

15. Currie, Gregory(2003). Aesthetics and Cognitive Science. in ed. Joseph Margolis, Aesthetics, Oxford University Press, New York.

16. --------- (2001). Imagination and Make-Believe. in ed. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, pp. 253-262.

17. --------- (1995a). Imagination and Simulation: Aesthetics Meets Cognitive Science. in ed. Martin Davies and Tony Stone, Mental Simulation, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 151-169.

18. --------- (1995c). Image and Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.

19. --------- (1990). The Nature of Fiction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

20. Farah, Martha J.(1988a). Electrophysiological Evidence for a Shared Representational Medium for Visual Images and Visual Percepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Volume 117, Number 3, pp.248-257.

21. --------- (1988b). Is Visual Imagery Really Visual? Overlooked Evidence from Neuropsychology. Psychological Review, Volume 95, Number 3, pp.307-317.

22. --------- (1984). The neurological basis of mental imagery: a componential analysis. Cognition(18), pp. 245-272.

23. Goguen, Joseph A.(1999). Journal of Consciousness Studies: Art and the Brain, Volume 6 (1999): June/July, Imprint Academic, Thiverton, England.

24. Goguen, Joseph A. and Erik Myin (2000). Journal of Consciousness Studies: Art and the Brain II, Volume 7, No. 8/9 (2000), Imprint Academic, Thiverton, England.

25. Gregory, Richard L.(1977). Eye and Brain, Fifth Edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

26. Gregory, Richard, John Harris, Priscilla Heard, and David Rose (1995). The Artful Eye, Oxford University Press, New York.

27. Grossberg, Stephen(1993). A Solution for the Figure-Ground Problem for Biological Vision. Neural Networks, 6,pp. 463-483.

28. Grossberg, Stephen and Ennio Mingolla (1985). Neural Dynamics of Form Perception: Boundary Completion, Illusory Figures, and Neon Color Spreading. Psychological Review, Volume 92, Number 2, pp. 173-211.

29. Hildreth, Ellen(1999). Computational Vision. in eds. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp.172-173.

30. Hubel, David H.(1995). Eye, Brain, and Vision, Scientific American Library, New York.

31. Hubel, D. H. and T. N. Wiesel. (1968). Receptive Fields and Functional Architecture of Monkey Striate Cortex. Journal of Physiology, 195, pp. 215-143, reprinted in ed. Steven Yantis, Visual Perception, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, 2001, pp. 147-167.

32. Intons-Peterson, Margaret Jean (1983). Imagery Paradigms: How Vulnerable Are They to Experimenters' Expectations? Journalof Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Volume 9,Number 3, pp. 394-412.

33. Klein, Isabelle, Anne-Lise Paradis, Jean-Baptiste Poline, Stephen M. Kosslyn, and Denis Le Bihan(2000). Transient Activity in the Human Calcarine Cortex During Visual Mental Imagery: An Event Related fMRI Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12: Supplement 2, pp. 15-23.

34. Kosslyn, S. M.(1999). If Neuroimaging is the Answer, What Is the Question? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, Volume 354, pp. 1283-1294.

35. --------- (1995). Mental Imagery, in ed. Stephen M. Kosslyn, and Daniel N. Osherhorn, Visual Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 267-296.

36. Kosslyn, Stephen M. and Daniel N. Osherhorn (1995). Visual Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

37. Kosslyn, Stephen M., Nathaniel M. Alpert, William L. Thompson, Vera Maljkovic, Steven B. Weise, Christopher F. Chabris, Sania E. Hamilton, Scott L. Rauch, and Ferdinand S. Buonnannol (1993). Visual Mental Imagery Activates Topographically Organized Visual Cortex: PET Investigations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 5, pp. 263-287.

38. Latto, Richard(1995). The brain of the beholder. in eds. Richard Gregory, John Harris, Priscilla Heard, and David Rose, The Artful Eye, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.

39. Livingstone, Margaret(2002). Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing, Henry Abrams and Company, New York.

40. --------- (2000). Is it warm?, Is it real? Or just low spatial frequency? Science, November 17, 290, p. 1299.

41. --------- (1988). Art, Illusion, and the Visual System. Scientific American, Volume 256, pp. 78-85.

42. Marr, David (1977). Analysis of occluding contour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Volume 197, pp. 441-475.

43. Marr, David and H. K. Nishihara (1978). Visual Processing: Artificial intelligence and the sensorium of sight. Technology Review, 81,pp. 2-23, reprinted in eds. Stephen M. Kosslyn and Richard A. Anderson, Frontiers in Cognitive Neuroscience, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

44. McMahon, Jennifer Anne(2001). Beauty. in ed. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, Routledge, New York, 2001, pp. 227-238.

45. --------- (2000a) Perceptual Beauty As the Basis for Genuine Judgments of Beauty. in ed. Joseph A. Goguen and Erik Myin, Journal of Consciousness Studies: Art and the Brain II, Volume 7, No. 8/9 (2000),Thiverton, England: Imprint Academic, 2000, pp. 29-36.

46. --------- (2000b). Book Review: Inner Vision. Leonardo Digital Reviews, September.

47. --------- (1999). Towards a Unified Theory of Beauty. Literature and Aesthetics 9, pp.7-27.

48. Mellet, E., N. Tzourio-Mazoyer, S. Bricogne, B. Mazoyer, S. M. Kosslyn, and M. Denis (2000). Functional Anatomy of High Resolution Visual Mental Imagery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,Volume 12, pp. 98-109.

49. Moutoussis, K. and S. Zeki (1997a). A Direct Demonstration of Perceptual Asynchrony in Vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Volume 26, pp. 393-399.

50. --------- (1997b). Functional Segregation and Temporal Hierarchy of the Visual Perceptive Systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Volume 264, pp. 1407-1414.

51. Ramachandran, V. S. and William Hirstein (1999). The Science of Art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. in ed. Joseph A. Goguen, Journal of Consciousness Studies: Art and the Brain, Volume 6 (1999): June/July, Imprint Academic, Thiverton, England, pp. 15-51.

52. Ramachandran, V. S., and R. L. Gregory (1978). Does Color Provide an Input to Human Motion Perception? Nature, Volume275, September 7, pp. 55-56.

53. Rollins, Mark(1999a). Introduction. In ed. Mark Rollins, Special Symposium: Aesthetics and Cognitive Science, Philosophical Psychology, Volume 12, Number 4, December, pp. 381-386.

54. --------- (1999b). Pictorial Representations: when cognitive science meets aesthetics. ed. Mark Rollins, Special Symposium: Aesthetics and Cognitive Science, Philosophical Psychology, Volume 12, Number4, December, pp. 387-414.

55. --------- (1999). (ed.) Special Symposium: Aesthetics and Cognitive Science, Philosophical Psychology, Volume 12, Number 4, December.

56. Sacks, Oliver and Robert Wasserman (1987). The Case of the Colorblind Painter. The New York Review of Books, Volume XXXIV, Number 18, November 19, pp. 25-34.

57. Soslo, Robert L.(2000). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Art: A Preliminary fMRI Observation. ed. Joseph A. Goguen and Erik Myin, Journal of Consciousness Studies: Art and the Brain II, Volume 7, No. 8/9 (2000), Imprint Academic, Thiverton, England.

58. --------- (1999). Cognition and the Visual Arts, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

59. Tarr, Michael J. and Heinrich H. Bulthoff (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey, and machine. Cognition67, pp. 1-20.

60. Toga, Arthur W. and John C. Mazziotta (2000). Brain Mapping: The Systems, Academic Press, New York, 2000.

61. Walton, Kendall(1992). Mimesis as Make-Believe. Art Issues 21, pp. 22-27, reprinted in ed. David Goldblatt and Lee B. Brown, Aesthetics, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997, pp. 56-62.

62. --------- (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

63. Warrington, E. K. and P. Rabin (1972). Visual Span of Apprehension in Patients with Unilateral Cerebral Lesions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Volume 23, pp. 423-431.

64. --------- (1970). Perceptual Matching in Patients with Cerebral Lesions. Neuropsychologia, Volume 8, pp. 475-487.

65. Warrington, E. K. and A.M. Taylor (1973). The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. Cortex, Volume IX, No. 2, pp. 152-164.

66. --------- (1978). Two Categorical Stages of Object recognition. Perception,7, pp. 695-705.

67. Zeki, Semir (2000). Artistic Creativity and the Brain. Science, July 6, 293, pp. 51-52.

68. --------- (2000). Art and the Brain. Goguen, Joseph A. Journal of Consciousness Studies: Art and the Brain, Volume 6 (1999): June/July, Imprint Academic, Thiverton, England, 1999, pp. 76-96.

69. Zeki, S. and A. Bartels(1998). The Asynchrony of Consciousness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Volume 265, pp. 1583-1585.

70. Zeki, S. and D. H. ffychte (1998). The Riddoch Syndrome: Insights Into the Neurobiology of Conscious Vision. Brain, Volume 121, 1998, pp. 25-45.

71. Zeki, S. and M. Lamb(1994). The Neurology of Kinetic art. Brain, 117, pp. 607-636.

72. Zeki, S. and K. Moutoussis (1997). Temporal Hierarchy of the Visual Perceptive Systems in the Mondrian World. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Volume 264, pp. 1415-1419.

73. Zeki, S., J. D. G. Watson, C. J. Lueck, K. J. Friston, C. Kennard, and R. S. J. Frackowiak(1991). A Direct Demonstration of Functional Specialization in Human Visual Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, Volume 11, Number 3, March 1991, pp. 641-649.

74. Zeki, Semir, J. D. G. Watson, C. J. Lueck, K. J. Friston, C. Kennard, and R. S. J. Frackowiak(1991). A Direct Demonstration of Functional Specialization in Human Visual Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 11, pp. 641-649.

BACK TO TOP