SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

How science is associated with aesthetics especially in relation to art

Science isn't something that comes from somewhere to spoil the aesthetics of art. Science is the art of understanding why we feel the way we do when we see something wonderful and beautiful. It enhances the beauty of art by trying to understand it fully. The 'measurements' of science can also be used to 'criticize' art.

Aesthetics can be defined as pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of it.  It is having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty. It is pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

Understanding the science behind natural phenomena (and sometimes being reminded of how much more we have yet to learn or discover) can still make our encounters with them sublime. From this point of view, science is the champion of artistic creativity, not its enemy.

Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature".

Evolutionary Aesthetics refers to the theory which says basic aesthetic preferences have evolved based on survival needs. It is the nature approach that claims survival as a motivator for likeness within a species.

There is a false belief that only art deals with aesthetics and science doesn't. In fact aesthetics is itself a science.

 

Moreover, science is responsible both for explaining beauty and sometimes the cause and reason of beauty too! Let us see how.

Genes are responsible through biochemicals for the "production of beautiful objects".  Genes influence several things in an aesthetic sense. If you really have "eyes" to see it and "a specific mind" to realize it, the genetic material is responsible for all the splendour and variety and beauty of evolution. Genes are responsible for colours, shapes, sizes, structures and behaviour of living beings and everything that you associate with "beauty"! If you say they don't, it means you see only a partial picture of Nature and not full picture to understand it. Even in non living objects like rocks, quartz, coloured diamonds certain chemicals are responsible for the production and brilliance of these colours.

Example:  Quartz crystals of different colours and shapes.

A poet describes the moon as a beautiful object. An artist paints it in all splendid colours. An astrophysicist sees it as a natural satellite of earth with rocks and no atmosphere or life. When I think about moon as an artist, I feel happy because I could see it as an object of beauty - shining like a silver ball in the dark sky. And when I think about moon as a person from the field of science, I can still see the beauty of scientific theories like gravity, time, space and how wonderfully and harmoniously they are followed in this universe. Science too has a pretty view!

A poet or an artist sees the beauty of a flower superficially and enjoys it. Then inspired by it writes a poem or paints a picture of it.  Then comes a scientist. S/he dissects it. Tells you all about it. The artist cries: "Damn it! These scientists don't know how to enjoy the beauty of a flower. They tear it apart and spoils it!" The scientist smiles. "Wait a minute my friend, you see only the superficial beauty of a flower. I can see its inner beauty too! I can see how the flower is constructed the way it is, how the colours came about, how the structure, shape,  colours and its scent help in the reproductive process of a plant that produces the flowers. I can admire the Nature's true beauty by studying the inner secrets. This view of inner world is more beautiful than the outer ones you see. I can see the whole view unlike the partial one you can  see. It is enhancing the beauty and studying it in its totality not destroying it."

When a painter mixes colours to paint a picture, is it spoiling the beauty of individual colours? When a sculpture chisels a figure from a rock by using a hammer and a chisel, is it spoiling the natural beauty of the rock? Like wise scientists try to liberate the Natural laws by unlocking the mysteries from the closed spaces they are embedded in. To understand the whole picture and  enhance the beauty of the Nature!

'Science, far from destroying the beauty and romance of the world as seen by artists, musicians and writers, enhances it by revealing the underlying reasons and purposes' – McConnell .

These days science is helping artists create art aesthetically. Beautiful patterns of geometry and mathematical theories are influencing artists to create eye-catching works. Now artists are creating clouds and rainbows with the help of science (Refs 2 &3). Who says science doesn't deal with aesthetics?

How can we forget that the colours an artist mixes on his pallet are obtained because of different chemicals?

Even enjoying the beauty is associated with the interpretation of the brain  with the help of eyes, ears and skin

Sweet melody creation in music is associated wit Physics and enjoyed with the Biology of brain! The chemical and Biological processes involved here are studied by several scientists. (Refs)

Similar to arts, scientists have defined beauty in science in terms of symmetries.   Here we consider in brief the role of symmetry in elementary particle physics.   We conclude that aesthetically appealing theories are more likely to be correct so that aesthetics should give motivation for the correct theories in science.

Aesthetic preference is something that ultimately varies from person to person. Whether it is culturally taught or branded into our genetic makeup, preferences for beauty, style, and other characteristics of aesthetics can all be linked back to preferences. Cultural factors undoubtedly influence what kind of art a person enjoys — be it a Rembrandt, a Monet, a Rodin, a Picasso, a Chola bronze, a Moghul miniature, or a Ming Dynasty vase. But,
even if beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder, might there be some sort of universal
rule or ‘deep structure’, underlying all artistic experience? (Ref 1)Some theorists believe that the baseline is tied to Evolution. That is to say that we developed our taste in looks to accommodate survival and promote the wellbeing of our species. Based on this theory, things like color preference, preferred mate body ratios, shapes, emotional ties with objects, and many other aspects of the aesthetic experience can be tied with how we evolved.

Mathematical considerations, such as symmetry and complexity, are used for analysis in theoretical aesthetics. This is different from the aesthetic considerations of applied aesthetics used in the study of mathematical beauty. Aesthetic considerations such as symmetry and simplicity are used in areas of philosophy, such as ethics and theoretical physics and cosmology to define truth, outside of empirical considerations.

Art appreciation is not Universal like universal science appreciation which are based on certain rules. Yes, again cultural conditioning of minds decides to an extent which art works have aesthetic value which ones don't! It seems some faces look beautiful because the symmetry of their shapes shows that the person is highly fertile! However, the smell of a person's harmones too make one feel feel s/he is beautiful! And alcohol makes a man's brain think all women are beautiful!!

Judgments of aesthetic value rely on our ability to discriminate at a sensory level. Aesthetics examines our affective domain response to an object or phenomenon. Viewer interpretations of beauty possess two concepts of value: aesthetics and taste. Aesthetics is the philosophical notion of beauty. Taste is a result of an education process and awareness of elite cultural values learned through exposure to mass culture.

Aesthetic judgments may be culturally conditioned to some extent.

Although scientists are trying to give a formula for good aesthetics, I am  not very convinced. There is still a lot of work to do to arrive at a conclusion. One person's beauty is another one's ugliness. Things like cultural conditioning of minds play a lot of role in having aesthetic experiences and therefore it is difficult to have  universal scientific measurements. If you try the experiment in Asian conditions with the same art works you get different set of results. For example, Mona Lisa is considered as one of the beautiful art works in the West but I have heard  people here questioning this 'concept of beauty'. They say other things like artist's name, fame, cultural conditioning of minds, people's definition of beauty   have an effect on aesthetic measurements. Without taking all these things into consideration, your work won't be accurate. That is what I am worried about. People are not taking several things into account that influence the results while arriving at conclusions. As a person from the field of science, I am not  convinced by some of these scientific studies.

Aesthetics and philosophy of art:

Some people argue that Aesthetics stands for art. And for some, aesthetics is considered a synonym for the philosophy of  art, while others insist that there is a significant distinction between these closely related fields. In practice aesthetic judgement refers to the sensory contemplation or appreciation of an object, while artistic judgement refers to the recognition, appreciation or criticism of art or an art work.

Philosophical aesthetics has not only to speak about art and to produce judgments about art, but has also to give a definition of what art is. Art is an autonomous entity for philosophy, because art deals with the senses (i. e. the etymology of aesthetics) and art is as such free of any moral or political purpose. Hence, there are two different conceptions of art in aesthetics : art as knowledge or art as action.

The philosopher  Denis Dutton identified six universal signatures in human aesthetics:

Expertise or virtuosity. Humans cultivate, recognize, and admire technical artistic skills.

Nonutilitarian pleasure. People enjoy art for art's sake, and don't demand that it keep them warm or put food on the table.

Style. Artistic objects and performances satisfy rules of composition that place them in a recognizable style.

Criticism. People make a point of judging, appreciating, and interpreting works of art.

Imitation. With a few important exceptions like abstract painting, works of art simulate experiences of the world.

Special focus. Art is set aside from ordinary life and made a dramatic focus of experience.


Here is a link to a video that explains Darwinian theory of beauty: http://kkartlab.in/video/darwinian-explanation-of-beauty

After watching the video, I feel, the pictures drawn by the cave men are based on "observations" of the world around them. They are a prelude to scientific illustrations. So some don't consider them as art. The tools made by them again were in "particular shapes" because these shapes were convenient to handle! It may be a coincidence if some people find them beautiful too!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-neuroscience-o...
  The article to which the above link is provided says : Studies from neuroscience and evolutionary biology challenge this separation of art from non-art. Human neuroimaging studies have convincingly shown that the brain areas involved in aesthetic responses to artworks overlap with those that mediate the appraisal of objects of evolutionary importance, such as the desirability of foods or the attractiveness of potential mates. Hence, it is unlikely that there are brain systems specific to the appreciation of artworks; instead there are general aesthetic systems that determine how appealing an object is, be that a piece of cake or a piece of music.

Ref 1: http://www.imprint.co.uk/rama/art.pdf

Ref 2: http://www.berndnaut.nl/works.htm

Ref 3: http://www.bemiscenter.org/art/exhibitions/rainbow-project.html


"Science based works  starts to do something to your mind and your concept of beauty changes" is the new mantra of science-artists.

Views: 333

Comment

You need to be a member of SCI-ART LAB to add comments!

Join SCI-ART LAB

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on September 21, 2012 at 12:32pm
Comment by Milivoj Šegan on July 14, 2012 at 5:23am

Play on words, the concept of symmetry has no beauty, like the rhythm of the asymmetry . So everything is asymmetrical. Except the pursuit of the ideal in art it is understood as meaning not feasible. I think, that anything so called symmetrical is not even on and mirror (really -not really)?

The art is simple as true, it means ugly, so to speak in semanatic term,, ugly-beautiful, the very essence of Hegelian aesthetics and realized (Ideal-he notion  only the so called metaphysical)??

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on July 13, 2012 at 12:17pm

http://educationdidactique.revues.org/396#tocto1n6

Learning the aesthetics of science

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 18, 2012 at 5:28am
Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 8, 2012 at 8:40am

Evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico has been studying symmetry for two decades by using scans to digitize faces and bodies. He's found that both men and women rated members of the opposite sex with-symmetrical faces and bodies as more attractive and in better health than their less symmetrical counterparts. The differences can be measured by just a few percentage points — perceivable, though not necessarily noticeable.

Good symmetry shows that an individual has the genetic goods to survive development, is healthy, and is a good and fertile choice for mating, Thornhill told LiveScience in 2006: "It makes sense to use symmetry variation in mate choice," he said. "If you choose a perfectly symmetrical partner and reproduce with them, your offspring will have a better chance of being symmetric," because you both have good, symmetrical genes.

A study by Thornhill, published in 1995 in the journal Animal Behavior, even found that women have more orgasms during sex with men who had more symmetrical faces and bodies, regardless of their level of romantic attachment or the guys' sexual experience.
Advertise | AdChoices

Researchers at Tel Aviv University have even created a "beauty machine" that can transform a face into the more attractive version of someone.

The machine not only shows the human ideal of a perfectly beautiful face, but it also can help plastic surgeons create that vision. Beauty "is not simply in the eye of the beholder," researcher Daniel Cohen-Or told LiveScience in 2008. "Beauty can be quantified by mathematical measurements and ratios. It can be defined as average distances between features, which a majority of people agree are the most beautiful."

To design the beauty machine, Cohen-Or had 68 Israeli and Germans rank the beauty of 93 different faces. The scores were correlated to measurements of facial features and used to create an algorithm of "desirable elements of attractiveness," which manipulate an image and spit out a better, prettier version.

Related story: Woman gripes about being gorgeous, breaks Internet (almost)

Another study, published in the International Journal of Primatology in 2009, indicates that color can make all the difference in facial attractiveness. When it comes to facial skin color among Caucasians, a light, yellowish complexion looks the healthiest, they found. The skin color could indicate a healthy diet of fruits and vegetables, whose pigments are known to change the skin's hue, researchers suggest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46981181/ns/technology_and_science-scie...

http://www.livescience.com/7023-rules-attraction-game-love.html

http://www.livescience.com/4002-symmetry-nature-fundamental-fact-hu...

http://www.livescience.com/3027-beauty-machine-gorgeous.html

http://www.livescience.com/5860-attractiveness-based-partly-skin-co...

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 8, 2012 at 8:12am

French physicist Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, in his book Science Isn't Art, writes that scientists and artists have two vastly differing goals: while artists pursue aesthetic beauty, scientists search for the beauty of enlightenment. For example, colorful images created from Hubble Space Telescope data, while captivating, serve little purpose for the scientific mission of the orbiting scope, Levy-Leblond says. He argues that attempts to extract scientific data for artistic purposes oversimplify and often misinterpret the science.

Some art-inspired outreach has attempted to address that concern by modifying the goal from teaching the science to simply exposing the public to overarching scientific concepts or even just terminology.

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 6, 2012 at 9:43am

Eric Kandel, 2000 Nobel Prize winner, American neuropsychiatrist and author appeared on Charlie Rose's program last night to discuss his book "The Age of Insight". Kandel spoke about his reductionist approach to scientifically analyze the art viewer, through their interaction with art, and thus an artwork's expressiveness itself.
Kandel mentioned the "beholder's share" which is the viewer's part of an transaction with artwork.
He has conducted neuroscience studies on the viewer's physical reactions to artworks quantitatively.
Kandel mentioned that historically, scientific research on the perception of art was mainly directed at an analysis of the artists. For instance, Freud looked at Leonardo and Michelangelo but that analysis was inconclusive due to, they were long gone and could not respond.
Eric Randel is exploring artistic expression and transaction from the viewer's point of view. He has conducted neural studies to quantify many viewers' physical reactions to certain portraits. What is learned about the viewer brains and perception can be applied to developing the best artistic means to effectively communicate on a symbolic level.

Please comment if you are familiar with Eric Kandel, and his book, and my commnets..

My reply:

I have read about Mr. Kendel's work as well as Mr. Zeiki's, Dr Krishna Murthy's (other persons who are working on the same subject) work. What they have said in your reply is quite familiar to me.
But I feel these studies are still in the initial stages. And I wonder whether they help artists only in finding out what attracts buyers so that they can do what the buyer wants and not what the artist wants to convey! "Developing best artistic means" should be utilized to convey the messages in art in a better manner and not to use the knowledge for commercial purposes as some are already doing ( yes, these studies are being exploited to attract customers)! I don't like this misuse of knowledge a bit. Variety is what makes art rich. If everybody follows the same method because of these scientific studies, the variety is lost and art becomes poorer in the long run.
Artists, now the choice is yours. You decide how you can utilize the knowledge what science is bringing before you.

Krishna

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 6, 2012 at 9:17am

The field of neuroaesthetics, says one of its founders, Semir Zeki, of University College London, is just 10 to 15 years old. Through brain imaging and other studies, scholars like Zeki have explored the cognitive responses to, say, color contrasts or ambiguities of line or perspective in works by Titian, Michelangelo, Cubists, and Abstract Expressionists. Researchers have also examined the brain's pleasure centers in response to appealing landscapes.

Neuroaesthetics isn't, its pioneers say, just an elaborate parlor trick: Hey, look at this nude, or this Henry Moore sculpture, and this circuit over here lights up. Rather, it is fundamental to an understanding of human cognition and motivation. Art isn't, as Kandel paraphrases a concept from the late philosopher of art Denis Dutton, "a byproduct of evolution, but rather an evolutionary adaptation—an instinctual trait—that helps us survive because it is crucial to our well-being." The arts encode information, stories, and perspectives that allow us to appraise courses of action and the feelings and motives of others in a palatable, low-risk way. Sometimes instinctively, sometimes more consciously, artists play with perception's variables in keen acknowledgment of the viewer's active role, which the art historian Ernst Gombrich poetically called the "beholder's share."

Comment by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on April 6, 2012 at 9:17am

http://chronicle.com/article/Eric-Kandels-Visions/131095/

Kandel views the Expressionists' art through the powerful multiple lenses of turn-of-the-century Vienna's cultural mores and psychological insights. But then he refracts them further, through later discoveries in cognitive science. He seeks to reassure those who fear that the empirical and chemical will diminish the paintings' poetic power. "In art, as in science," he writes, "reductionism does not trivialize our perception—of color, light, and perspective—but allows us to see each of these components in a new way. Indeed, artists, particularly modern artists, have intentionally limited the scope and vocabulary of their expression to convey, as Mark Rothko and Ad Reinhardt do, the most essential, even spiritual ideas of their art."

Stephen Kuffler's research on the excitatory center and inhibitory surround of the ganglion cells in the retina. That revealed, Kandel explains, "that the visual system responds only to those parts of an image where the intensity of light changes," and that, further, "the appearance of an object depends principally on the contrast between that object and its background, not on the intensity of the light source." Or of Aina Puce, Gregory McCarthy, and Nancy Kanwisher's discoveries about a region in the inferior temporal lobe that specializes in face recognition. Or of knowledge of the amygdala's capacity to translate a visual stimulus, like a threatening-looking beast, into an emotional reaction.

Such findings are key to an enlightened analysis of our responses to art, Kandel argues, because "our initial response to the most salient features of the paintings of the Austrian Modernists, like our response to a dangerous animal, is automatic. ... The answer to James's question of how an object simply perceived turns into an object emotionally felt, then, is that the portraits are never objects simply perceived. They are more like the dangerous animal at a distance—both perceived and felt."

From parallel scientific and artistic explorations, "the gain for neural science is clear," Kandel writes. "One of the ultimate challenges for biology is to understand the brain's processing of unconscious and conscious perception, emotion, and empathy." And just as an understanding of anatomy served Leonardo, discoveries about the workings of perception and emotional response "are likely to influence artists and give rise to new forms of representation," beyond the introspective leaps that Surrealists like René Magritte took in trying to grapple with irrationality.

© 2024   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service