Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Art That Moves: Exploring the Embodied Basis of Art Representation, Production, and Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Aesthetics and the Embodied Mind: Beyond Art Theory and the Cartesian Mind-Body Dichotomy

Part of the book series: Contributions To Phenomenology ((CTPH,volume 73))

  • 2077 Accesses

Abstract

Aesthetics plays a central role in human life. Given its ubiquity across cultures, there is no shortage of theories about its origin, function, underlying mechanisms, purpose, and so on. While we applaud the diversity of these approaches and their commitment to shedding light on this mysterious and abstract conceptual domain, many of them are unabashedly top-down, centering on the role of higher-order, reason-based assumptions about how the mind works. In contrast to this view, over the past decade, findings across the cognitive sciences have provided considerable support for the thesis that cognition is fundamentally grounded in sensorimotor and perceptual states. The now popular view of embodied cognition – a species of grounded cognition – has energized many of the creative insights that have helped breathe life into traditionally intractable cognitive problems (e.g., symbol grounding). However, insightful critics like Mahon and Caramazza (J Physiol 102:59–70, 2008) and Dove (Cognition 110:412–431, 2009) have argued that grounded accounts of cognition fail to adequately explain the representation and processing of abstract concepts like AESTHETICS, which give no unified perceptual experiences. In this chapter, we argue that aesthetics (like other abstract conceptual representations) can be accommodated by an embodied theory that uses two classes of perceptual information (sensorimotor and affective) to explain art representation, production, and evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There were 66 total regions analyzed in this study (e.g., fusiform gyrus, caudal middle frontal cortex, inferior parietal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, superior frontal cortex, parahippocampal cortex, etc.).

  2. 2.

    An important exception may be the Action Painting wing of Abstract Expressionism (e.g., Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Hans Hofmann).

  3. 3.

    However, see Barrett’s [3] insightful review on the status of emotions as natural kinds.

  4. 4.

    Barsalou et al. [6] research provides support for our proposed model through their Language and Situated Simulation Theory (LASS), which shows how sensorimotor information is used to process concrete concepts. According to this view, when one encounters a word, the linguistic and simulation systems are activated simultaneously. The linguistic system peaks first in activity and is responsible for categorization, spreading activation, and other shallow, word association-based processes. The simulation system peaks later and is responsible for developing concepts more deeply, which is accomplished through modality-specific simulations. Prima facie, it appears that Barsalou et al. endorse a pluralistic view of representations; however, it is important to stress that their basic thesis remains constant: the representation of conceptual meaning is fundamentally grounded in the brain’s modality-specific systems.

References

  1. Anderson, J.A. 1987. Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review 94: 194–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, M.L. 2010. Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 245–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, L.F. 2006. Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on Psychological Science 1: 28–58.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barsalou, L.W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–660.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barsalou, L.W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barsalou, L.W., A. Santos, W.K. Simmons, and C.D. Wilson. 2009. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition, ed. M. De Vega, A.M. Glenberg, and A.C. Graesser, 245–283. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baumgarten, A.G. 1735/1988. Theoretische Aesthetik. Die grundlegenden Abschnitte der ‘Aesthetica’ [Theoretical aesthetics. Essential parts of the “aesthetica”]. Hamburg: H.R. Schweizer.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bechara, A., H. Damasio, A.R. Damasio, and G.P. Lee. 1999. Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience 19: 5473–5481.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bechara, A., D. Tranel, and H. Damasio. 2000. Characterization of the decision-making impairment of patients with bilateral lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Brain 123: 2189–2202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berlyne, D. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Biederman, I. 1987. Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 94: 115–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Biederman, I., and J.G. Kim. 2008. 17000 years of depicting the junction of two smooth shapes. Perception 37: 161–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boroditsky, L., and J. Prinz. 2008. What thoughts are made of. In Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches, ed. G.R. Semin and E.R. Smith, 98–115. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Bower, G.H. 1970. Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9: 529–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown, S., X. Gao, L. Tisdelle, S.B. Eickhoff, and M. Liotti. 2011. Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. NeuroImage 58: 250–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Burke, E. 2008. A philosophical inquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful, ed. A. Philips. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1757)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cennini, C.d’A. early fifteenth century/1954. The Craftsman’s Handbook (Il Libro dell’Arte). Trans. D.V. Thompson Jr. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chatterjee, A. 2011. Neuroaesthetics: A coming of age story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clark, A. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clore, G.L. 2009. Affect as information. In The Oxford companion to emotion and the affective sciences, ed. D. Sander and K. Scherer, 122–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen, D.J., and S. Bennett. 1997. Why can’t most people draw what they see? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23: 609–621.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Di Dio, C., and V. Gallese. 2009. Neuroaesthetics: A review. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 19: 682–687.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dove, G. 2009. Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition 110: 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eskine, K.J., N.A. Kacinik, and J.J. Prinz. 2012. Stirring images: Fear, not happiness or arousal, makes art more sublime. Emotion 12(5): 1071–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eskine, K.J., N.A. Kacinik, and G.D. Webster. 2012. The bitter truth about morality: Virtue, not vice, makes a bland beverage taste nice. PLoS ONE 7(7): e41159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eskine, K.J., and C. Lambert. in preparation. Experts utilize emotions differently than non-experts during aesthetic judgment.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fechner, G.T. 1876. Vorschule der Aesthetik [Experimental Aesthetics; “Pre-school” of Aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Freedberg, D., and V. Gallese. 2007. Motion, emotion, and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fry, R. 1919/1960. Vision and design. New York: Meridian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gombrich, E.H. 1960. Art and illusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gombrich, E.H. 1995. The story of art, 16th ed. London: Phaidon.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hume, D. 1739/1978. In A treatise of human nature, ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ijzerman, H., and S.L. Koole. 2011. From perceptual rags to metaphoric riches—Bodily, social, and cultural constraints on sociocognitive metaphors: Comment on Landau, Meier, and Keefer (2010). Psychological Bulletin 137: 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jacobsen, T., R.I. Schubotz, L. Höfel, and D.Y.V. Cramon. 2006. Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage 29: 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kandinsky, W. 2006/1911. Concerning the spiritual in art. Boston: MFA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kawabata, H., and S. Zeki. 2004. Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology 91: 1699–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kosslyn, S.M. 1973. Scanning visual images: Some structural implications. Perception & Psychophysics 14: 90–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kosslyn, S.M. 1978. Measuring the visual angle of the mind’s eye. Cognitive Psychology 10: 356–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kosslyn, S.M. 1996. Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kousta, S.T., G. Vigliocco, D.P. Vinson, M. Andrews, and E. Del Campo. 2011. The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140: 14–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kozbelt, A. 2001. Artists as experts in visual cognition. Visual Cognition 8: 705–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kozbelt, A. 2006. Psychological implications of the history of realistic depiction: Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy, and CGI. Leonardo 39: 139–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kozbelt, A. 2009. Ontogenetic heterochrony and the creative process in visual art: A précis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 3: 35–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kozbelt, A., A. Seidel, A. ElBassiouny, Y. Mark, and D.R. Owen. 2010. Visual selection contributes to artists’ advantages in representational drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 4: 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kozbelt, A., and J.C. Kaufman. 2014. Aesthetics assessment. To appear in: The Cambridge handbook of aesthetics, ed. J.K. Smith and P. Tinio. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kozbelt, A., and W.P. Seeley. 2007. Integrating art historical, psychological, and neuroscientific explanations of artists’ advantages in drawing and perception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 1: 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Landau, M.J., B.P. Meier, and L.A. Keefer. 2010. A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 136: 1045–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Leder, H., S. Bär, and S. Topolinski. 2012. Covert painting simulations influence aesthetic appreciation of artworks. Psychological Science 23(12): 1479–1481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee, S.W.S., and N. Schwarz. 2012. Bidirectionality, mediation, and moderation of metaphorical effects: The embodiment of social suspicion and fishy smells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(5): 737–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Levinson, J. (ed.). 2003. The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Locher, P.J. 2003. An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica 114: 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Locke, J. 1690/1979. In An essay concerning human understanding, ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mahon, B.Z., and A. Caramazza. 2008. A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology 102: 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Marr, D., and H.K. Nishihara. 1978. Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three dimensional structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 200: 269–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Meier, B.P., and M.D. Robinson. 2004. Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science 15: 243–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Melcher, D., and P. Cavanagh. 2011. Pictorial cues in art and in perception. In Art and the senses, ed. F. Bacci and D. Melcher, 359–394. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Niedenthal, P.M., L.W. Barsalou, P. Winkielman, S. Krauth-Gruber, and F. Ric. 2005. Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 9: 184–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nöth, W. 1990. Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ostrofsky, J., A. Kozbelt, and A. Seidel. 2012. Perceptual constancies and visual selection as predictors of realistic drawing skill. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6: 124–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Paivio, A. 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Perdreau, F., and P. Cavanagh. 2011. Do artists see their retinas? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 171: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Prinz, J.J. 2002. Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Prinz, J.J., and L.W. Barsalou. 2000. Steering a course for embodied representation. In Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines, ed. E. Dietrich and A. Markman, 51–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pylyshyn, Z.W. 1973. What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin 80: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ruskin, J. 1857/1971. The elements of drawing. Mineola: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Schubert, T. 2005. Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Schwarz, N., and G.L. Clore. 1983. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 513–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schwarz, N., and G.L. Clore. 1998. How do I feel about it? informative functions of affective states. In Affect, cognition and social behavior, ed. K. Fiedler and J. Forgas, 44–62. Toronto: Hogrefe International.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Shepard, R.N., and J. Metzler. 1971. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171: 701–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Shimamura, A.P., and S.E. Palmer (eds.). 2012. Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Slepian, M.L., E.J. Masicampo, N.R. Toosi, and N. Ambady. 2012. The physical burdens of secrecy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141: 619–624.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tse, P.U., and P. Cavanagh. 2000. Chinese and Americans see opposite apparent motions in a Chinese character. Cognition 74: B27–B32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Vartanian, O., and V. Goel. 2004. Emotion pathways in the brain mediate aesthetic preference. Bulletin of Psychology and Arts 5: 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Varela, F.J., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Willats, J. 1997. Art and representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Kendall J. Eskine

  2. Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Aaron Kozbelt

Authors
  1. Kendall J. Eskine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron Kozbelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kendall J. Eskine .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EuCog III, European Network of Excellence, London, United Kingdom

    Alfonsina Scarinzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eskine, K.J., Kozbelt, A. (2015). Art That Moves: Exploring the Embodied Basis of Art Representation, Production, and Evaluation. In: Scarinzi, A. (eds) Aesthetics and the Embodied Mind: Beyond Art Theory and the Cartesian Mind-Body Dichotomy. Contributions To Phenomenology, vol 73. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9379-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation