Beauty in the Brain of the Beholder

“Cirque” by Georges Seurat, and example of pointillism in a dynamic painting

When I first began studying French in middle school, I was immediately drawn to the vast amount of famous artwork that was so highly valued in French culture. I vividly remember being mesmerized by the works of Vincent Van Gogh, Claude Monet, and particularly Georges Seurat, who pioneered neo-impressionism with the use of pointillism in his masterpieces. At the time, my 13 year-old self couldn’t even begin to understand how the use of such distinct painting styles could illicit different responses from the viewer’s perspective. Seven years later, while studying neuroscience in Paris, I finally decided to delve into how our brain perceives different types of art.

The Musee D’Orsay in Paris, France

The Musee d’Orsay, located along the Seine River in Paris, France

After a visit to the Musée d’Orsay and seeing famous artwork firsthand, I began doing some research into the different neurological processes and brain areas involved in art perception. Several studies have explored different models and explanations for variations in individual preferences for art. One study investigates the role of ventral pathways in the visual system in object and shape perception, and how the signals our retina receives can form distinct representations of objects based off of contour, structure, shape tuning, and object memory (Connor et al., 2007). Another examines the correlation between the appreciation for visually complex images and level of visual-object working memory (Sherman et al., 2015).

Unsurprisingly, many studies delve into how movement perception influences aesthetics, but most of this research refers to artwork portraying human subjects. This struck me as odd, especially considering how so many famous works of Van Gogh and Monet depict nature in a way that seems dynamic. This prompted me to do a little digging into how we appreciate and perceive movement in art containing natural scenes without human subjects. My tendency to geek out over anything brain-related made me even more interested in which brain areas processed this information, and whether different cortical areas are involved in processing movement in human subjects versus nature scenes.

“La Nuit etoilee” by Vincent Van Gogh, an example of a dynamic nature scene

One 2015 study published in the Frontiers of Human Neuroscience attempts to answer this question by using brain imaging technology to identify where exactly we process static versus dynamic artwork depicting either humans or nature (Di et al., 2015). Researchers predicted that motor mirror mechanisms would be involved in assessing movement of human subjects, and primary visual areas along with deep temporal areas (associated with processing sensory input for visual memory) to be involved in assessing movement of nature scenes. They also hypothesized that activity in the posterior parietal cortex, associated with spatial and motor processing, would be higher in evaluating dynamic images compared to static images.

“Le Bassin aux nympheas harmoine rose” by Claude Monet, another example of a dynamic nature scene

In the study, 19 undergraduate students with no prior formal knowledge of art volunteered to participate in three tasks of observation, aesthetic judgement, and movement judgement (on a numeric scale) in response to human dynamic, human static, nature dynamic, and nature static artwork. Subjects responded to 24 images, 6 for each category. They viewed the images while inside an fMRI scanner so brain activity could be recorded and visualized as they completed the 3 tasks for each painting. Observation tasks formed the basis for aesthetic judgement, which always preceded movement judgement to avoid any influence movement perception might have on the aesthetic experience.

“Paysage decoratif” by Lawren Stewart Harris, an example of a static nature scene

Results from the observation tasks showed that nature stimuli resulted in enhanced activation in occipital and posterior parietal areas, while human stimuli resulted in activation in the inferior and middle temporal sulci, or areas that have been connected to facial recognition (though their exact functions remain unknown). Results from the aesthetic judgement task fell in line with the previous results, with the same areas being activated for human and nature stimuli. However, aesthetic judgement of nature stimuli also resulted in activation of the right central insula, involved in higher-level processes and functions. Temporal activation was higher in dynamic versus static human subjects, while posterior and central insula activity was higher in static versus dynamic scenes of nature. Results from the movement judgement task also fell in line with those of the previous two tasks. Additionally, results indicated that activation in the posterior parietal and intraparietal sulcus and left inferior middle temporal sulcus in response to dynamic versus static images, however these observations were only significant in artwork containing human subjects (Di et al., 2015).

Activation during Aesthetic Judgement; Figure 5, (Di et al., 2015)

“Repetition d’un ballet sur la scene” by Edgar Degas, an example of a dynamic human painting

Many of the cortical areas activated in the three tasks are mainly involved in the “perceptual analysis, implicit memory integration and explicit classification” of stimuli (Di et al., 2015). While the results of the study thoroughly identify and analyze the underlying similarities in activation of different cortical areas involved in aesthetic and movement judgment, it does not account for other factors that have a large influence on art perception, such as personality or past experiences. Reverse experiments testing the effects of loss of function in brain areas involved in perception could also further our understanding of the specific functions of those cortical areas. Ultimately, this study was more illuminating than I expected in terms of where the brain processes and perceives human and natural art, and definitely satisfied my need to understand what previously confounded me as a child.

References:

Connor, C. E., Brincat, S. L., & Pasupathy, A. (2007). Transformation of shape information in the ventral pathway. Current opinion in neurobiology, 17(2), 140-147.

Di Dio, C., Ardizzi, M., Massaro, D., Di Cesare, G., Gilli, G., Marchetti, A., & Gallese, V. (2015). Human, nature, dynamism: the effects of content and movement perception on brain activations during the aesthetic judgment of representational paintings. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 9.

Sherman, A., Grabowecky, M., & Suzuki, S. (2015). In the working memory of the beholder: Art appreciation is enhanced when visual complexity is compatible with working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 898.

All images of artwork were taken at the Musée d’Orsay on June 11, 2017.