Articles About Neuroscience and Art From 2014 to 2018

Introduction

Over the past two decades, the sis disciplines of the cerebral neuroscience of fine art and neuroesthetics have enjoyed growing recognition inside the mind and brain sciences. The progress in these fields has non, however, yet translated into increasing acceptance in and synergy with humanities disciplines such as art history and theory or visual studies. Criticism and dismissal of neuroesthetics (Chocolate-brown and Dissanayake, 2009, p. 44; Massey, 2009; Hyman, 2010, p. 182–185; Minissale, 2013, p. 112–113; Gopnik, 2012; Conway and Rehding, 2013; Bundgaard, 2015; Noë, 2015; Vassiliou, 2020) are far more common in the humanities than whatever positive appraisals. In their wide overview of the state of the field, Pearce et al. (2016) concede that neuroesthetics has continued to exist criticized in the humanities considering of its failure to produce interesting results about art itself. While some of the criticisms appear to be motivated by an a priori bias, and misrepresent the aims and procedures of recent neuroscientific studies of art (come across, e.thousand., Rampley, 2017 for an instance of misguided criticism), nearly of them offering salient points worth because, which those working in this area would ignore at their peril. The burden of the criticism is well summed upwards in philosopher Alva Noë'south statement that neuroscience is not a suitable technique for studying art, and that fine art "objects themselves…play virtually no function in neuroscience (let alone in the neuroscience of art)" (Noë, 2015). Meanwhile, the view that neuroscience of art has nothing to offer when it comes to agreement specific art works continues to be asserted, as revealed in a recent statement: "Merely can aesthetics from below illuminate the appeal of the painting by Mondrian? The answer must be no. That a painting exhibits whatever of the appealing features I take just discussed is neither necessary nor sufficient for understanding it or evaluating it. The only soapbox that can help united states understand this Mondrian is the discourse of art history, of hermeneutics, of aesthetics from to a higher place" (Kubovy, 2019, p. xv). Perhaps just as agonizing as the explicit criticism is the fact that the potential of the cognitive neuroscience of fine art (and more broadly of experimental research) is barely mentioned in recent methodological and theoretical texts in art history and theory.

Importantly, the limits to the understanding of private art works obtained from experimental brain research have been acknowledged as well past those directly involved in this line of work. The question has been asked whether neuroimaging techniques tin adequately bargain with the interplay of cognitive, affective, personal, social, and cultural factors (Cela-Conde et al., 2011). Information technology has been argued that "[n]euroscience is unlikely to address sociological or historical conceptions of art with any specificity…and unlikely to contribute much to cultural and sociological aspects of art" (Chatterjee, 2012, p. 299, 310), and in their overview of the field Chatterjee and Vartanian (2014) concede that "[n]euroscience methods do non hands address this level of textured pregnant embedded within individual works of fine art." One reason for this state of affairs may be provided past the observation that most enquiry in empirical aesthetics has disregarded the theoretical consequences of historical and contextualist approaches in the arts (Bullot and Reber, 2013). Critics from the humanities and contributions from within neuroesthetics seem to converge on the point that experimental encephalon inquiry is not well equipped to offering useful evidence for the hermeneutical task of interpretation. At any rate, the question of "…what should we be asking of fine art with empirical encephalon enquiry"? (Donald, 2006, p. 13) continues to exist highly relevant. In this article, we revisit a study conducted recently past our team and nowadays a instance study to demonstrate that neuroimaging inquiry tin, in fact, be related to the chore of interpreting and understanding a particular fine art piece of work, thus making information technology directly relevant to the concerns of interpreters in the humanities.

Direct Versus Averted Gaze in Painted Portraits

I wide topic that features prominently both in the mind and brain sciences and in the humanities concerns gaze and middle contact. The directly gaze plays a central office in social interaction and cognition (Argyle and Cook, 1976; George and Conty, 2008) and neuroimaging techniques have been extensively utilized to study the neurocognitive mechanisms of various aspects of eye contact and its office in social interaction and communication (Nummenmaa and Calder, 2009; Senju and Johnson, 2009; Hamilton, 2016). The appearance of "second-person neuroscience" (Pfeiffer et al., 2013; Schilbach et al., 2013) ushered in a decade of intense exploration of eye contact effects, which have lately utilized hyperscanning methods. Gaze has similarly get an academic manufacture of its ain in contemporary art theory and visual and film studies. Leaving bated the vast amount of critical theorizing inspired past psychoanalysis and feminist approaches, art historians have sought to understand the practice of visual artists who for centuries intuitively manipulated the management of the gaze of the persons they depicted to imbue their work with distinct psychological effects. Mostly by employing subtle phenomenological assay, art historians, for their part, take discussed manifold ways in which the straight gaze of the depicted subject engages the viewer and draws him/her into imaginative chatty interaction (Panofsky, 1953; Wollheim, 1987; Berger, 1994; Belting, 2009; Elkins and Fiorentini, 2020).

The dual importance of gaze and eye contact that bridges the cerebral sciences and the humanities has inspired our study. Consisting of separate fMRI and eye-tracking experiments, the written report was designed to explore the neuronal and behavioral response to painted portraits with a direct versus an averted gaze. We sought to identify how the neural response to emotional expressive faces in paintings is modulated by the management of a gaze. To explore the behavioral influence of the gaze direction of artistic portraits on the beholder's eye movements and visual scanning, we supplemented the fMRI study with a separate middle-tracking experiment. The portraits were organized in duplets: each duplet contained two portraits by the same artist, the outset portrait beingness classified as a "direct gaze" and the second one as an "averted gaze." The subjects were instructed to observe the stimuli as if they were looking at paintings in gallery, no explicit evaluation chore was involved. The study revealed that the portraits that established heart contact versus those with an averted gaze elicited increased activation in the lingual and inferior occipital gyri and the fusiform face up area, in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and in several of the areas involved in social cerebral processes, especially the theory of mind: the athwart gyrus/temporo-parietal junction and the inferior frontal gyrus (Kesner et al., 2018). The aforementioned areas are typically activated in direct gaze contact in studies using more naturalistic stimuli (Senju and Johnson, 2009) and – recently – also live centre-to-eye contact (Cavallo et al., 2015; Kegel et al., 2020; Noah et al., 2020; Kelley et al., 2021). Nonetheless, our set of portraits with a directly gaze did non activate the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the amygdala, and the posterior superior temporal sulcus, which may indicate the subjects' implicit awareness that they were non face to face with a living person.

The results of our written report thus suggest that static and, in some cases, highly stylized depictions of human beings in artistic portraits elicit a pattern of brain activation that is similar to the feel of being observed by watchful intelligent beings. Our findings support the conclusion that the perception of a direct gaze in a portraits involved our subjects in implicit inferences of the painted subject's mental states and emotions and primed them for a potential communicative human activity with the depicted persons – they perceived portraits not exactly similar live people, just non like inanimate things either. The results were thus consequent with a model positing that the perception of figurative fine art depends on dynamic and fluctuating interaction between two interlinked sets of processes: socio-affective/cognitive processing, involved in person perception, and symbolic/aesthetic processing, concerned with the non-social aspects of an image (Kesner and Horáček, 2017). The findings from our supplementary center-tracking experiment were consistent with our neuroimaging results and confirmed that participants spent more time viewing the depicted person's eyes when viewing the straight gaze portraits than the averted ones. The heightened attention to a directly gaze observed here thus supports the neuroimaging findings and confirms that gaze is a crucial feature that drives face processing and social appointment. Let usa now briefly consider how the results of this neuroimaging experiment can be related to an art-historical interpretation of a work of fine art.

Activating Affordance in a Painted Gaze

Bohumil Kubišta'south Saint Sebastian of 1912 has been singled out as a key work of art in primal European painting dating from the years before WWI (Srp et al., 2014, p. 252). Scholars concord that the painting should exist seen as the artist's imaginary cocky-portrait, the saint beingness a metaphor for the troublesome personal ordeal of the artist, who struggled with misunderstanding on the part of his audition and with poverty (Figure ane). All accounts of the work emphasize that it is a portrait of desperate pain and suffering. The emotional charge of the painting comes through in the words of the painter Jan Zrzavý, Kubišta'southward friend: "The tormented face of the saint, the helplessness of his tied[spring] arms, his helplessness, the pitifulness of his naked torso, the sadness of the dour nighttime reddish reveal and so suggestively, so deeply the human pain of the artist'south life" (Zrzavý, 1949). Other commentators have highlighted the painter'southward ability to deploy the interposition of basic geometric forms – triangles, grooves, and modest arcs – to render a facial expression (or "field lines") that conveys "desperate hurting and suffering" (Kubišta, 1940, p. 51). It has too been noted that if the face is perceived in isolation, the viewer all the more absorbs the unusually intense sadness being conveyed by the eyes. Various accounts thus concord that the meaning of the picture is directly tied to the emotional effect in produces in its spectator.

Figure i. Bohumil Kubišta, Saint Sebastian, 1912. Oil on canvas, 98 × 75 cm. Collection of National Gallery, Prague.

Another key characteristic emerges when the painting is juxtaposed with the preparatory cartoon, in which the painter created an elaborate compositional construction that he later on adjusted for the oil version (Effigy 2). Scholars hold that the saint's head constitutes the compositional and ideographic centre of the painting. What immediately stands out is the difference in the most prominent, attention-grabbing visual and melancholia salience of the two images, which is to say the difference in the mode Kubišta rendered the gaze of the figures in the preparatory drawing and the painting. He changed the averted gaze of the effigy in the drawing to a direct gaze in the painting, which decisively alters the expression and hence the effect of the 2 images on the viewer. While in the preparatory drawing, the averted gaze and a half-airtight left eye outcome in the expression of silent endurance and resignation, in the oil painting the gaze is focused on the viewer, which imbues the confront with an inquisitive, defiant directness, as if the saint (the creative person) is appraising or challenging the viewer, thereby establishing chatty interaction with him/her. Thus, while both the drawing and the painting may share an overall theme and creative intention, namely to present a visual metaphor of Kubišta's own struggle with the world at large, the semantic deviation in the affective affordance of the gaze/expression substantially modifies the meaning in each version (Kesner, 2016). Such conclusions are supported by vast amount of experimental testify on the effects of straight gaze in social interaction and non-exact communication (e.g., Ewing et al., 2010; Conty et al., 2016; Hietanen, 2018; Cañigueral and Hamilton, 2019), as well every bit phenomenological accounts of gaze perception (Heron, 1970; Stawarska, 2006) and observations on furnishings of direct gaze in paintings specifically (due east.g., Wollheim, 1987; Huber, 2005).

Figure 2. Bohumil Kubišta, Written report for Saint Sebastian, 1912. Pencil on paper, 95 × 74 cm. Collection of National Gallery, Prague.

Kubišta left no written testimony well-nigh the process of actually working on this canvas; still, given his intense preoccupation with the direction of the gaze of figures in his other portraits and self-portraits from this menstruum, it is plausible to assume that the re-working of Sebastian's gaze was not at all accidental. Rather, one tin can see it as a visible manifestation of his developing artistic intention, which fully envisaged the unlike effects the 2 distinct renderings would have on their viewers. The change in the gaze'due south direction and the resulting change in the full expression signals a shift in Kubišta'southward intention from an image of the Self as a more passive victim of circumstances and others' will, to a Cocky who, self-consciously addressing and questioning the implied viewer, appears to resist and challenge his ordeal, which is embodied by the implied viewer. In other words, the unlike potential of the same affective affordance establishes a space in which, within an overall theme of metaphorical martyrdom, meaning fluctuates and is established through a particular viewer'due south embodied understanding (Kesner, 2016). Merely how does the epistemology of the fMRI and centre-tracking experiments chronicle to such an art historical narrative?

Relating Neuroimaging Results to an Art Historical Narrative

As in other domains of cognitive neuroscience, empirical inquiry on aesthetic feel using neuroimaging has been struggling with the problem of opposite inference (Poldrack, 2006; Hutzler, 2014), an interpretive trouble that arises when cognitive processes are inferred from the activation of a particular encephalon region. In fact, reverse inference may exist said to be a particularly thorny issue for the cognitive neuroscience of art, given the fact that perceiving art works engages a plethora of encephalon areas (Vartanian and Skov, 2014), all of which have been known to be agile in a number of cerebral and affective operations. It is worth pointing out that art history and criticism have been grappling with their own version of the "reverse inference" conundrum. As celebrated art historian Michael Baxandall pointed out, inferential criticism, which "entails the imaginative reconstruction of causes, particularly voluntary causes or intentions within situations" (Baxandall, 1979, 1985), is a major trope of fine art writing.

More broadly, art writing that focuses on interpreting a particular work of art typically involves a process known as "abductive inference" (Harman, 1965; Lombrozo, 2012), in which some visual features of the work, every bit described in the phenomenology of the art writer'due south experience, are causally related to its cosmos. The account of the shift in the gaze management in Kubišta'southward painting, explained in a higher place, is a standard example of such an inference in art writing, where a salient visual/formal feature of the work is linked to the artist's intention and hence to the meaning of the work. The best art interpretation and criticism (such equally that of Max Dvořák, Leo Steinberg, Michael Fried, Lucy Lippard, Michael Baxandall – to offer simply a few notable and otherwise disparate examples) emerge from such a pattern of inference, which ascribes a subjective business relationship with the condition of something objectively given.

Still, many art historians argue that perceptual and affective response – and by implication experimental approaches that are concerned with them – are irrelevant to the meaning of an art work (due east.one thousand., Ashton, 2011; Gopnik, 2012; Cronan, 2013; Noë, 2015). It is argued that experiential effects are dissimilar for each body and those differences need not be reconciled (Cronan, 2013, p. 26). Our example study suggests otherwise. Get-go, it shows – contrary to such assertions – that the perceptual and affective response to salient social/affective affordances (in our case the direction of a gaze) exercise in fact play a central function in the pregnant-making process. Any deeper meanings there are, mediated past various literary and other cultural associations the work possesses, they are grounded in and accessible through the beholder'due south response, some aspects of which are open up to empirical investigation. 2nd, in our instance report, the psychological issue that is produced in the interpreter's feel of the work is and then linked to the artist'due south intention and given a causal role in the genesis of the picture. The reality of this feel-based inference is then correlated with neuroimaging data from the group-level assay of responses to the aforementioned aspect of the picture. These information provide evidence in support of the fine art author's interpretive inference about the motion picture. Such evidence is corroborated past contextualizing experimental data through relevant psychological findings on gaze effects, equally noted above. The evidentiary status of neuroimaging data in our case is thus no different from any other extra-pictorial facts (due east.g., biographical, technical, stylistic, historical, and contextual) that an fine art historian may uncover and relate to his/her observation of some salient visual feature in an image. It is not (and in principle cannot exist) explanatory in a potent sense, yet it is used to substantiate the fine art writer'southward inference near the intended meaning of a given work. An interpretation of a work of art cannot be "right" or "wrong" per se; however, an adequate interpretation is one that is true to the facts and plausible (Carrier, 1991). Brain imaging can thus significantly contribute to the acceptable interpretation of particular works of art.

Decision

There has recently been a shift in the conceptualization of neuroesthetics, which is increasingly accepted as the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience (Pearce et al., 2016). This has some serious implications. If we have the axiom – variously defended by many writers – that the pregnant of any piece of work of art is not a given and that it is rather established in and through the viewer'southward experience (cf., e.g., Kemp, 1998; Kesner, 2006), then it logically follows that the cognitive neuroscience of fine art non but has a function to play in uncovering the mechanisms of aesthetic response and validating hypotheses about art perception, merely can be productively employed in the quest to establish the pregnant of detail piece of work of art as well. Here we take presented one model of how this can be achieved, but there are undoubtedly other options waiting to be explored. What this step requires is much closer interdisciplinary cooperation (such every bit has been increasingly axiomatic in psychological experiments on art perception, cf., east.g., Commare et al., 2018; Reitstätter et al., 2020) in which art theorists and visual civilisation experts are straight involved in planning and designing experimental neuroimaging work.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the report are included in the article/supplementary textile, further inquiries tin be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

LK drafted the get-go version of the manuscript. PA and DG contributed to writing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Disharmonize of Interest

The authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could exist construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Annotation

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Whatever product that may be evaluated in this article, or merits that may be fabricated by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jiří Horáček for his comments and suggestions.

References

Argyle, M., and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Common Gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press.

Google Scholar

Baxandall, One thousand. (1985). Patterns of intention: on the historical caption of pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Google Scholar

Belting, H. (2009). "The gaze in the image. A contribution to an iconology of the gaze," in Dynamics and Performativity of Imagination: The Prototype between the Visible and the Invisible, eds B. Huppauf and C. Wulf (New York, NY: Routledge), 372–395.

Google Scholar

Berger, H. (1994). Fictions of the pose: facing the gaze of early mod portraiture. Representations 46, 87–120. doi: 10.2307/2928780

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Dark-brown, S., and Dissanayake, E. (2009). "The arts are more than aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as narrow aesthetics," in Neuroaesthetics. Foundations and frontiers in aesthetics, eds K. Skov and O. Vartanian (Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co), 43–57. doi: ten.4324/9781315224091-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bullot, N., and Reber, R. (2013). The aesthetic mind meets fine art history: toward a psycho-historical framework for the scientific discipline of art appreciation. Behav. Encephalon Res. 36, 123–137. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000489

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bundgaard, P. F. (2015). Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 14, 781–801. doi: 10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cañigueral, R., and Hamilton, A. (2019). The role of eye gaze during natural social interactions in typical and autistic people. Forepart. Psychol. 10:560. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00560

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carrier, D. (1991). Principles of Art History Writing. University Park, PA: The Penn Country Academy Press.

Google Scholar

Cavallo, A., Lungu, O., Becchio, C., Ansuini, C., Rustichini, A., and Fadiga, L. (2015). When gaze opens the channel for communication: integrative role of IFG and MPFC. Neuroimage 119, 63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.025

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cela-Conde, C., Agnati, L., Huston, J., Mora, F., and Nadal, M. (2011). The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Prog. Neurobiol. 94, 39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chatterjee, A. (2012). "Neuroaesthetics: Growing pains of a new discipline," in Artful Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, eds A. P. Shimaura and S. E. Palmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 299–317. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0066

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Commare, Fifty., Rosenberg, R., and Leder, H. (2018). More than the sum of its parts: perceiving complication in painting. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12, 380–391. doi: 10.1037/aca0000186

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Conway, B. R., and Rehding, A. (2013). Neuroaesthetics and the trouble with dazzler. PLoS Biol. 11:e1001504.

Google Scholar

Donald, M. (2006). "Art and cognitive evolution," in The Aesthetic Listen: Cognitive Scientific discipline and the Riddle of Human Inventiveness, ed. M. Turner (Oxford: Oxford University Press), three–twenty. doi: ten.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.003.0001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Elkins, J., and Fiorentini, E. (2020). Visual Worlds. Looking, Images, Visual Disciplines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Ewing, L., Rhodes, G., and Pellicano, Eastward. (2010). Have you lot got the look? Gaze management affects judgements of facial attractiveness. Vis. Cogn. eighteen, 321–330. doi: x.1080/13506280902965599

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gopnik, B. (2012). "Aesthetic science and artistic knowledge," in Artful Scientific discipline: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, eds A. P. Shimaura and Southward. E. Palmer (Oxford: Oxford Academy Press), 299–317.

Google Scholar

Hamilton, A. (2016). Gazing at me: the importance of social meaning in understanding straight-gaze cues. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371:20150080. doi: ten.1098/rstb.2015.0080

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Heron, J. (1970). The Phenomenology of social meet: the gaze. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 31, 243–264. doi: 10.2307/2105742

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Huber, H. D. (2005). Paolo Veronese: Kunst Als Soziales Systems. München: Wilhelm Fink.

Google Scholar

Hutzler, F. (2014). Contrary inference is non a fallacy per se: cognitive processes tin can exist inferred from functional imaging data. Neuroimage 84, 1061–1069. doi: ten.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.075

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Hyman, J. (2010). "Art and neuroscience," in Across Mimesis and Convention Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Scientific discipline, eds R. Frigg and Thou. C. Hunter (Dordrecht: Springer), 245–261. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7_11

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kegel, 50. C., Brugger, P., Frühholz, S., Grunwald, T., Hilfiker, P., Kohnen, O., et al. (2020). Dynamic human being and avatar facial expressions elicit differential brain responses. Soc. Cogn. Affect Neurosci. 15, 303–317. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa039

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kelley, M. S., Noah, J. A., Zhang, 10., Scassellati, B., and Hirsch, J. (2021). Comparison of human being social brain activeness during eye-contact with another human and a humanoid robot. Front. Robot. AI 7:599581. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2020.599581

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kemp, W. (1998). "The work of art and its beholder," in The Subjects Of Fine art History?: Historical Objects In Contemporary Perspectives, eds Thousand. A. Cheetham, One thousand. A. Holly, and One thousand. Moxey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing), 180–196.

Google Scholar

Kesner, Fifty. (2006). The office of cognitive competence in the art museum experience. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 21, 4–19. doi: 10.1080/09647770600302101

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kesner, L. (2016). Confronting the affectless iconology of modern fine art. Umění/Art 64, 2–19.

Google Scholar

Kesner, 50., Grygarová, D., Fajnerova, I., Lukavsky, J., Nekovarova, T., Tintera, J., et al. (2018). Perception of direct vs. averted gaze in portrait paintings: an fMRI and middle-tracking study. Brain Cogn. 125, 88–99. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2018.06.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kubišta, F. (1940). Bohumil Kubišta. Praha: Spolek výtvarných uměılců Mánes.

Google Scholar

Lombrozo, T. (2012). "Explanation and abductive inference," in The Oxford Handbook Of Thinking And Reasoning, eds K. J. Holyoak and R. One thousand. Morrison (Oxford: Oxford library of psychology), doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0014

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Massey, I. (2009). The Neural Imagination: Aesthetic And Neuroscientific Approaches To The Arts. Austin, TX: Academy of Texas Press.

Google Scholar

Minissale, Yard. (2013). The Psychology Of Contemporary Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Noah, A., Zhang, 10., Dravida, Due south., Ono, Y., Naples, A., McPartland, J., et al. (2020). Existent-time middle-to-eye contact is associated with cross-brain neural coupling in angular gyrus. Forepart. Hum. Neurosci. 14:19. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00019

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Panofsky, E. (1953). Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origins And Character. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Printing.

Google Scholar

Pearce, M., Zaidel, D., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., et al. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: the cerebral neuroscience of aesthetic feel. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 265–279. doi: ten.1177/1745691615621274

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pfeiffer, U., Vogeley, K., and Schilbach, Fifty. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37, 2516–2528. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.017

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rampley, One thousand. (2017). The Seductions of Darwin: Fine art, Development, Neuroscience. Academy Park, PA: Penn State University Press, doi: 10.5325/j.ctv14gpgkd

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reitstätter, Fifty., Brinkmann, H., Santini, T., Specker, E., Dare, Z., Bakondi, F., et al. (2020). The display makes a difference: a mobile eye tracking study on the perception of fine art before and after a museum'due south rearrangement. Journal of Eye Movement Research 13, doi: x.16910/jemr.13.2.6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., et al. (2013). Toward a 2d-person neuroscience. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 393–414. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000660

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Srp, K., Pelikánová, Thou., and Novotná, Z. (eds) (2014). Bohumil Kubišta/Zářivý Krystal. Praha: Arbor Vitae.

Google Scholar

Vartanian, O., and Skov, K. (2014). Neural correlates of viewing paintings: evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Encephalon Cogn. 87C, 52–56. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vassiliou, F. (2020). Artful disinterestedness in neuroaesthetics: a phenomenological critique. Aesthetic Invest. 4, 77–95.

Google Scholar

Wollheim, R. (1987). Painting as an Art. Princeton, North.J: Princeton Academy Press.

Google Scholar

Zrzavý, J. (1949). Bohumil Kubišta, in: Život a dílo Bohumila Kubišty ve vzpomínkách současníku. Praha: Aventinum.

Google Scholar

collinscapper1986.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.702473/full