text.skipToContent text.skipToNavigation

Naïve and professional views of art and non-art eye-vision-mind-neuroaesthetics von Zangemeister, Wolfgang H. (eBook)

  • Erscheinungsdatum: 04.11.2016
  • Verlag: Books on Demand
eBook (ePUB)
12,99 €
inkl. gesetzl. MwSt.
Sofort per Download lieferbar

Online verfügbar

Naïve and professional views of art and non-art

How do we differentiate art from non-art pictures, and particularly, how do contemporary naïve people look at pairs of art and similarly looking snapshots, where the analysis of their eye movement recordings could reveal a difference in neuro-aesthetic perception between artful picture and snapshot? Remarkably, a significant difference between viewers' eye movement scanpaths of artful pictures compared to snapshots was not found. Naïve viewers did not show an 'intuitive' distinction in perception of art versus non-art. From this we conclude that for naïve subjects examining the pictures without a clear definition of art in mind, it was impossible to distinguish art from non-art. - What is the function of a painting? It is to communicate a message from artist to viewer. The view of art as communication of the artist's internal models with the viewer's internal models reflects the nature of brain control of human vision, and the nature of the role that active eye movements play in neuro-aesthetics. This book is for those who want to understand the real world implications of scientific advances concerning the process of visual communication. As now, in postmodern times, there is no clear consensus about 'what is art', only with the help of a clear definition accompanying the viewing task about 'what is art' our naïve subjects might have been able to make that distinction.


    Format: ePUB
    Kopierschutz: watermark
    Seitenzahl: 136
    Erscheinungsdatum: 04.11.2016
    Sprache: Englisch
    ISBN: 9783743121492
    Verlag: Books on Demand
    Größe: 9144kBytes
Weiterlesen weniger lesen

Naïve and professional views of art and non-art

Parsing eye movement analysis

In consequence to these findings in scanpath eye movements of naïve versus professional and sophisticated viewers of works of art we asked the question: How do we differentiate art from non-art pictures? Relating to G.Buswell's early work 14 we posed the questions: How do art-naïve people look at pairs of artful pictures and similarly looking snapshots? Does the analysis of their eye movement recordings reveal a difference in their perception? Parsing eye scanpaths using string editing, similarity coefficients can be sorted out and represented for the two measures 'Sp' (Similarities of position) and 'Ss' (Similarities of sequences). Twentyfive picture pairs were shown five times to seven subjects with no specific task, who were 'art-naïve' to avoid confounding of the results through specific art knowledge of the subjects. A significant difference between scanpaths of artful pictures compared to snapshots was not found in our subjects' repeated viewing sessions. Auto-similarity (same subject viewing the same picture) and cross-similarity (different subjects viewing the same picture) significantly demonstrated this result, for sequences of eye fixations (Ss) as well as their positions (Sp): In case of global (different subjects and different pairs) sequential similarity Ss we found that about 84 percent of the picture pairs where viewed with very low similarity, in quasi random mode within the range of random values. Only in four out of twentyfive artful-picture snapshot pairs was a high similarity found. A specific restricted set of representative regions in the internal cognitive model of the picture is essential for the brain to perceive and eventually recognize the picture: This representative set is quite similar for different subjects and different picture pairs independently of their art-non art features that where in most cases not recognized by our subjects. Furthermore our study shows that the distinction of art versus non-art has vanished, causing confusion about the ratio of signal and noise in the communication between artists and viewers of art.

Art versus non art

There have been many more or less influential definitions of art throughout the history of art and aesthetics. The distinction between art and non art goes back to Aristotle, who clearly defined it in terms of rhetoric and the role of rhetoric in an argument. It is "a constructed use of factual material", where the construction is a work of art. However, with the advent of 'modern art' at the beginning of the 20th century definitions of art became abundant. Since then there has been no clear consensus about "what is art?" since some artists insisted that "everything is art!" like Vautier 62 1972. So it seems obvious to ask with T. Avital 63 : "Is modern art- art at all?" He argues that modern art has thrived on a state of total confusion existing between art and pseudo art and the inability of many to distinguish between these two extremes. Art critic A. Danto, however, stresses that "in an age of pluralism in art, when anything might be a work of art (though not everything is), we need a pluralistic critic, willing to see anything as art" 64 65 66 .

Postmodernist philosophers 67 go further by analyzing the postmodern situation from a trans-disciplinary point of view, combining humanities and sciences, as proposed by Zangemeister and Stark 68 . We believe that approaching art this way can lead to a fruitful discussion between "The Two Cultures" 12 , resulting in a new way of questioning the very definition of art with respect to aesthetics in its true ambivalent nature (greek: "aesthesis": the senses; perception). The artist's painting begins with his model of related objects within a frame, that carry a story either classically in representative art or a story in terms of a particular artistic technology o

Weiterlesen weniger lesen