Sztuka i mózg - ilustracje - Łukasz Kędziora

Aneks 1

Neuroarthistory in Simple Terms. Wywiad z prof. Johnem Oniansem
answers to questions / odpowiedzi na pytania

Question 1 : I think that we should start from the very beginning of the idea of neuroarthistory. Despite having read your books and various interviews with you, I still haven’t found any information about the roots, the genesis of your approach. What has made you, an art historian dealing with classical ancient art, become so deeply interested in the mechanisms of perception?

Question 2: So, you are looking at the development of neuroscience over the last 30 years. This is the reason why you are able to understand such terms as neural plasticity and neural mirroring. You use them very often in your books. But these words are totally not understandable for an “ordinary” art historian. How about creating a basic dictionary of neuroarthistory? Let’s start by explaining to our readers why the phenomenon of neural plasticity is so crucial to you.

Question 3: Art historians are used to exploiting concepts from disciplines such as philosophy, sociology or cultural studies, but some, especially those who use modern theory, might have some doubts about introducing concepts from neuroscience into their disciplines. How do you want to persuade them to accept and use the concept of neuroplasticity?

Question 4: Another important phenomenon related to your approach is neural mirroring. During the last 20 years we have been observing the rising popularity of this concept in various disciplines. Why it is so useful for neuroarthistory?

Question 5: It is probably more than a satisfying answer. Despite this, I think that art historians could have a problem with understanding this notion. One of the main purposes of this interview is to find some common fields between your approach and a more ordinary way of thinking about art history. Could you, therefore, find some analogy between the idea of neuro mirror system and something that an art historian is more familiar with?

Question 6: If we are to finish the first part of our basic dictionary of neuroarthistory, we should also talk for a moment about the reward system. This particular mechanism is not as popular as neuroplasticity or mirroring system, but it seems quite important to you. What kind of reward can we get from a work of art?

Question 7: Perhaps the second part of the dictionary should deal with a more traditional art history. One of the fundamental parts of our discipline is the idea of the artist. How can we define an artist on the basis of neuroarthistory?

Question 8: What mechanism is hidden behind this visual interest?

Question 9: Can neuroarthistory tell us something about the myth of the genius artist?

Question 10: This time, let’s try to define who the viewer is. How similar are the viewers and the artists in your theory?

Question 11: Finally, it seems that we are getting close to the very end of our dictionary. In your previous book you used the phrase “neuronal subject”. All the researchers you’re describing become neuronal subjects there. Why do you need this kind of a metaphor to express your ideas?

Question 12: Can you introduce yourself as a neuronal subject?

Question 13: Now, having the terms introduced and explained, we can proceed to a more polemical part of the interview. Your previous book Neuroarthistory. From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki tells us mostly about the long tradition of “neuro” approach in philosophy and art history. In a way, it seems like you are trying to tell your readers: “look, this is nothing new, we just have got new tools”. Why is it that your opponents still don’t believe you?

Question 14: Maybe this is the clue of misunderstandings between “traditional” art historians and neuroarthistorians – the idea of a human being. I have a concept, please tell me if I’m wrong. You are deeply interested in basic questions about the human condition, the origin of our species and, of course, the origins of art. These qualities do not seem very important to an art historian. Perhaps your questions belong more to the history of art rather than art history?

Question 15: If you take so much interest in human beings, why aren’t you focused on topics that are so popular today, such as political or economic issues?

Question 16: You seem to be constantly using words with the “neuro-” or “neural-” prefix. Probably you have often heard people ask this question. I certainly have, even from people who are interested in your ideas. How can you be sure that a particular event from the artist’s life was decisive for their future work? How can you be sure that this particular “neural” mechanism is so reliable?

Question 17: Now I would like to ask you about something which is very important for many “ordinary” viewers. People admiring art often ask me questions concerning beauty. In your last book, you mention the relation between beauty, Greek warriors and statues… What can neuroarthistory tell us about beauty?

Question 18: For me, this argumentation seems really comprehensible. However, Matthew Rampley in his review of your book, titled Fish, volcanoes and the art of brains, characterised your approach in that way: “Neuroarthistory has nothing to contribute in this regard, indeed offers no grounds for why we should attend to any one object over another. […] A more critical evaluation might express astonishment at the vacuous, incorrect, bizarre and laughable nature of many of the claims”.

Question 19: He also says: “Medieval art can be explained by virtue of the fact that in the Middle Ages »everyone was paying less attention to the world around them«”. He claims that this argument is very naive. How would you respond to that?

Question 20: From my point of view, this is a problem concerning approaches to art history. Rampley seems to be sure that your theory is too obvious, too general, and too naive. Which might be partly true, because you are interested in general questions and understandable, simple answers. The biggest difference consists in the idea of art history. For you, the main purpose of our discipline is connected with fundamental questions about human condition. And perhaps Rampley is an art historian of a more traditional manner?

Question 21: For me, one argument is very obvious and could have been one of the reasons why Rampley was so negative in his review. I was quite confused when I realised that you wrote a 400-page book without any quotes from some influential postmodernists. How could you do that?

Question 22: Ł.K.: Isn’t this strategy too risky?

Question 23: At the very end of our conversation, would you like to offer some advice to those who want to use neuroarthistory? Do you have some message for all those who “have the courage to be neuroarthistorians”, as you wrote in the dedication of your previous book?

rozdziały: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, Aneks1, Aneks2

Aneks 2

rozdziały: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, Aneks1, Aneks2

Basic bibliography on art history and neuroscience

Rozdział 1.1

Rozdział 1.2

Rozdział 1.3

Rozdział 1.4

Rozdział 1.5

Rozdział 1.6

Rozdział 1.7

Rozdział 1.8

Rozdział 1.9

Rozdział 1.10

Rozdział 1.11

Rozdział 2.1

Rozdział 2.2

Rozdział 2.3

Rozdział 2.4

Rozdział 3.1

Rozdział 3.2

Rozdział 3.3

Aneks 1

Aneks 2

Powiadomienie o plikach cookie