The Natural History of Conceptual Art

September 3rd, 2006 Fred McVittie

We are neurologically and psychologically adapted to respond to certain features of the sensory environment in ways which have given us a survival or reproductive advantage in evolutionary history. The development of art, it has been argued (Ramachandran, Zeki), has been the organised identification of these responses and their servicing in what we refer to as ‘aesthetics’. (Pinker makes a parallel case for the development of refined foods). Much of the literature making the case for such a development has focussed on the visual arts, and to a lesser extent music (Mithen), and there has also been a tendency within these arguments to focus on traditional or classical art rather than modern or contemporary practice. One of the reasons given why contemporary work is ignored in this type of evolutionary psychological analysis is that whilst modern work (since, say, the end of the 19th century) undoubtedly still continues the aesthetic practices of its predecessors, its production and function is driven more by other determinants. These are; a restless innovation in which the desire for novelty is prioritised over aesthetics, (the ‘make it new’ of Modernism and the pressure of the marketplace); and an increasing move away from the immediately sensorial qualities of a work, its visual appearance, aural effects etc, toward an overt concern with its conceptual content. This is acknowledged in, for example, Ramachandran, who suggests that as little as 10% of the effects of an artwork can be attributed to (evolutionarily adaptive) aesthetics.

This is perhaps most clearly evident is some works of Conceptual Art which may have little or no obvious aesthetic value, and in some cases almost no existence at all. However, I will argue here that this rendering of certain arts practices as operating outside of the reach aesthetic response is inaccurate, and that those elements of artworks noted above, novelty and concept, are also available for these adaptively facilitated responses. the notion that a concept, theory, or idea might elicit an aesthetic response is not particular to the arts of course. Scientists and mathematicians for example commonly refer to their equations, formulae, and theories as ‘elegant’ or even ‘beautiful’, evidently indicating that these conceptual entities have the same evocative power as physical objects of beauty. This despite the fact that the visual or other sensory evidence of such ideas, the symbols on a page or the experimental equipment in a laboratory, rarely has any obvious aesthetic appeal at all.

Posted in Aesthetics, Art, Beauty, Conceptual, Mathematics, Mithen, S.J., Pinker, Stephen, Ramachandran, Vilayanur, Science, Zeki, Semir | No Comments »

A Natural History of Innovation

September 4th, 2006 Fred McVittie

The ability to innovate, to produce novel behaviour, is primarily a human faculty. For the most part this ability has a clear use function; when combined with good critical and evaluative faculties the ability to produce new behaviour is how we solve problems, identify more efficient ways of satisfying needs, and gain an edge on competitors. For these reasons it is likely that this ability confers upon those who possess it a distinct adaptive advantage. In terms of evolutionary history, those members of a population who are able to think ‘creatively’ are more likely to survive and reproduce than those whose behaviours are bound to habit and instinct. Adaptive traits which confer a reproductive advantage on those who have such a trait tend to be manifest in the individual as an emotional and physical response experienced as pleasure. So, for example, the adaptive trait which allowed our ancestors to identify nutritious food is experienced as the pleasurable sensation we call ‘taste’. Similarly, sexual congress, which is self-evidently adaptive in that those who engage in it are those most likely to reproduce, and those who do not are unlikely to, is also accompanied by pleasure. These pleasures are both the bait and the signal for adaptive behaviour. In terms of creativity and innovation, if such a trait is adaptive we would expect it to also be accompanied by feelings of pleasure, and this is indeed the case. Surveys of artists, scientists, inventors and all other innovators demonstrate that the act of creation has its own intrinsic satisfactions and pleasures over and above whatever functional products may result from such acts.

Given that human beings are a pack animal, the innovations produced by one individual may benefit not only that individual but also other members of the community or group (other than direct competitors). Individuals in the group who were able to recognise and exploit the creativity of others could also profit from this creativity, gaining the same adaptive advantage and increasing the likelihood of their own survival and reproductive success. This suggests that in addition to the pleasures of creation itself, it is possible that evolutionary history may have conferred upon us an ability to recognise innovation and to experience pleasure from that recognition, again over and above whatever product may result from such creativity. Not only does being creative feel good, but watching the creativity of others feels good too.

The development of the arts since the end of the 19th century has been partly characterised by an almost obsessive demand for the new. And whilst this has undoubtedly been driven partly by a rampant consumerism and an increasingly profitably art industry, it is nevertheless likely that the appeal of innovative art lies not only in the ultimate market value of that art, or the status it confers, or in the traditional sensory channels of the aesthetic response. A significant appeal lies in what might be called the ‘aesthetics of innovation’.

Posted in Aesthetics, Art, Creativity, Evolution, History | No Comments »

Neurological Interdisciplinarity

February 8th, 2007 Fred McVittie

Different artforms tend to be categorised by either the sensory mode through which they are conveyed, (music is a sonic art), through a similarity in the method of their production (writing), or through their placement within a particular historical or social context (theatre, dance). At the level of the reception of these arts however, these categorial differences are not easily maintained. The neurological processes which allow us to hear a piece of music, see a painting, or read a poem, are distributed across numerous sites within the brain and no single site, or isolated set of sites, is responsible for the processing of each separate category of art experience. This ‘neurological interdisciplinarity’ also inevitably extends to the effects these artworks produce in us. These is no single area of the brain which responds to the aesthetics of a piece of music and a completely different area responding to the aesthetics of a dance or poem. It is more likely that ‘aesthetics’ is a set of emotionally tagged responses which transcends the categories noted above, although it is also likely that the origins of these interdisciplinary synaesthetic responses lie in an embodied adaptivity.

Posted in Aesthetics, Neuroscience, Synaesthesia | No Comments »

Adaptive Thinking

March 14th, 2007 Fred McVittie

The evolutionary process contrives to ensure that what is good for us (or at least was good for our ancestors) produces feelings of pleasure, and what is not good for us produces feelings of displeasure. The feelings of pleasure experienced by humans when carrying out such activities as eating nourishing food, having sex, drinking potable water, coming inside to a warm house/cave on a cold day, is nature’s way of reinforcing activities which maximise our chances of survival and the survival of our genetic material. The fact that modern humans live under very different cultural conditions to our ancestors, and yet have largely the same cognitive apparatus, means that some of the pleasures and pains administered by these adaptive systems are now misapplied. The same mechanisms which rewarded our eating of healthy food continue to reward us for overeating, and for eating highly processed unhealthy (but still tasty) food. Ramachandran and others have suggested that this catalogue of pleasures and there misapplication might be extended into areas of cognition which ultimately lead to the aesthetic pleasures we experience through contemplating artworks. So, for example, the adaptively advantageous ability to recognise the shape of a tiger half-concealed in the undergrowth, a skill which would definately contribute to our chances of survival and should therefore be felt as pleasurable, becomes the aesthetic pleasure felt when looking at some abstract or semi-abstract artworks; the broken and indistinct patterns of colour and form are comprehended and made whole, and this cognitive action is rewarded with the pleasure of an aesthetic experience.

It is possible that the highly developed cognitive abilities which we seem to have are themselves the result of a self-reinforcing adaptive trait in which thinking itself is rewarded. Certainly, it would have been a distinct adaptive advantage for some of our ancestors to be able to take independent pieces of data, the location of game for example, and put them together into a coherent pattern, a migration path. A proto-human which was able to make this kind of cognitive leap would have an evolutionary advantage over those that did not, and therefore it is quite likely that such behaviour would become self-reinforcing through the association of pleasure with this type of pattern recognition. To put it crudely, thinking should feel nice, and the more complex the thought, the more extensive the pattern, the more pleasant it should feel. Evidence of this mechanism, as well as its misapplication in modern humans is found in the crossword puzzles and game shows which are in every newspaper and every TV channel. It may also be revealed in the AHA moment at the illumination stage of some creative processes, as well as the HA HA moment at the punch line of a joke, when a new formulation of ideas, a new thought pattern, is taken up by the listener. It may also underpin some of the pleasures associated with some artworks, particularly works of Conceptual Art in which there is conventional aesthetic stimulus, no direct appeal to the senses.

Posted in Aesthetics, Art, Cognition, Evolution | No Comments »

Emotion and Cognition

October 4th, 2007 Fred McVittie

There is no cognition without emotion, even though we are often unaware of the emotional aspects of our thinking’. (Johnson, M. 2007. p.9)

Johnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. University of Chicago Press. London.

Posted in Aesthetics, Cognition, Emotion, Johnson, Mark | No Comments »