By CoperNick

Micol Curatolo

March 28, 2019

Many find art challenging to engage with: this is because images are complex systems, historically and culturally specific, retaining a high density of meaning. This prompts the following questions: “Why can’t I understand art? Why do I enjoy or dislike one image and not another?”. There is something going on in our brains that makes us connect and engage with art as we do. Not only does it have to do with vision, but it also involves memory, learning and emotions. And the good news is: we can get better at it!

What is vision?

Vision is not a unidirectional, clear-cut operation. In fact, it comprises a series of processes, or ‘pathways’, which compensate for its inherent ambiguity. This uncertain nature of vision stems from the distinction between sensation and perception. According to the Inverse Optics Problem (Fig.1), the object to be perceived is three-dimensional, but our sensation of it – the perceived optical stimulus – is two-dimensional, and therefore incomplete. Two additional sources of information influence our vision: bottom-up and top-down information. The former constitutes ‘inborn computations governed by biological rules’ (Kandel 2016) that detect basic visual elements – e.g. D. Hubel and T. Wiesel (1959) found that neurons in the Primary Visual Cortex respond selectively to lines with specific orientations. The latter evaluates the image and contextualizes it within acquired visual and psychological associations.

Fig.1 The Inverse Optics Problem. From: Kandel 2016

Light waves from the object impinge upon the retina activating the ‘rods’ and ‘cones’, two categories of retinal cells. Once registered, the retinal image – the pattern of electrical signals generating the sensation – is both decoded and supplied with meaning according to the Parallel-Processing System. Broadly speaking, this occurs on three processing levels: the low-level process detects retinal images; the intermediate level identifies significant categories via bottom-up processing; and the high-level process interprets the image through top-down information. This means that what we see is nothing more than our perception of things: the association of sensory stimuli with other discrete sources of information.

Figurative Art

Fig.2 Antonello da Messina, Christ Crowned with Thorns, 1470, oil on wood. MET, New York. (Public domain)

Why is figurative painting deemed easier to engage with than abstract art? Face processing happens along the ‘What Pathway’ in the Inferior Temporal Cortex thanks to face patches specialized in the recognition of faces via contrast-defined features. This is part of the bottom-up machinery (part of intermediate-level processing). Antonello da Messina (1430-79) is an eminent example of a style popular and well-appreciated for the expressiveness of its minimal compositions. In his Christ Crowned with Thorns (Fig.2), the pale glaring body of Christ contrasts sharply with the dark background. His facial features are well defined: the eyelids are drawn downwards, weighing heavily upon his gaze and casting a shadow on the eyes. Christ is begging for commiseration; bags are marking pain under his eyes; his lips open in a distorted grimace of disgust. He is preoccupied with our awareness; his gaze is fixed upon the viewer. It is so powerful a portrayal that Antonello paints a parapet between us and Christ, as a reminder of his unreachable divinity.

Vienna Integrated Model of top-down and bottom-up processes in Art Perception (VIMAP)

Of course, the visual and formal understanding of an art object, even of a figurative oil painting, results from much more than bottom-up detection. In 2017 the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Vienna proposed a theory that acknowledges at least seven main stages of the viewer’s experience. It comprises both bottom-up artwork-derived and top-down viewer-centred elements. Astonishing as it may seem, the whole process lasts nothing more than 27 seconds!

The first of those phases recognises the psychological state prior to the engagement with art. The Inferior Temporal Cortex, where the main visual processing elements reside, is interconnected with the Hippocampus and the Amygdala, where explicit long-term memory (events, people, places, etc.) and emotions are stored respectively. Thus, it is our memory of prior experiences and of the ‘Ideal Self Image’ (the body of expectations and ambitions that form our identity) that influence our willingness, hesitation or scepticism in approaching art.

Fig. 3 Henry Matisse, Open Window, 1905, oil on canvas. National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

Credits: Wikipedia Commons – Tyrenius.

Let’s imagine ourselves strolling along a gallery exhibition and encountering Henry Matisse’s Open Window (Fig.3). It will take as little as 100 milliseconds for our brain to grasp the content of the image and to generate a first response. During the intermediary process, learned ‘schemata’ interplay with ‘Where and What Pathways’ to make sense of that image.

In the case of Impressionism, spatial depth is suggested through the juxtaposition of colours. Consider for example the light green wall on the left and the deep red shutter: the association of primary colours and the variation of values (amount of light in the colour) create the illusion of the wall moving backwards in relation to the window. Similarly, due to the pastel colours and rapid brushstrokes, the boats in the background are perceived as rolling gently in the wind. Depending on the range and variety of our experience, Matisse’s Window might or might not be congruent with our learned visual categories, the ‘schemata’. This means that the viewer might or might not feel like they are ‘understanding’ the image.

There is no right or wrong!

According to VIMAP the fifth stage of art perception is the ‘Cognitive Mastery’. The brain evaluates and physically responds to what we have seen, and it judges our ‘mastery’ in assessing the image and the ‘self-relevance’ (the relative importance) of art to ourselves. After those 27 seconds, the viewer has stated whether to pass over to the next painting or to further engage with it, as well as having assessed the positive or negative qualities of that experience.

In the case of abstract art, for example, the viewer may feel frustrated, because abstraction relies more heavily on top-down high-level processing: a peculiar modality of looking. It can even happen that the discrepancy between the image and our learned schemata is so strong, and the self-relevance of the experience so important, that the viewer experiences a ‘cognitive withdrawal’: we just refuse to engage
with art any longer.

Fig.4 Rita Ackerman, Chalkboard Painting II, 2013, acrylic, spray paint, chalk and pigment on canvas. Exhibited at 2018 Milano Triennale.

Credits: Lorenzo Palmieri

If this is the case, science can make us change our mind. Looking at art is a particular modality of seeing that requires practice, but that everyone can learn: it takes from 5 to 10 seconds for our brain to learn new patterns and apply them to a new image, and the more we experience the more associate memory links a variety of visual stimuli to the neural connections of our visual system. Because vision is so influenced by memory, learning and psychology, much of what we see, ‘even though dependant on physical reality, is a property of the brain, not of the outside world’ (Kandel 2016). That is to say that there is no universal, no right or wrong response to art!

Useful resources:

Acton, Mary. 2014. Learning to Look at Modern Art. Psychology Press.

Gombrich, Ernst H. 2007. The Story of Art. Phaidon Press.

Kandel, Eric. 2016. Reductionism in Art and Brain Science. Columbia University Press.

Pelowski, Matthew, et al. 2017. ‘Move Me, Astonish Me … Delight My Eyes and Brain: The Vienna Integrated Model of Top-down and Bottom-up Processes in Art Perception (VIMAP), and Corresponding Affective, Evaluative, and Neurophysiological Correlates.’ Physics Of Life Reviews 21: 80–125. Accessed 2^nd March 2019.

Pelowski, Matthew, et al. 2017. ‘What Do We Actually Hope to Accomplish by Modeling Art Experience? Reply to Comments on ‘Move Me, Astonish Me … Delight My Eyes and Brain: The Vienna Integrated Model of Top-down and Bottom-up Processes in Art Perception (VIMAP) and Corresponding Affective, Evaluative, and Neurophysiological Correlates.’’ Physics Of Life Reviews 21: 159–70. Accessed 2^nd March 2019.

Thuret, Sandrine. 2015. ‘You can grow new brain cells. Here’s how’. Ted Talks. https://www.ted.com/talks/sandrine_thuret_you_can_grow_new_brain_cells_here_s_how?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_content=talk&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_term=science

Yenawine, Philip. 2013. Visual Thinking Strategies: Using Art to Deepen Learning Across School Disciplines. Harvard Education Press.

READ MORE ARTICLES AT THIS LINK