Books

CDs

Events/Exhibits

Film/Video

by Semir Zeki.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Reviewed by George K. Shortess, Department of Psychology, 17 Memorial Drive East, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, U.S.A.
E-mail: gks0@lehigh.edu


In this book, Professor Zeki, an eminent neurobiologist, explores an important and fascinating topic, namely the relationships between the visual arts and brain function. More specifically, he suggests that there are neurological correlates for all of our intellectual pursuits, including aesthetic experiences. He rightly points out throughout the book that we know nothing about the neurological basis of the uniquely aesthetic experiences associated with art. An intriguing question for subsequent debate and experimentation is whether it is possible to find a neural basis for aesthetic experiences, or whether a different level of discourse is necessary to represent the complexities of aesthetic experience.

At the present time, we do have some understanding of the neurological basis of the perception of certain stimulus properties, such as color, motion, and faces. He again rightly argues that the perceptual bases of art experiences are the places to begin, both because we know some of the neurophysiology and because without the perceptual processes, the uniquely aesthetic experiences cannot take place. He then goes on to explore the physiological processes involved in visual perception and shows how some of these can provide the beginnings for a fuller understanding of visual art. He shows with some very good examples how certain attributes of visual works of art influence the brain and how certain brain areas are involved with different types of art. This is important and takes a certain amount of courage because it is not traditional neurophysiology, and it is not traditional art criticism. However, I would like to comment in more detail on three areas.

First, he suggests that artists are neurologist because, since they are experimenting with visual ideas, they are necessarily uncovering truths about the visual nervous system. He suggests that these artistic ideas are consistent with brain function, and can ultimately be reduced to neurophsiology. While both neurologists and artists are seekers of truth, I think they are doing so at different levels. And while there are relationships between levels, to reduce one level to the other, I think, blurs some interesting distinctions. Each group brings different working methods, goals, feelings, and knowledge to the common task of seeking a better understanding of reality. It is clearly important for neurologists and artists to understand each other, and an exploration of the relationships is clearly fascinating and helpful. However, I think it does not help the process to try to reduce one group to the other.

Second, I feel that there is an overemphasis on the idea of cortical modularity in perceptual functioning as the bases for art experiences. Professor Zeki describes in some detail the evidence for functional specialization of cortical functions in visual perception. He describes the evidence primarily for cortical areas that are specifically concerned with color, motion, face recognition, and to some extent form. Other specializations are suggested. He then rightly argues that these perceptual processes are necessary parts of aesthetic experiences although they do not define it. All of this is clearly important, supported by his data, and part of the picture. However, he never really develops the idea that for any experience the nervous system must be involved at various levels of functioning, although he certainly acknowledges the dynamic nature of the brain. While he spends a little time in Chapter 3 discussing the eye and the retinal connections to the brain, there is very little discussion of retinal functions, or the activity of the lateral geniculate nuclei or the superior colliculi. He points out rightly that the retinas do not do the whole job of seeing (page 14). However, the retinas do begin the job and provide constraints on what information the cortex can extract. I was disappointed that he seemed to dismiss this as unimportant. At various points in the book he does acknowledge that there is little knowledge of the neurophysiology of the integrative functions required for the more powerful aesthetic feelings. Even with the incomplete state of the knowledge of neurophysiology, I think a more integrated approach is possible.

Third, when discussing perception and neurophysiology, the author tends to emphasize his own work and fails to discuss some very relevant work of other scientists. If he would cite others it would lend greater scientific weight to the ideas discussed.

For example, directly related but overlooked by Professor Zeki, is the 1988 book, "Beauty and the Brain: Biological Aspect of Aesthetics" (Basel: Birkhauser Verlag), especially Gunter Baumgartner's chapter, "Physiological Constraints on the Visual Aesthetic Response." Many points discussed by Professor Zeki are discussed by Baumgartner. Ironically Baumgartner mentions an earlier study by Professor Zeki in the context of discussing central areas V4 and V5. There are even earlier suggestions about the role of physiological determinants and constraints on aesthetic experience in Don Brothwell's chapter, "Visual Art, Evolution and Environment" in "Beyond Aesthetics",(1976) edited by Don Brothwell (London: Thames and Hudson).

Further, in the first chapter the author develops the idea that "we see in order to be able to acquire knowledge about this world" (page 4). He then goes on to suggest that his definition has not been proposed by neurologists, and by implication that it is a major breakthrough. However, there have been others with similar ideas. Among them, J. J. Gibson, an experimental psychologist, was an early proponent of perception as a knowledge seeking process. In his 1966 book, "The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems" (Boston: Houghton Mifflin) Gibson states, "The perceptual systems, including the nerve centers at various levels . . . , are ways of seeking and extracting information about the environment . . . " (page 5). While there are certain features of Gibson's theory that are problematic, his emphasis on the active information seeking character of all of the perceptual systems (including vision) has had a lasting influence on the field. It would be interesting to know in more detail how Professor Zeki's views relate to this tradition.

In further discussions, Professor Zeki emphasizes the active problem solving attributes of the nervous system. However, he never mentions the work of neuroscientists such as H. W. Magoun in his 1963 book "Waking Brain" (Springfield: Thomas), or A. R. Luria, in his 1973 book, "The Working Brain" (New York: Basic Books), among others, who laid the groundwork for these ideas. While they were not concerned with art and the nervous system, they did provide some of the basis for the general idea that the brain is an active solution oriented system. Again I agree with many of Professor Zeki's ideas. I think they would carry more weight if discussed in the appropriate context of prior work.

Similarly, in Professor Zeki's discussion of modularity in visual neural processing, he cites his own very good work on advancing our understanding of the visual specializations in V4 and V5. However, there is little or no mention of earlier work on modularity in the visual system. For example, Charles Gross discusses the early (1960's and 1970's) discoveries of multiple visual areas that are specialized for specific functions. See chapter 5 in his 1998 book, "Brain, Vision Memory, Tales in the History of Neuroscience", (Cambridge: MIT Press). Interestingly, Professor Gross mentions Professor Zeki's work, and places it in the context of other related studies. From Professor Zeki's discussion, one would be unaware of this larger, fuller context. I am not suggesting that Professor Zeki should have written a history book. I am only suggesting that he should have put his ideas in the context of the work of others.

On page 19, Professor Zeki states that he "would be surprised to learn that artists thought much about the brain." However, there is an interesting history of the relationships between artists and scientists, especially artists and scientists interested in perception and physiological functions. A good summary can be found in Paul Vitz and Arnold Glimcher's 1984 book, "Modern Art and Modern Science", (New York: Praeger Publishers). These same authors also discuss some of the interesting parallels between the visual elements, such as lines, emphasized by certain artists, and the response preferences of groups of nerve cells, a point that Professor Zeki develops anew, without reference.

These are some examples where the relevant work of others is not included. His discussions of art and philosophy seem to be better grounded in appropriate contexts, although I have less experience with this literature. At a practical level, building on the work of others can provide much stronger arguments. Professor Zeki weakens his arguments when he chooses not to bring in the work of others.

In summary, the book argues for the very important idea that we should be able to understand human behavior and thought in terms of neurological activity. He shows with some very good examples, how certain attributes of visual works of art generate brain activity and how certain brain areas are involved with different types of art at the perceptual level. He rightly recognizes some of the limits of our current understanding. However, his discussions are weakened by an overemphasis on modularity in the brain at the expense of the interactive functions of the nervous system, and his failure to adequately include the work of others.