An Artist’s Immersion Into Neuroaesthetics

Super/Natural by Judith Schaechter

Source: Dominic Episcopo

By Judith Schaechter

In the arts, aesthetics is strangely devalued. In reaction to the conventions of European academic art, Modernism (late 19th c to mid-20th) rebelled against any idea that art should be “beautiful.” When I discovered in art school that beauty was beside the point, I was delighted to make ugly things! I was young, often angry, and miserable. It worked for me. But I quickly began to question the dogma that seemed more tyrannical than liberating. Being the daughter of a microbiologist and the director of a school for severely autistic children, I thought the undeniable desire for beauty was rooted in nature and inescapably human.

I studied aesthetics by reading and having my students explore it in their projects—sometimes to their chagrin! During this investigation, I read Dr. Anjan Chatterjee’s book, The Aesthetic Brain. My favorite part was when he confronted something that always bothered me: the notion of beauty being in the “eye of the beholder.”

“The question of whether beauty lies in the world or in our heads might be reframed as follows: what in the coupling of mind and world gives us the experience of beauty?”

Here is a guy who gets it! From the moment I heard of the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics and that they had an Artist in Residence (AIR), I knew it was tops on my bucket list. And for two years, I have been the lucky artist to hold this position. As my term closes, I reflect on an overwhelmingly positive and inspiring experience.

As a visual artist, the subject of my work is not brains, cognitive science, neurology, or microbiology. In fact, I can barely speak to its content as I strive to access my most non-verbal brain parts when working. My interest in brain science is intellectual. But I was fascinated that scientists were investigating aesthetics! What could they be finding out that artists didn’t know already? I wanted in!

Art and Science

As AIR, I attended weekly lab meetings. Early on, Dr. Chatterjee informed me the residency also included an art project. I had hoped I could just sit there, passively absorbing research while doodling. But, of course, I needed to contribute. As an intractable doodler, I knew that had to be part of my project.

The lab is collaborative, dynamically interactive, and the meetings felt like an intellectual jam session. Weekly meetings included updates on projects and fascinating presentations. I came to understand beauty, morality, engagement with the arts, and the cognitive effects of human-designed space in a way very different from how I understood them as a visual artist.

Visual artists are not beholden to empiricism. Critique is based on subjective experience, not statistical analysis. Originality is prized—so no one wants to repeat results. Artists solve no particular problem, need no hypothesis, and deploy creativity freely—for better or worse. Many artists are extremely knowledgeable, but it tends to be intuition-based. This is both its greatest strength and almost the opposite of the scientific method.

On the science end, I saw that empiricism is not a stranglehold on creativity but a pathway to enlightenment. Who knew data collection was important? Not me! While art focuses on personal expression, science is impersonal in a way that is universal. Objectivity felt like a relief. The scientific method is, in many ways, a beautiful thing unto itself.

And then there are the similarities—overlapping directly in neuroaesthetics. We both strive to understand what moves us and what makes life worth living. We both want to contribute something of metaphysical value. The fact that aesthetics matter to the core of our being is why I wanted to be an artist, and why lab members became scientists.

Biophilia Essential Reads

How Gardening Can Save Your Mental Health

Seven Reasons You Should Take Up Birdwatching This Year

Super/Natural

For my project, I based my work on PCfN’s research into the built environment and wellness, specifically “biophilic design.” As a stained glass artist, I was always interested in architectural space, and my imagery had leaned toward nature for a while, so it seemed like a no-brainer (pun intended!)

I created an eight-foot dome, Super/Natural. The imagery, almost entirely from lab meeting doodles, references nature but is derived from my imagination. It invokes nature more than depicting it. At the PCfN, I learned creativity is often tested using the “Alternative Uses Test,” in which subjects generate as many uses as possible for a common object—like a brick—within a limited time. The flower and bird imagery in the dome challenged my imagination. How many flowers, birds, and bugs could I invent before running dry? What would this say about the inventive capacity of drawing? I hope I have shown that imagination is potentially infinite.

Imagination is often thought of as being frivolous or a waste of time. But what could be more amazing than extending consciousness beyond reality? Expressing one’s authentic imagination is the most radical thing we can do. The mind can conjure awe independently of external experience (and substances), and I hope my project demonstrates that. As Super/Natural was born of this residency, I hope that it reflects the notion that all creativity, both artistic and scientific, begins with a sense of wonder at the universe outside of us in concert with the universe inside of us.