The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art

by Anjan Chatterjee

The Aesthetic Brain takes the reader on a wide-ranging journey through the world of beauty, pleasure, and art. Chatterjee uses neuroscience to probe how an aesthetic sense is etched in our minds and evolutionary psychology to explain why aesthetic concerns feature centrally in our lives. Along the way, Chatterjee addresses fundamental What is beauty? Is beauty universal? How is beauty related to pleasure? What is art? Should art be beautiful? Do we have an instinct for art? Chatterjee starts by probing the reasons that we find people, places, and even numbers beautiful. At the root of beauty, he finds, is pleasure. He then examines our pleasures by dissecting why we want and why we like food, sex, and money and how these rewards relate to aesthetic encounters. His ruminations on beauty and pleasure prepare him and the reader to face art. He wanders through the problems of defining art, understanding contemporary art, and interpreting ancient art. He explores why art,
something that seems so useless, also feels fundamental to our humanity. Replete with facts, anecdotes, and analogies, this empirical guide to aesthetics offers scientific answers without deflating the wonders of beauty and art.

Genres: Art, Psychology, Science, Nonfiction, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Audiobook

248 pages, Hardcover

First published September 28, 2013

Reviews

[Kunal Sen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why we like beautiful things is a question that have been intriguing me since my high school days. I remember building an electronic gadget in early seventies that could produce numerically determined musical notes, and I would try it on my friends to see if they found it melodious or not. I developed my own ideas about the evolutionary roots of aesthetic appreciation, but could not find any books that would satisfy my curiosity.

Many decades have gone by since my personal attempts to find an answer until I read Eric Kandel's "Age of Insight" and V.S.Ramachandran's "The Tell-Tale Brain". Both of these books had sections that discussed the neurological (the "how") and evolutionary (the "why") basis of visual aesthetics. The ideas in these books also inspired me to create a series of art pieces that dealt with these questions.

Therefore, I was really ready to read Anjan Chatterjee's book -- an entire book dealing with this very question, and I was not disappointed. He has been able to present a wonderful summary of all the past work in this field, while making it accessible to non-specialists like us. I am also very glad that he didn't exclude the philosophical and social scientist's view of the topic. However, the most enjoyable parts are where he describes his own ideas about the subject and how he extended the frontier. It is a very exciting time for this nascent field, and I can't wait to see what happens in the next few decades.

[Zo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of repeat information from other things I've read, but generally solid analysis and a few highlights that made it worthwhile. Specifically, the sections on numbers (mostly focused on the Golden Ratio), ancient art practices, and the section at the end comparing our art "instinct" to the Japanese finch that developed song variation in low-selection pressure environments all were informative and interesting. Aside from repetition and writing for a less-familiar audience, my other main criticism is that I don't think this book probes the material deeply enough. A number of the studies/results he mentions on beauty/pleasure I think are open to critique (and have been critiqued in replication crisis), and I don't think he sufficiently addresses the thorny questions about the depth of beauty/pleasure experiences (particularly when it comes to flowers, sunsets, sublime). I also would have liked to see more discussion of how understanding of aesthetics integrates with larger understanding of border between cognition/perception, theories of mind, and harmony/dissonance play (he hints at this with focus on importance of knowledge we bring to table but doesn't dive further). Another thing that came to my mind is more comparison of our beauty/pleasure instincts with other animals could probably be illuminating of the evolutionary why questions. Finally, as is the case in many psychology books I wish there was more discussion of individual differences and variability in aesthetic inclinations (though the knowledge stuff again somewhat touches on this.

[Nelson Zagalo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anjan Chatterjee é professor de neurologia na Universidade de Pennsylvania onde desenvolve investigação no campo recente da Neuroestética, um campo que procura dar conta do modo como terá surgido a arte, o que nos motivou e motiva para esta. Em "The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art" (2013) o autor lança-se ao problema central desta abordagem, grande interrogação: se tudo aquilo que somos hoje é fruto de um processo adaptativo de milénios em função da melhor condição de sobrevivência - selecção natural de Darwin - como é que surge a arte, algo que supostamente não tem um fim, nem utilidade?

Chatterjee dá conta da história dos estudos sobre o belo, sobre a importância do sexo na atractividade humana, assim como da paisagem, dá conta das abordagens empíricas e o seu choque com as abordagens filosóficas. Passa em resumo muito do que tem sido esta busca, para chegar ao seu objetivo que é propor uma nova abordagem explicativa sobre o fundamento da arte.

Assim parte das duas grandes teorias evolucionárias que procuram explicar de onde nos surge esta capacidade para apreciar e reconhecer o belo e como se enraizou tanto na nossa cognição: a arte como instinto, e a arte como subproduto. A primeira dá conta da arte como uma necessidade humana, como parte do nosso devir, afirmando que a arte evoluiu como uma adaptação natural às necessidades que fomos manifestando ao longo do tempo, transformando-se num instinto. A segunda defende que a arte poderá ter surgido como fruto de outras necessidades humanas, de forma um tanto aleatória, tendo-se encrostado nessa e permanecido.

Sobre a primeira Chatterjee dá conta dos estudos de Dutton que eu já aqui dei conta a propósito do livro “The Art Instinct” (2009). E que fundamentam a arte no processo de seleção sexual, algo corroborado por estudos empíricos universais, que dão conta do esforço envolvido no desenvolvimento artístico como um sinal, para o outro, dos talentos. A segunda é talvez a menos acarinhada porque assume a arte como um erro da natureza, fruto do acaso, e por isso mesmo também menos dada a uma teorização cabal.

Ora Chatterjee defende que nem a arte é um subproduto, mas que nem por isso é um instinto. Aliás, o trabalho de Dutton tinha sido baseado no trabalho em que Steven Pinker defendia a linguagem também como um instinto e também este vem sendo rebatido. Deste modo o que temos aqui configura-se desde já como um rebate ao inatismo, procurando demonstrar antes o lado evolutivo e adaptativo, funcionando na intersecção entre biologia e cultura.

Assim a proposta de uma terceira via interpretativa da arte surge a Chatterjee a partir da análise do canto de um pássaro (Munia ou Bengal Finch), que depois de cambiado de habitat, alterou profundamente o seu canto. Ou seja, no habitat de origem o seu canto tinha como função alertar para os predadores, ou encontrar os amigos. No novo habitat estas pressões desapareceram, tendo deixado espaço, para que as suas capacidades de canto se desenvolvessem e tornassem mais complexas. Ou seja, nesta abordagem Chatterjee defende que depois de cumpridas as necessidades básicas - comida, segurança e sexo - resta-nos o ócio, libertador das preocupações, stress e controlo, capaz de nos levar a dedicar tempo na maturação e complexificação daquilo que fazemos enquanto ação externa, ou expressiva.

“Art germinates instinctually and matures serendipitously. Its content is a serendipitous mixture born of time and place and culture and personality. Could it be any other way? Being deprived of a grand unifying instinctual theory of art is not a cause for concern. Instead, the diverse, local, and serendipitous nature of art is precisely why art can surprise us, enlighten us, force us to see the world differently, ground us, shake us, please us, anger us, bewilder us, and make believers of us.” (p. 185)

Esta teorização permite dar conta das duas primeiras teorias, porque junta o instinto e o subproduto. Dá ainda conta do modo como a escultura, a imagem e por sua vez as histórias surgiram numa fase tão tardia da nossa espécie, respondendo tanto à vontade artística como à contemplação estética. É uma boa explicação, mas não deixa de ter vários problemas, desde logo porque não deixamos de criar, ou de nos expressar, mesmo quando as necessidades básicas não estão cumpridas. É verdade que o artista só se torna evoluído com muitíssimo treino, e para chegar lá, precisa por um lado de ter as necessidades básicas saciadas, assim como precisa do reconhecimento da sua arte. Ninguém, salvo raras excepções com algum desvio patológico, investe uma vida no aperfeiçoamento de uma arte, se não tiver ninguém com quem a partilhar. Contudo e como o próprio autor nos diz, esta perspectiva é mais uma para nos ajudar a trilhar este caminho, não procura fechar o assunto.


Ler com links em: http://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/2...

[Dary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being directly engaged in activity that demands beauty as its priority, even doing it professionally, had made me wonder why I was so captivated by beauty that made me want to strive hard to achieve it (i.e. on playing a single note in violin beautifully). Beauty itself started to become shallow to me after I managed to acheive it (still talking about that beautiful notes). So I wanted to look for deeper understandings on what I've acheived. This desire was intensified as I decided to open my social media accounts again (in many cases; Instagram), where many people share - I must say - meaningless yet considerably beautiful photos. Since then, superficial beauty has often made me roll my eyes.

This book has helped me answer my questions with scientific, historical, psychological, and philosophical point of views. Even when it focuses on visual beauty, sometimes I could also find some references for aural beauty. But more important is the discussion of the universal beauty that can be applied on many aspects. And this book provides it enough with clarity. What I like from this book is how this book systematically organized. At the end of the chapters the author summarizes the content clearly and often poses questions that made me curious and unpatiently look for explanations in the next chapter. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide enough pictures that could facilitate us to give more visual understandings on many subjects like brain anatomy, the paintings the author mentioned, or examples of beauty that he reffered to. (Prepare the search engine)

From this book I learned about the role of averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism in facial beauty and beautiful body, role of adaptations on beautiful landscapes that rooted from our ancestor, finding beauty in abstract objects from complexity to simplicity, how beauty evolves, role of pleasures in aesthetic response, how brain reacts to pleasure of food and sex, how abstract objects create pleasure in brain, about liking and wanting system, how pleasure makes us learn, about the role of sensation, emotions, and meaning in aesthetic experience, about flexibility in aesthetic experience, about instinct of art, art as evolutionary by-product, and analogy of white rumped munia and Bengalese finch's song to explain art, about the power of art, and how its content is shaped.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A valiant and commendable effort. As some other reviewers have said, the studies he cites in some cases have been subject to dispute. And while I've heard a lot about the things he speaks about in other works—especially the Golden Ratio—I really, really enjoyed how extensive his citing of anatomy in the brain is. Brings me back to having to memorize the brain via lateral sections. (Shoutout to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex!)

Unfortunately, while it went way deeper than Chatterjee needed to sell his book and likely adequately satisfy most readers—to his credit he cites a voluminous array of academic work and makes it very clear that he is not going to make claims beyond the scope of what his research can cover—I would have liked him to go even deeper than that.

Also, and this is totally arbitrary and based mostly on my own caprice, one star gets knocked off for almost exclusively citing 'modern' artwork. For a work on aesthetics, I'm pitch-kettled that things which lack objective beauty deserve implicit pride of place.

[Yumeko (blushes) · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was barely a three stars until after page 100, when I started liking it.

[Alina Lucia · Rating 5 out of 5]

A perfect example of the great insights inter-disciplinary perspectives may reveal. Short,sweet and compelling. Loved this book.

[João Rodrigues · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anjan Chatterjee uses Art as a tool to expose his scientific and philosophical vision about the complex brain components that although inaccessible to the conscious mind, mechanically determine our desires, pleasures and aesthetic experiences. With no pretension of being the absolute truth, it is an easy read where neuroscience is interestingly complemented with evolutionary psychology and biology.

[Sohaila ⚡️]

Disagreed with a decent number of things in there but some parts were intriguing. U win some u lose some iggg

[Nelson Ramos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Neste livro, intitulado The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art (2013) de Anjan Chatterjee, temos uma visão sobre a arte e como ela funciona num todo orgânico no nosso cérebro.
A leitura foi feita de uma forma lenta, porque o tema também é um sobre o qual gosto de refletir. A reflexão obrigou a que tivesse que fazer outro tipo de abordagem. Por isso tentei colocar-me na primeira pessoa na análise ao mesmo. Para que as ideias ficassem incutidas de uma forma mais profunda, esta resenha é baseada em excertos do livro que considero importantes reter.

No livro o autor assume uma teorização científica. Porque normalmente, a objectividade assume uma forma quantitativa. E traduzir experiências estéticas, aparentemente transcendentes, em números é crítico para uma abordagem experimental à estética. Ou seja, informações precisam de ser quantificadas, hipóteses precisam de ser testadas e reivindicações precisam de ser replicadas ou falsificadas.
Aqueles são os fundamentos básicos sobre o qual o progresso em ciência é construído.
No entanto, é esta abordagem que é necessária para haver uma ciência da estética. Talvez porque a experiência estética e uma propriedade emergente de componentes diferentes, que não podem ser derivados a estudar as suas partes.

Por isso, o autor fala no livro sobre os encontros estéticos e não sobre a condição para acontecer tais encontros. Nesse sentido, poupa-nos às conclusões científicas que caracterizam essa escrita.
Assim, o neurocientista coneta a estética psicológica evolutiva com a neurociência. Focando-se sobre o cérebro e os quadros que ajudam melhor a compreender a estética interligando aquelas duas áreas científicas para melhor iluminar o caminho labiríntico da beleza, prazer e arte.


A ideia básica da psicologia evolutiva é que as nossas faculdades mentais ou biologia evoluíram para melhor potencializar as nossas hipóteses de sobrevivência. Partindo deste paradigma, o autor fala de como as experiências agradáveis levantam a questão do que significa ter uma experiência estética?

Nesse sentido responde que no cérebro, os nossos sistemas emocionais de prazer estão alojados em estruturas profundas, distantes da superfície. Juntamente com outras estruturas mentais de sobrevivência. Por essa razão existe um paradoxo: nós evoluímos as nossas respostas à beleza porque elas foram úteis para a nossa sobrevivência, no entanto essas respostas estéticas supostamente não devem ser úteis à nossa sobrevivência! Gostamos do que nós queremos e queremos o que quisermos. Uma linguagem inata no nosso sistema evolutivo.

O que podemos querer sem gosto? Chatterjee dá o exemplo da droga, ou como os drogados se tornam dependentes da droga, ao ponto de não "sobreviverem" sem elas. O vício é o protótipo do estado antiestético.

A experiência estética, segundo o autor deve-se a uma tríade das nossas faculdades: sensações, emoções e entendimento. Este último assume maior importância, porque leva-nos a perceber como a arte pode ser evolutiva. Por exemplo, as pinturas impressionistas hoje em dia adoradas pelo público em geral, inicialmente foram vistas com renitência. A mudança aconteceu na ligação entre os sistemas de recompensa com base no nosso conhecimento e experiência e percepções específicas.

Essa flexibilidade pelos quais os componentes se combinam em conjuntos estéticos é parte do que faz arte e estética experiências ricas e mesmo imprevisíveis. Assim, os estudiosos falam da evolução da arte em duas diferentes perspectivas: ou tomam a arte como instinto ou como um subproduto evolucionista.

Partindo destes dois paradigmas, Chatterjee procura no livro dar uma terceira perspetiva sobre a experiência estética e arte. Nesse sentido, fala-nos da serendipidade (feliz acidente) da arte, isto é, os objetos de arte despertam reações que podem nos dar prazer, mas não têm obrigação de o dar. Mesmo que a maioria das pessoas associem beleza com arte, muitas das vezes, a arte não tem que ser bela para dar prazer, pode mesmo ser feia.

Por outras palavras, o neurocientista explica que a arte contemporânea pode evocar combinações complexas de emoções. Por exemplo, a arte revolucionária, tudo que possa ser criado pelo entendimento da fé, na meditação sobre comportamentos obsessivos, incita-nos a lutar contra sistemas opressivos. Veja-se o exemplo de Ai Weiwei, considerado pela Art Review como um dos artistas mais influentes da atualidade. Como apontam os teóricos expressionistas da arte: a arte pode comunicar emoções, nuances que são difíceis de transmitir em palavras e se transformam na raça do coração.

A neuroestética, área em que autor leciona, mostra que o cérebro não tem um módulo dedicado há estética ou arte no cérebro. Nós não temos nenhum receptor estético específico e análogo aos nossos receptores de visão, tacto ou olfacto. Como também não temos também nenhuma emoção estética ao medo, ansiedade ou felicidade, memória, linguagem ou acção.

Em vez disso, aponta que as experiências estéticas envolvem flexíveis conjuntos neurais dos sistemas sensoriais, emocionais e cognitivos. Essa flexibilidade incorpora os conjuntos do que faz a arte e a estética imprevisíveis.
A arte está em toda a parte e existe de uma forma profunda há milhares de anos. A universalidade da arte torna improvável que seja um subproduto de outras capacidades cognitivas evoluídas.

E é nesta parte que a reflexão atingiu o seu êxtase. Pois a leitura deu-me uma nova perspetiva para pensar sobre a arte. O poder da arte é a sua capacidade de mover-nos e fazer-nos experimentar temas antigos com novos olhos, é transmitido através da sua expressão local.
O conteúdo da arte é moldado por condições locais: a cultura em que nasce, os seus antecedentes históricos, as condições económicas da sua produção e recepção e referências relevante para o seu tempo e lugar.
A arte é uma coleção bagunçada de adaptações e é repleta de modificações e plug-ins formado por episódios históricos e nichos culturais.
Quando as pressões culturais selecionam tipos específicos de arte, a arte produzida cai dentro de limites estilizados estreitos. Quando as pressões seletivas culturais são relaxadas, a arte floresce. Não temos um único instinto artístico. Temos instintos que desencadeiam um comportamento artístico. Em vez de ser dominado pelos instintos, é o relaxamento do controle instintivo que permite à arte expressar-se plenamente.

A arte germina instintivamente e amadurece. O seu conteúdo é uma mistura nascida de tempo e lugar e cultura e personalidade.
Poderia ser de outra maneira? Ser privado de uma grande teoria instintiva de arte unificadora não é motivo de preocupação. Em vez disso, a natureza diversa, local e serendipidade da arte é o que nos pode surpreender, iluminar, forçar-nos a ver o mundo de forma diferente, . Quando estamos livres, relaxamos na arte. É um feliz acidente natural e inato.

[Madison Fitzpatrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

this took me ages to read (who would have thought that after reading psych papers at work all day i wouldn’t want to read about psych in my free time after a while????) but when i bought the book around 2 years ago, i intended to read it in the hopes that it would give me some ideas re: body image research. i think i have some but we’ll see what they become!!!! i also liked the (albeit, small) part about the different early hominids carrying around rocks they thought were cool. i like doing that too 😁. all in all, art is what our brains think is art, and i think that’s pretty neat!!!

[Shimanto Kumar Sing · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book 🌼

[Philip Koslow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aesthetics...the search for beauty. From Plato and Aristotle to Immanuel Kant to Susanne Langer to the late Roger Scruton, thinkers (some adored and some reviled) have sought to clarify and define what constitutes the "beautiful." Recent decades have seen the rise of neuroscience as a contributor to our understanding of the nature of brain processing of stimuli (contrasted with cultural nurturing) as a portal to securing the holy grail of beauty. Alas, this book confesses early on that understanding the meaning of art, music, literature (or any other aesthetic experience) is likely to be a fool's errand. Although fMRI scanning of brain activity will reveal where sensations and emotions are triggered in the brain when subjects are exposed to various "artistic" (or sublime experiences) may reinforce hypotheses informed by evolutionary theory, retrieving "meaning" from such experiences seem beyond current fMRI technology. "Scientific methods can scrutinize general effects of knowledge on aesthetic experiences, but not the specific knowledge and layered meanings woven into individual works of art." (Page 183). As a way of bounding together the aesthetic three legged stool of sensations, emotions and meaning, the author feels obligated to offer a way out of this "nature versus nurture" problem by suggesting that "Revolutionary art emerges when oppressive regimes show signs of losing their grip on their people" (page 177). Or "Severely oppressive conditions that persist over long periods of time would prevent the emergence of art that is varied and looks creative to our modern eyes" (Page 177). Some historical research may have turned the author's suspicious thinking in another direction in a more fruitful direction. Michaelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) created varied and creative work while being "oppressed" by Pope Julius II's demands. William Shakespeare (1564-1616) a Catholic, achieved a varied and creative canon of work while living under an oppressive Protestant regime of Elizabeth II where Catholics were more than marginalized. And L. v. Beethoven (1770-1827) revolutionized music while living during and after the Napoleonic era of wars and oppression. And there are probably other artists I could site but space doesn't allow. So why 4 stars? The book is clearly written and offers much current information as neuroscience science continues to investigate our miracle called the "brain." Albeit, just as science labors to find a single theory uniting the universe and where linguists eagerly pursue a universal language perhaps we should settle for the pursuit of beauty as likely to be defined as a cultural imperative (nurture) rather than a scientific exploration (nature). Or probably both. Recommend reading with some reservation.

[neusciencebookclub · Rating 3 out of 5]

Science Book Club members were left both fascinated and unsatisfied by Anjan Chatterjee’s blend of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and philosophy in The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art, rating his novel 2.75 starts out of 5!

Chatterjee begins his story sharing the universal truths of physical, linear beauty; according to psychological research, we have an innate and unchangeable idea of aesthetics, which grants evolutionary advantage to those who appear more beautiful. Readers were deeply interested in these theories as well as areas with surprising features of beauty such as our attraction to savanna landscapes and the Euler’s Golden Ratio. Although his repetitive nature of how faces appear more beautiful–whether it be symmetry, correct ratios, or the geopolitical context–strengthened his arguments, he also managed to bore our readers.

Despite the limitless potential he started with, Chatterjee often fell short with each exploration. Having tackled how beauty influences our relationship with people, money, sex, art, and more, readers felt as though Chatterjee was never able to conclusively explain any of these so-called “aesthetics” with neuroscience, as promised in the introduction. It was notably mentioned that Chatterjee lacked references in fields such as psychology, art, or philosophy, which dampened his points and made them seemingly one-dimensional when the book invited a multitude of perspectives.
Although the attempt to mesh beauty and science, art and philosophy, evolution and aesthetics, was enticing, readers closed the book with too many unanswered questions. Perhaps that is what Chatterjee intended, however, to spark conversation around pleasure, art, and science.

[Beatriz Acevedo · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Professor Anjal Chaterjee presents a scientific explanation to our human reaction to beauty. He works on three questions: can we define what is beauty?; what is the relationship between beauty and pleasure? And what is the role of art in human evolution?

In the first question, the author focuses on three areas that are perceived in the brain: faces, landscapes and objects. Although he recognises the impossibility of having a single definition of beauty for the diversity of cultural and historical periods, he attempts at weaving the notions of beauty linked to aspects such as symmetry, averageness and sexual diphormism (i.e. the exaggeration of certain aspects of the female and male body). It is interesting to note also the role of beauty or handsomenss in the perception of goodness, with studies showing that pretty people tend to be better evaluated morally than others, and even the fact that a tall presidential candidate has the advantage over a shorter one. He concludes:

“Beauty is a mongrel. It is a collection of different properties that engage different parts of the brain. Beauty produces different responses and evolved within us for different reasons. Beauty engages our sensations, emotions and meaning flexibly. While beautiful objects happen to be useful, it is pleasure that drives us to beauty.” P. 68

The second part of the book is dedicated to pleasure, and finding the neuro-receptors that are activated by sex, food and even the idea of money as sources of pleasure. However, these sources of pleasure are diverse and can be modified. He says that: “Pleasures are embedded in sensations and can be modified by cognition. We can lose ourselves in pleasures or step back from them. These experiences of pleasure are relevant to understanding our experiences of beauty.” In this part, the author also presents an interesting suggestion that links pleasure with learning, an aspect that is relevant when designing educational programs, but one that rarely is included when talking about education.

In the third part, he takes on the notion of art. In terms of biology and neuro-science, the question about art oscillates between two positions: Art as an instinct, useful to human nature and linked to beauty or experiences of beauty versus Art as a culturally located byproduct, one that excludes beauty from the serious aesthetics of modern art.

The argument of art as an instinct and it has been crucial for our development as species, implies the usefulness of art. Defenders of this position, like Ellen Dissanyake and Dennis Hutton, reminds us that art has played a key role in the ritualisation and cohesion of human beings. Dissanyake proposes that people engage with art in ways that fosters cooperation. She calls this engagement; “artification” as a ritualised behaviour that binds people together . Using ordinary objects ritually makes them special. For her, appreciating art is like spending time with friends, having sex and eating good food. It serves a basic human need. Dennis Hutton in his book Art Instinct, also talks about the utility of art as a social cohesive and as the expression of our basic human instinct for beauty.

On the other side, there are some who regard art as a specifically cultural product, not always related with beauty. This separation of beauty and art, takes place in the fracture proposed by the new area of aesthetics as presented in the 17th century by Immanuel Kant, and the categories of the sublime and taste of English philosophers Burke and Hume. While art was since ancient times a vehicle for imitation and representation, the invention of photography makes this representational value irrelevant, opening the doors for what we call modern art: abstractionism and cubism, amongst other expressions. Arthur Danto suggests that the status of an artwork depends on its place within an ongoing narrative and theoretical discussion about art. He uses the example of Andy Warhol’s 1964 Brillo Boxes to make the point that physical properties of objects are irrelevant to their status as art.

Chaterjee proposes a third way. He reminds us that art is evolving and it has adaptive roots, and therefore, it should not be classified as an instinct or as a byproduct. Instead of taking one side, he suggests understanding art as an evolutionary process shifting between prescription and revolution, change and normativity. In fact he suggests to relax and give in into the serendipitous nature of art: “This diverse, local and serendipitous nature is precisely why art can surprise us, enlighten us, force us to see the world differently, ground us, shake us, please us, anger us, bewilder us and make believers of us.p. 185”

My take on the book is to reflect on the way in which beauty keeps being part of our lives, and although banished from the discussion about art, it plays a key role in the way we understand the world. Particularly interesting, is the author’s comments on education and pleasure, implying somehow that beauty can play a role in the learning and teaching. I was surprised that there was not a mention of John Dewey in his work on 1950s Art and Education, or even bell hooks consideration of the erotic in pedagogy. Nevertheless, what I take from this book is the trilogy of beauty / pleasure / art as a complicated threesome, evolving throughout times. Once being a main concern of philosophy, beauty has been banished in our discussions as something not politically engaged or too facile. What Chaterjee is proposing here is to reinstate our consideration of beauty in a wider, more flexible view, going beyond the traditional fields of art as instinct, art as taste, or high art and low art. What is interesting here is to re-discover that beauty is part of the brain physiology and the potential for education and cognitive development.

[Ana Cretiu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chatterjee raises the thesis of art as behavior between instinct and social construct, and shows how the experience of art and the experience of beauty and pleasure are neurologically intertwined.
It does not provide the ultimate answers (as we are obviously, by far, not there yet) but it does structure the knowledge that the humanity has of the brain and its way of reacting to certain aesthetic stimuli.
The logical flow of the chapters and strategy of argumentation used by the author is beautifully fluid and the book is very accessible is terms of the specialty "slang" used.

[Nikolas Alixopulos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anjan Chatterjee shows a depth of knowledge in both the arts and neuroscience that helps lend credibility to his research. What wills us to create and enjoy aesthetic experiences? He traces our human history of design from cave paintings to Monet and into Fauvism and Modern Art. With this approach of trying to analyze art under a scientific mindset he is able to do so in a way that manages to maintain a good sense of humor and makes for an enjoyable read.

[Buck Wilde · Rating 4 out of 5]

A look at beauty and art through an evolutionary lens, with predictable results. Out the gate, we assign aesthetic value to things that increased our chances at perpetuating our genes. Beautiful environments are those we could see a long way with little obstruction, increasing our odds of spotting dangerous predators with our weird binocular vision mounted up on the top of our goofy upright spines. Beautiful food will be bright and vivid, like the forage that doesn't poison us and keeps us alive. Beautiful people will be symmetrical, relatively fit (thicc counts), and usually young, all of which will be reproductive fitness indicators; this can skew with a woman's attraction to older men for a panoply of Machiavellian evolutionary reasons we don't need to get into here.

Now take the concepts that evolution imbued the perfectly good monkey with, crank the brain functionality up to 11, and have it play telephone with itself for 2 million years.

Our appreciation of art and beauty can no longer be considered instinctive, which elevates it to the realm of higher and more sophisticated appreciations, John Stewart Mill's bit about Socrates and the pig, or something to that effect. Swine before Socrates. Any insect can be drawn to fertility indicators in a gender-opposite form, any demon can slake its hungers. But we have to be all hoity-toity and transcendent to look at abstract expressionism and no longer recognize the smooth, soft curvature in the painting as something voluptuous and/or breedable. Think of how many nonsensical, overcomplicated orbits it would take to get from the pump-and-dump reliability of the hindbrain to whatever meandering interpretations we now assign to things we find "symbolically beautiful".

Symbolic beauty. Jesus, can you imagine? Well, I mean, you don't have to, because that's it. Art is when your car gets stuck on ice and you just fuckin' floor it. The wheels are your caveman limbic system, and your frontal lobes are the 1000 horsepower engine. The ice is, I don't know, Camus's Absurd.

A great book that answers virtually no questions and raises a whole bunch more.

[Paulina Rega · Rating 2 out of 5]

Po przeczytaniu po raz chyba 20, że idealną proporcją talii do bioder u kobiet jest 0.7, chciałam jeszcze zagryźć zęby i książkę dokończyć, bo obiecywana w opisie tematyka wydawała mi się ciekawa. Wtedy autor zacytował radę, jaką dostał na wystawym przyjęciu od jakiegoś bogacza: „If you want this book to sell make sure you include a lot of sex” - i straciłam złudzenia. Doszłam do połowy książki i mam wrażenie, że 80% treści albo jest bezpośrednio o wyglądzie kobiet, albo używa go jako analogii. Dodatkowo informacje o tym, jak kiedyś leczono homoseksualizm (???) oraz odwoływanie się do kuzyna Darwina, twórcy eugeniki i seksisty, Francisa Galtona. Nie dowiedziałam się niczego nowego, co by mnie zaskoczyło albo wzbogaciło obraz świata. Niezbyt głębokie omówienie tematu, raczej skierowane do osób, które tematyką estetyki wcześniej się interesowały. A może po prostu ewolucjonizm i neurobiologia nie są tutaj odpowiedziami, którym trzeba by było poświęcić całą książkę? Autor często się powtarza i pierwszy raz w życiu sprawdzałam czy przypadkiem nie przewinęłam książki. Duże rozczarowanie.

[Jana · Rating 3 out of 5]

A strained mission to define art and its origins. It is surprising the author hasn't delved into the topic of creativity, which is at the base of everything man-made; the beautiful, the conceptual and the functional. Art is merely its by-product, and is encouraged by our desires for pleasure and problem-solving.

One could name anything art that has been manipulated or expanded by humans in one way or another. The definition of art stretches from religious paintings to tin cans and urinoirs. The debate over what to label as art persists because we cannot strictly categorize the directions in which our creative drive takes us, but what all art has in common is that it emerges from our imagination and inventiveness.

To underline this very creativity that precedes everything we make, would have been a stronger approach which the author's extensive knowledge about our evolution and reward systems would have tied neatly into.

[Leo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting book providing an evolutionary perspective on art and the perception of beauty. I picked it up hoping it would answer my question on why some people develop the ability to enjoy art and others don't. However, the book seems to be going in another direction.

The first part covers why people find objects beautiful, the second part is about pleasure, and the third part explains art. For the first two parts, the author explains numerous phenomena from an evolutionary perspective, but I don't find these too insightful as similar ideas are present in other people's works. The third part I find quite insightful when he explores different aspects of art and explores various explanations of art's development. However, I would like to see the arguments developed more in-depth with more detailed examples and clearer sentence structures.

[Robin Carroll · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is the book cover aesthetically pleasing to you?

I obviously found this book to be overall pleasing to me, but upon finishing it realized that I had picked up only tidbits of neuroscience aesthetics and evolutionary theories about art, but did not know how we evolved to enjoy art. Beauty maybe, art no. A lot of words were devoted to the evolution of pleasure, but not conclusively about art. The book is much better than its title or book cover portrays. I encourage you, as the reader, to draw your own conclusions. As art is truly in the eye of the beholder, so to will be your conclusion on this book.

[Guilherme Faria · Rating 3 out of 5]

It delivers what it promises but doesn't go very deep on the subject. The author aknowledges the current limitations of research into the brain's interaction with art. I'd recommend this book to people who know very little about neuroscience, as most of the analysis is not revolutionary (the brain's reward system, wanting and liking, visual areas...). Good ideas for future research and different points of view about what is art.

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 3 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.

[meg fitzwater · Rating 3 out of 5]

this was really good! its discussions of aesthetics and neuroscience weren’t too hard to digest and i really appreciated that it came from a place of respect for both disciplines instead of trying to assert one over another. giving it 3 stars because i didn’t realise quite how much it was going to focus on visual art forms and i would’ve liked it to talk about literature/music more as those are my personal aesthetic interests

[Zac Sigler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was fantastic. It was a bit heavy on naming the parts of the brain (I took Psych 101 and got the highest grade in the class at a prestigious, private institution), but otherwise it was very informative and a pleasure to read. I particularly enjoyed the discussion on how stifling repressive regimes become in relation to creativity in art.

[Yoric · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book attempt is a little weird: A scientific approach to describe art.
Art is not rational as science is, so is such an approach doomed to fail?

Connecting beauty and pleasure seems interesting.
This isn't my priority, but I'm still interested.

[LaanSiBB]

It's a great attempt to draw together sociological attraction, visual aesthetics and neuro-behaviours. I'm more interested in people's kink and secret attractions that are suppressed by the norm of mainstream aesthetics. Wouldn't those cases provide more insights?

[Krisz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blinkist read.
Symmetry makes a face beautiful. Beauty is something we always look for and evaluate in people, even if we are not asked to do so. It seems to be a survival thing.
Our society values youth and slenderness.
Aesthetic experience and art is about liking while not wanting.

[Alexey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good analysis of the situation in the world of neuro aesthetics. The books sheds light on how we see other people's faces, bodies, landscape, and most importantly – art. Helped me a lot to figure out my science-based understanding of the place of art in human's life.