Neuroaesthetics and the Trouble with Beauty

Conway, Bevil R.; Rehding, Alexander

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001504

Cited by 61 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the high reliability of face IP, even when estimated conservatively (via an alternate forms test-retest procedure), we conclude that the contribution of unshared environmental factors to face IP cannot be explained by unreliable measurement. Instead, our findings support the notion that individual aesthetic face preferences are truly shaped primarily by individual life experiences [20, 21]. …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Although certain characteristics of human faces are broadly considered more attractive (e.g. symmetry, averageness), people also routinely disagree with each other on the relative attractiveness of faces. That is, to some significant degree, beauty is in the “eye of the beholder”. Here, we investigate the origins of these individual differences in face preferences using a twin design, allowing us to estimate the relative contributions of genetic and environmental variation to individual face attractiveness judgments or face preferences. We first show that individual face preferences (IP) can be reliably measured and are readily dissociable from other types of attractiveness judgments (e.g. judgments of scenes, objects). Next we show that individual face preferences result primarily from environments that are unique to each individual. This is in striking contrast to individual differences in face identity recognition, which result primarily from variations in genes [1]. We thus complete an etiological double dissociation between two core domains of social perception (judgments of identity versus attractiveness) within the same visual stimulus (the face). At the same time, we provide an example, rare in behavioral genetics, of a reliably and objectively measured behavioral characteristic where variations are shaped mostly by the environment. The large impact of experience on individual face preferences provides a novel window into the evolution and architecture of the social brain, while lending new empirical support to the long-standing claim that environments shape individual notions of what is attractive.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neuroaesthetic studies have revealed that when paintings are presented to observers they induce different patterns of activity in the brain depending whether they are considered beautiful or otherwise unappealing (Ishizu & Zeki, 2011, Kawabata & Zeki, 2004. The properties of the paintings underlying this brain activity are, however, unclear (Conway & Rehding, 2013). One reasonable hypothesis that has been considered is that the aesthetic value of paintings depends on the extent to which they mimic natural image statistics (Fernandez & Wilkins, 2008, Graham & Redies, 2010.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The colors of paintings and viewers’ preferences

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. One hypothesis to explain the aesthetics of paintings is that it depends on the extent to which they mimic natural image statistics. In fact, paintings and natural scenes share several statistical image regularities but the colors of paintings seem generally more biased towards red than natural scenes. Is the particular option for colors in each painting, even if less naturalistic, critical for perceived beauty? Here we show that it is. In the experiments, 50 naïve observers, unfamiliar with the 10 paintings tested, could rotate the color gamut of the paintings and select the one producing the best subjective impression. The distributions of angles obtained are described by normal distributions with maxima deviating, on average, only 7 degrees from the original gamut orientation and full width at half maximum just above the threshold to perceive a chromatic change in the paintings. Crucially, for data pooled across observers and abstract paintings the maximum of the distribution was at zero degrees, i.e., the same as the original. This demonstrates that artists know what chromatic compositions match viewers' preferences and that the option for less naturalistic colors does not constraint the aesthetic value of paintings.3

show abstract

“…The main objective of neuroaesthetics is to characterize the neurobiological foundations and evolutionary history of the cognitive and affective processes involved in aesthetic experiences and artistic and other creative activities [31]. Interest in the field of neuroaesthetics has grown remarkably during the last years.…”

Section: Modeling Esthetics Perception Of Visual Artsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Could linear model bridge the gap between low-level statistical features and aesthetic emotions of visual textures?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroaesthetics and the Trouble with Beauty

Abstract: Neuroscience is increasingly being called upon to address issues within the humanities. We discuss challenges that arise, relating to art and beauty, and provide ideas for a way forward.

Cited by 61 publications

References 39 publications

Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes

Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces Are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes

The colors of paintings and viewers’ preferences

Could linear model bridge the gap between low-level statistical features and aesthetic emotions of visual textures?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About