[-empyre-] neuroaesthetics and modeling

Barbara Stafford bms6 at uchicago.edu
Fri Sep 26 07:26:47 EST 2008

hi all,

just to leap in. the brain modularity implications of "neuroaesthetics" 
do have a political/marketing purpose and use.  recent studies on  
hidden political bias[the disjunction between how people say they willl 
vote and how they do in fact vote], targeted neuro-marketing, and 
reward-center directed advertising,  in particular, make deliberate, 
and some would say cynical,  use of  dedicated neural systems that 
precisely cannot resist them through conscious will.

my best,
On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:26 AM, Anna Munster wrote:

> Hi Johannes and others,
> I'll just respond to the excerpt from one of my posts, although I have 
> to say you are rising very interesting and challenging questions about 
> models, traffic and collaboration
>> lastly,  Anna Munster refered to "non-modeling"  (what would that be?)
> I think what I might have meant was a kind of 'unmodeling' ie undoing 
> the place of 'the model' as determining in a scientific or aesthetic 
> project. Of course I don't mean to suggest we just float free of 
> paradigms but rather that we not be onerously committed to 'a' 
> paradigm, especially one that privileges either mental representation 
> or brute biology as causal....I think Andrew may have something more 
> to say here because I suspect that both he and I are interested in a 
> notion of metamodelling (in the sense that both Gilbert Simondon, 
> philosopher of technology and Felix Guattari use the term to denote a 
> kind of processual modeling in which all models are subjected to 
> destabilisation and cross-fertilisation and one lands at a kind of 
> commitment to follow the changes and deformations rather than 'the 
> model'...good complexity theory would be an example of this 
> approach...)
>> and to
>>>> .. hearing Steve Kurtz ( from Critical Art Ensemble) saying once 
>>>> that he wasn't the least bit interested in whether scientists and 
>>>> artists actually had anything to offer each other's disciplines. 
>>>> What he believed was important in science-art collaboration was 
>>>> whether you shared a 'political' project with each other and that 
>>>> if you did, the alliance between science and art could become very 
>>>> powerful.>>
>> Can you think of such political projects that would leave the 
>> short-lived fashion of "neuroaesthetics" behind?
> I wasn't so much thinking of leaving neuroaesthetics behind as 
> embarking on aesthetico-scientific collaborations that do something 
> different with neuroaesthetics - perhaps intervene into a 'politics of 
> perception'. This means precisely to question methodology, practice 
> and how one 'applies' one's findings...so, for example, does one 
> deploy neuroscience in an aesthetic context to confirm the idea that 
> we are emotionally 'hard wired' or does one deploy neuroaesthetics to 
> suggest that  the neural basis of perception is both transformed and 
> transformative once it is inmixed with technics, culture, other 
> aspects of embodiment etc...
> I think this kind of project is precisely what Paul and Alan engage 
> with in their work 'The Shape of Thought' - which they haven't spoken 
> about!! Another artist engaged in this kind of work is Warren Neidich 
> and to an extent, I think Olafur Eliasson...although both seem to 
> collaborate with transforming ideas etc in neuroscience rather than 
> collaborate with scientists. But Paul and Alan do...
> cheers
> anna
> Dr.Anna Munster
> Senior Lecturer
> School of Art History and Theory
> College of Fine Arts
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

More information about the empyre mailing list