Reductionism in Art and Brain Science: Bridging the Two Cultures
4/5
()
About this ebook
At the heart of this book is an elegant elucidation of the pivotal contribution of reductionism to modern art’s extraordinary evolution and to its role in a monumental shift in artistic perspective. Reductionism was a driving force in the transition from figurative art to the first explorations of abstract art in the works of Turner, Monet, Kandinsky, Schoenberg, and Mondrian. Kandel explains how the New York School of Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, Louis, Turrell, and Flavin arrived at their particular forms of abstract expressionism in the postwar era, and concludes with Katz, Warhol, Close, and Sandback, who built upon the advances of the New York School to reimagine figurative and minimal art. Featuring captivating drawings of the brain alongside full-color reproductions of modern art masterpieces, this book brings science and art into closer relation.
Eric R. Kandel
Eric R. Kandel is the University Professor and Fred Kavli Professor at Columbia University and a Senior Investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his studies of learning and memory, he is the author of In Search of Memory, a memoir that won a Los Angeles Times Book Prize; The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present, which won the Bruno Kreisky Award in Literature, Austria’s highest literary award; and Reductionism in Art and Science: Bridging the Two Cultures, a book about the New York School of abstract art. He is also the coauthor of Principles of Neural Science, the standard textbook in the field.
Related to Reductionism in Art and Brain Science
Related ebooks
Field Notes on the Visual Arts: Seventy-Five Short Essays Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFreedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and Political Power Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Adorno's Theory of Philosophical and Aesthetic Truth Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Mirror and the Palette Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Duchamp and the Aesthetics of Chance: Art as Experiment Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5My Love Affair with Modern Art: Behind the Scenes with a Legendary Curator Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Curationism: How Curating Took Over the Art World and Everything Else Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Antony Gormley on Sculpture Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5As The Sailor Loves The Sea Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOutsider Art: Visionary Worlds and Trauma Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Idealization and the Aims of Science Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Quotable Artist Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsConcerning the Spiritual in Art Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5O'Keeffe: Days in a Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Philosophy of the Mòzi: The First Consequentialists Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSee What You're Missing: New Ways of Looking at the World Through Art Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPhilosophers on Art from Kant to the Postmodernists: A Critical Reader Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Toaster Project: Or A Heroic Attempt to Build a Simple Electric Appliance from Scratch Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Thinking Through the Imagination: Aesthetics in Human Cognition Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWilliam Blake vs. the World Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsChaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Point and Line to Plane Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Patterns in Nature: Why the Natural World Looks the Way It Does Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Transfigurements: On the True Sense of Art Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRothko: The Color Field Paintings Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mad Enchantment: Claude Monet and the Painting of the Water Lilies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Convergence: The Idea at the Heart of Science Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Art of Wandering: The Writer as Walker Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Biology For You
Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Source: The Secrets of the Universe, the Science of the Brain Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Gut: The Inside Story of Our Body's Most Underrated Organ (Revised Edition) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dopamine Detox: Biohacking Your Way To Better Focus, Greater Happiness, and Peak Performance Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of Thinking Clearly Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Grieving Brain: The Surprising Science of How We Learn from Love and Loss Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Obesity Code: the bestselling guide to unlocking the secrets of weight loss Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Deepest Well: Healing the Long-Term Effects of Childhood Trauma and Adversity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Peptide Protocols: Volume One Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mothers Who Can't Love: A Healing Guide for Daughters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Woman: An Intimate Geography Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5"Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Winner Effect: The Neuroscience of Success and Failure Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Laws of Connection: The Scientific Secrets of Building a Strong Social Network Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGenius Kitchen: Over 100 Easy and Delicious Recipes to Make Your Brain Sharp, Body Strong, and Taste Buds Happy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLies My Gov't Told Me: And the Better Future Coming Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Letter to Liberals: Censorship and COVID: An Attack on Science and American Ideals Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Lifespan: Why We Age—and Why We Don't Have To Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Suicidal: Why We Kill Ourselves Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Sapiens: A Graphic History, Volume 2: The Pillars of Civilization Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Reductionism in Art and Brain Science
9 ratings1 review
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5All fear of reductionism is a fear of change. We have our philosophies, our models of what is true, and when someone comes along and disturbs that, we don’t like it.The advance of science has been to break down, to reduce, all processes to their smallest fundamental events. For example, materials were once understood as whole things, then as attribute and extension, then as atoms, then subatomic particles, and finally as field interactions. All of this is true, but it doesn’t help an engineer determine the fatigue strength of a piece of steel. Macro properties are not destroyed by understanding micro properties. The same is true of, say, consciousness. If we break it down, understand it in terms of chemistry and electrical interaction that should not stop people using the higher understanding as a model. It remains analysable as a single unit, even when its basis is fully understood in terms of tiny events. Where this advance does cause a problem is when certain philosophies depend on a particular model for their existence. Life is completely understood as chemistry, but that causes problems for any philosophy that requires it to be separate from chemistry. The only people who need to be scared of reductionism in this sense are those whose philosophy is built on “the spark of life”, or some other piece of magic. As for the rest of things, an irregular set of surfaces, red in colour, with a linear green attachment, comprising various mechanisms for the chemical and photosynthetic transfer of energy, is still a rose by any other name, and it still smells as sweet.Of course as Kandel implicitly suggests it depends on what we mean by 'fear', I suppose. There are actual limits to the utility of reductionism. Like any tools, the answers reductionism gives you depends on the precise nature of the tools you use. As an analogy imagine you have a cylindrical chocolate cake. You take a knife, and make one plane cut that passes through the centre of the cake. How big are the resulting pieces? Theoretically, the answer is that you have two halves. But in reality? In reality, you also have crumbs, and bits stick to the knife. How much of each depends on things like how dry or moist the cake is, how smooth the knife is, etc., etc., etc. We really consider the analogous properties of the analytical tools we use when we perform reductionist science. Even numbers are not immune. Numbers are often treated as if they are somehow incredibly precise, when in fact we use them to mean very different things. 'One' football team has little in common with 'one' maggot, 'one' forest, 'one' universe . . . Even in a more abstract sense, numerical systems do not agree. Fractions and decimals cannot be exactly mapped one to the other, for example. So I don't fear reductionism; but I do find myself bemused as to why this (or any other) scientific method is treated as if infallible; especially by those who can clearly see the problems with treating religious dogma as infallible. All scientific theories are descriptions; no matter how accurate, they are not 'the truth' any more than a map actually is the land it represents.
Book preview
Reductionism in Art and Brain Science - Eric R. Kandel
REDUCTIONISM IN ART AND BRAIN SCIENCE
ALSO BY ERIC R. KANDEL
Cellular Basis of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Neurobiology
Principles of Neural Science
Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and the New Biology of Mind
Memory: From Mind to Molecules
In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind
The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present
ERIC R. KANDEL
REDUCTIONISM IN ART AND BRAIN SCIENCE
BRIDGING THE TWO CULTURES
Columbia University Press
New York
Columbia University Press
Publishers Since 1893
New York Chichester, West Sussex
cup.columbia.edu
Copyright © 2016 Eric R. Kandel
All rights reserved
E-ISBN 978-0-231-54208-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Kandel, Eric R., author.
Title: Reductionism in art and brain science: bridging the two cultures / Eric R. Kandel.
Description: New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015049468 (print) | LCCN 2015048058 (ebook) | ISBN 9780231542081 (electronic) | ISBN 9780231179621 (cloth: alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Art—Psychology. | Reductionism. | Visual perception. | Neurosciences and the arts.
Classification: LCC N71 (print) | LCC N71 .K355 2016 (ebook) | DDC 700.1/9—dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049468
A Columbia University Press E-book.
CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at cup-ebook@columbia.edu.
Cover design: Lisa Hamm
Cover image: © 1998 Kate Rothko Prizel and Christopher Rothko/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. Private Collection/Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images
References to websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor Columbia University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.
To Lee Bollinger, who has created an environment at Columbia that encourages the bridging of cultures.
CONTENTS
PART 1
THE TWO CULTURES MEET IN THE NEW YORK SCHOOL
INTRODUCTION
1 THE EMERGENCE OF AN ABSTRACT SCHOOL OF ART IN NEW YORK
PART 2
A REDUCTIONIST APPROACH TO BRAIN SCIENCE
2 THE BEGINNING OF A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO THE PERCEPTION OF ART
The Beholder’s Share
The Inverse Optics Problem: Intrinsic Limitations of Visual Perception
3 THE BIOLOGY OF THE BEHOLDER’S SHARE: VISUAL PERCEPTION AND BOTTOM-UP PROCESSING IN ART
The Visual System
The Face-Processing Component of the Visual System
Other Components of the Human Nervous System
The Interaction of Vision and Touch and the Recruitment of Emotion
4 THE BIOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MEMORY: TOP-DOWN PROCESSING IN ART
A Reductionist Approach to Learning and Memory
Merging the Psychology and Biology of Learning and Memory
Where Is Memory Stored?
How Is Memory Stored?
The Formation of Short- and Long-Term Memory
Modifying the Functional Architecture of the Brain
Top-Down Processing and Art
PART 3
A REDUCTIONIST APPROACH TO ART
5 REDUCTIONISM IN THE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ART
Turner and the Move Toward Abstraction
Monet and Impressionism
Schoenberg, Kandinsky, and the First Truly Abstract Images
6 MONDRIAN AND THE RADICAL REDUCTION OF THE FIGURATIVE IMAGE
7 THE NEW YORK SCHOOL OF PAINTERS
De Kooning and the Reduction of Figuration
Pollock and the Deconstruction of the Easel Painting
8 HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES AND PERCEIVES ABSTRACT IMAGES
Sensation and Perception
Revisiting the Abstract Painting of de Kooning and Pollock
9 FROM FIGURATION TO COLOR ABSTRACTION
Rothko and Color Abstraction
Louis’s Approach to Abstraction and Reduction of Color
The Emotional Power of Color-Field Painting
10 COLOR AND THE BRAIN
Color Vision
Color and Emotion
11 A FOCUS ON LIGHT
Flavin and Fluorescent Light
Turrell and the Physical Presence of Light and Space
12 A REDUCTIONIST INFLUENCE ON FIGURATION
Katz and the Return to Figuration
Warhol and Pop Art
Close and Synthesis
PART 4
THE EMERGING DIALOGUE BETWEEN ABSTRACT ART AND SCIENCE
13 WHY IS REDUCTIONISM SUCCESSFUL IN ART?
Abstract Art’s New Rules for Visual Processing
The Beholder as Creative Viewer
Creativity and the Default Network: Abstract Art
Abstract Art and the Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance
14 A RETURN TO THE TWO CULTURES
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Illustration Credits
Index
PART 1
THE TWO CULTURES MEET IN THE NEW YORK SCHOOL
INTRODUCTION
In 1959 C. P. Snow, the molecular physicist who later became a novelist ( fig. i.1 ), declared that Western intellectual life is divided into two cultures: that of the sciences, which are concerned with the physical nature of the universe, and that of the humanities—literature and art—which are concerned with the nature of human experience. Having lived in and experienced both cultures, Snow concluded that this divide came about because neither understood the other’s methodologies or goals. To advance human knowledge and to benefit human society, he argued, scientists and humanists must find ways to bridge the chasm between their two cultures. Snow’s observations, which he delivered in the prestigious Robert Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge, have since spurred considerable debate over how this could be done (see Snow 1963; Brockman 1995). ¹
My purpose in this book is to highlight one way of closing the chasm by focusing on a common point at which the two cultures can meet and influence each other—in modern brain science and in modern art. Both brain science and abstract art address, in direct and compelling fashion, questions and goals that are central to humanistic thought. In this pursuit they share, to a surprising degree, common methodologies.
While the humanistic concerns of artists are well known, I illustrate that brain science also seeks to answer the deepest problems of human existence, using as an example the study of learning and memory. Memory provides the foundation for our understanding of the world and for our sense of personal identity; we are who we are as individuals in large part because of what we learn and what we remember. Understanding the cellular and molecular basis of memory is a step toward understanding the nature of the self. In addition, studies of learning and memory reveal that our brain has evolved highly specialized mechanisms for learning, for remembering what we have learned, and for drawing on those memories—our experience—as we interact with the world. Those same mechanisms are key to our response to a work of art.
i.1 C. P. Snow (1905–1980)
Whereas the artistic process is often portrayed as the pure expression of human imagination, I show that abstract artists often achieve their goals by employing methodologies similar to those used by scientists. The Abstract Expressionists of the New York School of the 1940s and 1950s provide an example of a group that probed the limits of visual experience and extended the very definition of visual art. (For earlier attempts to bridge the two cultures, see E.O. Wilson 1977; Shlain 1993; Brockman 1995; Ramachandran 2011.)
Until the twentieth century, Western art had traditionally portrayed the world in a three-dimensional perspective, using recognizable images in a familiar way. Abstract art broke with that tradition to show us the world in a completely unfamiliar way, exploring the relationship of shapes, spaces, and colors to one another. This new way of representing the world profoundly challenged our expectations of art.
To accomplish their goal, the painters of the New York School often took an investigative, experimental approach to their work. They explored the nature of visual representation by reducing images to their essential elements of form, line, color, or light. I examine the similarities between their approach and the reductionism that scientists use by focusing on these artists as they move from figurative to abstract art—in particular, the work of the early reductionist painter Piet Mondrian and the New York painters Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Morris Louis.
Reductionism, taken from the Latin word reducere, to lead back,
does not necessarily imply analysis on a more limited scale. Scientific reductionism often seeks to explain a complex phenomenon by examining one of its components on a more elementary, mechanistic level. Understanding discrete levels of meaning then paves the way for exploration of broader questions—how these levels are organized and integrated to orchestrate a higher function. Thus scientific reductionism can be applied to the perception of a single line, a complex scene, or a work of art that evokes powerful feelings. It might be able to explain how a few expert brushstrokes can create a portrait of an individual that is far more compelling than a person in the flesh, or why a particular combination of colors can evoke a sense of serenity, anxiety, or exaltation.
Artists often use reductionism to serve a different purpose. By reducing figuration, artists enable us to perceive an essential component of a work in isolation, be it form, line, color, or light. The isolated component stimulates aspects of our imagination in ways that a complex image might not. We perceive unexpected relationships in the work, as well as, perhaps, new connections between art and our perception of the world and new connections between the work of art and our life experiences as recalled in memory. A reductionist approach even has the capacity to bring forth in the beholder a spiritual response to the art.
My central premise is that although the reductionist approaches of scientists and artists are not identical in their aims—scientists use reductionism to solve a complex problem and artists use it to elicit a new perceptual and emotional response in the beholder—they are analogous. For example, as I discuss in chapter 5, early in his career J.M.W. Turner painted a struggle at sea between a ship heading for a distant harbor and the natural elements: the storm clouds and rain bearing down on the ship. Years later, Turner recast this struggle, reducing the ship and the storm to their most elemental forms. His approach allowed the viewer’s creativity to fill in details, thereby conveying even more powerfully the contest between the rolling ship and the forces of nature. Thus, while Turner explores the boundaries of our visual perception, he does so to engage us more fully with his art, not to explain the mechanisms underlying visual perception.
Reductionism is not the only fruitful approach to biology, or even to brain science. Important, often critical insights are gained by combining approaches, as is evident in the advances made in brain science through computational and theoretical analysis. Indeed, a major step forward in the study of the brain was the scientific synthesis that occurred in the 1970s, when psychology, the science of mind, merged with neuroscience, the science of the brain. The result of this unification was a new, biological science of mind that enables scientists to address a range of questions about ourselves: How do we perceive, learn, and remember? What is the nature of emotion, empathy, and consciousness? This new science of mind promises not only a deeper understanding of what makes us who we are but also to make possible meaningful dialogues between brain science and other areas of knowledge, such as art.
Science attempts to move us toward greater objectivity, a more accurate description of the nature of things. By examining the perception of art as an interpretation of sensory experience, scientific analysis can, in principle, describe how the brain perceives and responds to a work of art, and give us insights into how this experience transcends our everyday perception of the world around us. The new, biological science of mind aspires to a deeper understanding of ourselves by creating a bridge from brain science to art, as well as to other areas of knowledge. If successful, this endeavor will help us understand better how we respond to, and perhaps even create, works of art.
Some scholars are concerned that focusing on reductionist approaches used by artists will diminish our fascination with art and trivialize our perception of its deeper truths. I argue to the contrary: appreciating the reductionist methods used by artists in no way diminishes the richness or complexity of our response to art. In fact, the artists I consider in this book have used just such an approach to explore and illuminate the foundations of artistic creation.
As Henri Matisse observed: We are closer to attaining cheerful serenity by simplifying thoughts and figures. Simplifying the idea to achieve an expression of joy. That is our only deed.
CHAPTER 1
THE EMERGENCE OF AN ABSTRACT SCHOOL OF ART IN NEW YORK
In the years following the end of World War II, a number of artists began to wonder how art could still be meaningful in the aftermath of such a tragic period in world history, a period that encompassed the horrors of the Holocaust, the enormous loss of life on the battlefield, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What visual language could possibly describe a world so transformed? Many artists in the United States felt compelled to create art that was unmistakably different from what had come before. One of the great artists of this period, Barnett Newman, wrote about his response and that of his fellow artists: We are freeing ourselves of the impediments of memory, association, nostalgia, legend, myth, or what have you, that have been devices of Western European painting.
In their attempt to abandon European influences, the American artists created Abstract Expressionism, the first American art movement to gain international acclaim. In moving from figurative art to abstract art, the New York School of painters—notably, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, and Mark Rothko—and their colleague Morris Louis were taking a reductionist approach. That is, rather than depicting an object or image in all of its richness, they often deconstructed it, focusing on one or, at most, a few components and finding richness by exploring those components in a new way.
These New York artists of the 1940s and 1950s were surrounded by an exciting and influential group of intellectuals and owners of art galleries. Many European psychoanalysts, scientists, physicians, composers, and musicians—as well as the artists Piet Mondrian, Marcel Duchamp, and Max Ernst—had come to New York in the late 1930s and early 1940s to escape the war in Europe. They arrived soon after the opening of the Museum of Modern Art in 1929 and the Guggenheim Museum in 1939 and the rise of affluent, farsighted gallery owners such as Peggy Guggenheim and Betty Parsons. These museums,