The antagonism between the psychological and historical approaches to artworks is played out when patrons visit art museums. Most museums do not simply hang paintings on the walls or place sculptors in rooms, but offer visitors a variety of information sources about the artists, their personal backgrounds, and historical contexts in which different artworks are created (e.g., guided tours, audiotapes, catalogues, printed wall statements). Patrons surely learn something from these different sources to assist them in making sense of and appreciating the artworks. On the other hand, some patrons resist all outside information about artists and the historical contexts of their artworks and merely observe each piece, trying to experience what it may mean and what emotions it may evoke. Many of these patrons want direct experience of artworks without all the clutter of biography and history.
Both these approaches to appreciating artworks have unique benefits, as well as downsides, yet also mirror different scholarly perspectives on the study of art (including music, dance, literature, and so on). Bullot & Reber's (B&R's) target article argues for a psycho-historical framework that integrates these differing approaches to art appreciation. They describe three main modes of art appreciation and suggest several hypotheses that may be empirically testable to create a more synergistic and scientifically responsible theory of people's experiences of artworks. There is much to like in B&R's thesis, especially their demand for greater sensitivity to art-historical contexts in a science of art appreciation.
But part of the broader context for a science of art appreciation is the important influence that bodily processes have on people's understanding of human action. Embodied theories of cognition emphasize the degree to which minds are embodied, and distributed across brains, bodies, and world (Gibbs Reference Gibbs2006). Most of the empirical work on embodied thought and language has focused on the way bodies, and ongoing bodily activity, shapes people's thinking and speaking about concrete objects and events. A key idea in this movement is that human thought and performance are guided by embodied simulation processes. Under this view, embodied simulation is understood as the “reenactment of perceptual, motor, and introspective states acquired during interactions with world, body, and mind” (Barsalou Reference Barsalou2008, p. 618). Hence, just as properly seeing a cup sitting on a table requires us to imagine different bodily actions we may perform on that object, so too with language do we imagine ourselves engaging in actions relevant to the words spoken or read, and with art, we imagine ourselves creating the artworks or engaging with the objects and events perceived in what we see or hear. Simulation processes are not purely mental or neural, but involve and effect many full-bodied kinesthetic experiences.
Much experimental research shows that embodied simulation processes are central to how people conceive of concrete and abstract concepts, as well as interpret different kinds of linguistic meaning, including abstract and metaphorical language such as “grasp the concept,” referring to actions that are physically impossible to perform in the real world (Gibbs & Colston Reference Gibbs and Colston2012). Hence, people imagine themselves physically grasping a metaphorical object (i.e., “the concept”), which enables them to inspect and come to know that object. The brain's “mirror neuron” system helps create simulations, which act as if a person were engaging with the objects and actions being observed in the real world or being referred to in spoken or written language.
Many theories of literary appreciation now highlight the importance of embodied simulation processes during interpretive acts of reading (Oatley Reference Oatley2011). Moreover, the mirror neuron system is recruited when people observe artworks ranging from music (Zatorre et al. Reference Zatorre, Chen and Penhune2007) to dance (Cross et al. Reference Cross, Hamilton and Grafton2006) to aspects of literary experience (Stephens et al. Reference Stephens, Silbert and Hasson2010). Not surprisingly, the more experience an individual has with some artistic domain (e.g., dance or music), the greater the degree of activation in the mirror neuron system (Cross et al. Reference Cross, Hamilton and Grafton2006). But even people who are highly experienced at watching dance, yet are not dancers themselves, exhibit heightened degrees of mirror neuron activation when seeing a dance performance. In this manner, having extensive experiences observing artworks enhances our bodily reactions to these pieces. Several proposals have been advanced to think about aesthetic responses to artworks in terms of the mirror neuron system (Freedberg & Gallese Reference Freedberg and Gallese2007), which partly explain why people often feel so bodily engaged, in different ways with different works of art.
The idea that our experiences of human actions, and the artifacts created by people, including artworks, are rooted in bodily activity is not inconsistent with the psycho-historical approach to art. We may observe artworks and imagine ourselves performing the gestures used to create the art, but this automatic process is constantly shaped by our knowledge of the artist and the historical context in which he or she worked. Each of our past experiences with art, including our knowing the contexts for the production of artworks, enables us to create richer embodied simulations leading to more elaborate, sophisticated understandings of artworks. These understandings are not geared toward inferring a “theory of the artist's mind,” but to experience for ourselves, in each of our unique full-bodied way, what it must be like to create a specific artwork. With greater exposure to art, and learning more about the contexts for its creation, people can develop refined “tastes” for artworks, that are, once more, the product of dynamic, embodied simulation processes.
Seeing artistic understanding not as a mental activity alone, but as part of embodied simulation actions, highlights the importance of the body, and the body's history, in our always changing interpretation and appreciation of art. B&R are right, then, to emphasize the need for inclusion of historical factors, of all sorts, in the empirical study of artworks. An embodied simulation view, however, does not claim that there are entirely different modes of artistic appreciation, as suggested by B&R, because there is a continuum, or depth, of simulation experiences that always, to some extent, are shaped by psycho-historical constraints.
The antagonism between the psychological and historical approaches to artworks is played out when patrons visit art museums. Most museums do not simply hang paintings on the walls or place sculptors in rooms, but offer visitors a variety of information sources about the artists, their personal backgrounds, and historical contexts in which different artworks are created (e.g., guided tours, audiotapes, catalogues, printed wall statements). Patrons surely learn something from these different sources to assist them in making sense of and appreciating the artworks. On the other hand, some patrons resist all outside information about artists and the historical contexts of their artworks and merely observe each piece, trying to experience what it may mean and what emotions it may evoke. Many of these patrons want direct experience of artworks without all the clutter of biography and history.
Both these approaches to appreciating artworks have unique benefits, as well as downsides, yet also mirror different scholarly perspectives on the study of art (including music, dance, literature, and so on). Bullot & Reber's (B&R's) target article argues for a psycho-historical framework that integrates these differing approaches to art appreciation. They describe three main modes of art appreciation and suggest several hypotheses that may be empirically testable to create a more synergistic and scientifically responsible theory of people's experiences of artworks. There is much to like in B&R's thesis, especially their demand for greater sensitivity to art-historical contexts in a science of art appreciation.
But part of the broader context for a science of art appreciation is the important influence that bodily processes have on people's understanding of human action. Embodied theories of cognition emphasize the degree to which minds are embodied, and distributed across brains, bodies, and world (Gibbs Reference Gibbs2006). Most of the empirical work on embodied thought and language has focused on the way bodies, and ongoing bodily activity, shapes people's thinking and speaking about concrete objects and events. A key idea in this movement is that human thought and performance are guided by embodied simulation processes. Under this view, embodied simulation is understood as the “reenactment of perceptual, motor, and introspective states acquired during interactions with world, body, and mind” (Barsalou Reference Barsalou2008, p. 618). Hence, just as properly seeing a cup sitting on a table requires us to imagine different bodily actions we may perform on that object, so too with language do we imagine ourselves engaging in actions relevant to the words spoken or read, and with art, we imagine ourselves creating the artworks or engaging with the objects and events perceived in what we see or hear. Simulation processes are not purely mental or neural, but involve and effect many full-bodied kinesthetic experiences.
Much experimental research shows that embodied simulation processes are central to how people conceive of concrete and abstract concepts, as well as interpret different kinds of linguistic meaning, including abstract and metaphorical language such as “grasp the concept,” referring to actions that are physically impossible to perform in the real world (Gibbs & Colston Reference Gibbs and Colston2012). Hence, people imagine themselves physically grasping a metaphorical object (i.e., “the concept”), which enables them to inspect and come to know that object. The brain's “mirror neuron” system helps create simulations, which act as if a person were engaging with the objects and actions being observed in the real world or being referred to in spoken or written language.
Many theories of literary appreciation now highlight the importance of embodied simulation processes during interpretive acts of reading (Oatley Reference Oatley2011). Moreover, the mirror neuron system is recruited when people observe artworks ranging from music (Zatorre et al. Reference Zatorre, Chen and Penhune2007) to dance (Cross et al. Reference Cross, Hamilton and Grafton2006) to aspects of literary experience (Stephens et al. Reference Stephens, Silbert and Hasson2010). Not surprisingly, the more experience an individual has with some artistic domain (e.g., dance or music), the greater the degree of activation in the mirror neuron system (Cross et al. Reference Cross, Hamilton and Grafton2006). But even people who are highly experienced at watching dance, yet are not dancers themselves, exhibit heightened degrees of mirror neuron activation when seeing a dance performance. In this manner, having extensive experiences observing artworks enhances our bodily reactions to these pieces. Several proposals have been advanced to think about aesthetic responses to artworks in terms of the mirror neuron system (Freedberg & Gallese Reference Freedberg and Gallese2007), which partly explain why people often feel so bodily engaged, in different ways with different works of art.
The idea that our experiences of human actions, and the artifacts created by people, including artworks, are rooted in bodily activity is not inconsistent with the psycho-historical approach to art. We may observe artworks and imagine ourselves performing the gestures used to create the art, but this automatic process is constantly shaped by our knowledge of the artist and the historical context in which he or she worked. Each of our past experiences with art, including our knowing the contexts for the production of artworks, enables us to create richer embodied simulations leading to more elaborate, sophisticated understandings of artworks. These understandings are not geared toward inferring a “theory of the artist's mind,” but to experience for ourselves, in each of our unique full-bodied way, what it must be like to create a specific artwork. With greater exposure to art, and learning more about the contexts for its creation, people can develop refined “tastes” for artworks, that are, once more, the product of dynamic, embodied simulation processes.
Seeing artistic understanding not as a mental activity alone, but as part of embodied simulation actions, highlights the importance of the body, and the body's history, in our always changing interpretation and appreciation of art. B&R are right, then, to emphasize the need for inclusion of historical factors, of all sorts, in the empirical study of artworks. An embodied simulation view, however, does not claim that there are entirely different modes of artistic appreciation, as suggested by B&R, because there is a continuum, or depth, of simulation experiences that always, to some extent, are shaped by psycho-historical constraints.