An Article by J. J. (1417 words, 8 min. read)
Art, on its own, lacks a fundamental element without which it is useless. This element is the actual perception and emotional involvement of the viewer.
The fascinating part of the perception process is that it is divided into two parts:
- The biological part: the innate perception which comes through sensory input.
- The perceptual part: the higher order processes that relate to memories, emotions, and personal experiences which construct the true perception of one own’s reality.
Camera Versus Brain
A camera captures a moment and faithfully reflects it as a moment in time. Had the brain been a camera, we would just see the world around us, but we would not interact or react to it. The brain is wired so that it captures an image, usually an incomplete one, and then it does the fascinating thing of reconstructing the world around it to make it complete.
In essence, the observer of an artwork is a true collaborator with the artist in that we actively add our experiences onto the observed artwork in order to perceive it in our own unique way. This is what explains how two people can have two different reactions to the same observed work of art.
The Perception of People
When artists chose to paint or sculpt people, it is because artists realized at an early stage that our brains are wired to interpret facial expressions. This is how we react and behave towards people around us.
Research confirms that this evolutionary aspect of interpretation is concentrated in areas of the brain that are specialized in detecting facial cues and are closely connected to the areas of the brain that control “attention”. Perhaps this explains why many artists experimented with drawing portraits that reflect intense facial expressions. With time, a few artists started distorting or exaggerating facial expressions in order to relay to the observer a deeper depth of interaction with the artwork. Two examples of this are Pieter Bruegel’s “Yawning Man” and Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.”
The Perception of Perspective
The brain is trained to look in one perspective, trying to construct a 3D image of the world around us. When looking at an object, be it in real life or drawn, the brain visualizes the image of this object in the perspective that we live in, namely a 3D world where all elements in view are seen in one context and one perspective.
Enters Cubism, where perspective is distorted. Different views of the same object are shown all at once. This causes a dilemma for the brain which now has to reconstruct the artwork, but in a very different way than what the brain is used to. Thus, in cubism, the observer’s share of completing the artwork is a more complex process than observing a simple portrait. Consider Georges Braque’s “Violin and Candlestick” where the elements of violin and candlestick are broken down, flattened, almost fractured are reconstructed within the work in multiple-point perspectives and then the mind is left to interpret the painting and attempt at reconstructing it in multiple layers. The brain is not trained to think and reconstruct this way which adds flavor to the observed work. Both Braque and Picasso pioneered this technique.
The Brain and Abstract Art
Research in neuroaesthetics also confirms that the brain processes figurative art and abstract art differently.
The Bottoms Up Approach
To understand this better, let us consider the brain facing a novel visual experience, or a painting. The visual data is usually sent by the eyes to the visual cortex in the brain where the higher up process of interpretation and reconstructing the missing information occurs. This is the model with which the brain functions on a daily basis. It is known as the “Bottoms Up Approach”. This is mainly used in appreciating figurative or landscape artworks.
Despite the visual cues being the same to two different observers, it is the higher up process of interpretation and reconstruction that differs.
In abstract art appreciation, the visual cues would need higher forms of constructive processes and more of an input from the observer to see the final outcome. This is why interpretation of abstract art differs a lot between observers.
Consider the use of Inkblots in psychology.
Inkblots are used in psychological tests to reveal what is hidden in the subconcious mind. The interpretation of an abstract painting is essentially a subconcious revelation of a sophisticated form of an inkblot.
The variations of interpretation of the first card of the Rorschach psychological test ranges from warplane (as the number one answer) to wall clock, letter opener, lampshade, buckeye, jigsaw puzzle, paper towel and birdhouse! Quiet a variation for an interpretation of a single image.
The Top Down Approach
There is another way of looking at paintings. It is known as the “Top Down Approach”. In this method, the exact opposite happens. Here our perception of a work of art stems from past experiences such as our memory interfering to compare the work to other works seen previously. For Example, if in life we are used to concentrating on details, then detail is what we will merely see in a painting. However, if one quickly glances over details in real life, one will find themselves forming an opinion about an artwork based on a quick glance at the work.
If we look at a text that has some minor typos, our brain sometimes ignores them and reconstructs the words based on how they should be spelled, or based on what is expected, rather than how they are actually spelled. The same happens when this approach is followed in interpreting abstract art where the brain fills in the gaps but based on personal experiences.
Fascination with the Bizarre
Enters the brain’s fascination with the unconventional. Consider this: Why is it that humans are attracted to cartoon characters? Perhaps the answer is that the brain is more attracted to distortions rather than ordinary stimuli. Therefore, bizarre versions of the real world are more enjoyable to the mind. Many cartoon characters are exaggerated depictions of real life individuals, as is the example of “Edna” from the movie “The Incredibles” who was based on the resemblance to actress Linda Hunt.
As such, in abstract art, the “unconventional”, and the “bizarre” is what makes this form more stimulating to the brain.
Blending of colors
What about the different interpretations of colors in abstract art?
Our brain easily differentiates colors when they are drastically different from each other. The sensory input one gets when looking a flag of a nation, or on the packaging of a cereal, clearly shows that the demarcations between colors can readily be seen and defined in the mind of the observer. Abstract art plays around with this concept and blends colors together in order to minimize stark difference between colors. The transition between shades of the same color on a canvas plays around with the brain and creates a sense of fascination. The ambiguity of an abstract painting along with its color variations essentially makes the brain want to go back to the art work to try to reconstruct some sense and find some logic to the work.
It is noteworthy to focus on the concept of “ambiguity” and to extrapolate that from abstract art onto figurative interpretations of mood in a subject. A vivid and well known example of this is facial expression of the Mona Lisa which toyed with the brains of millions into trying to interpret (or reconstruct) whether the famous face has a curved up smile or not.
Finally, one has to mention the concept of blank spaces in abstract art. Blank spaces in artworks trigger the brain into “problem solving” mode. The brain is wired so as to fit in missing pieces of a painting or a sculpture. When looking at onlookers who take their time in front of an artwork, the process of “filling in the gaps” is usually taking place.
Perhaps, this is why most of the time, abstract paintings are displayed in open and central positions on a wall or in a room out of respect for the piece, but also to allow observers to spend time to view the artwork and interpret it in their own unique way.
