Literature DB >> 28502660

Beauty Requires Thought.

Aenne A Brielmann1, Denis G Pelli2.   

Abstract

The experience of beauty is a pleasure, but common sense and philosophy suggest that feeling beauty differs from sensuous pleasures such as eating or sex. Immanuel Kant [1, 2] claimed that experiencing beauty requires thought but that sensuous pleasure can be enjoyed without thought and cannot be beautiful. These venerable hypotheses persist in models of aesthetic processing [3-7] but have never been tested. Here, participants continuously rated the pleasure felt from a nominally beautiful or non-beautiful stimulus and then judged whether they had experienced beauty. The stimuli, which engage various senses, included seeing images, tasting candy, and touching a teddy bear. The observer reported the feelings that the stimulus evoked. The time course of pleasure, across stimuli, is well-fit by a model with one free parameter: pleasure amplitude. Pleasure amplitude increases linearly with the feeling of beauty. To test Kant's claim of a need for thought, we reduce cognitive capacity by adding a "two-back" task to distract the observer's thoughts. The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure experienced from stimuli that otherwise produce strong pleasure and spares that of less-pleasant stimuli. We also find that strong pleasure is always beautiful, whether produced reliably by beautiful stimuli or just occasionally by sensuous stimuli. In sum, we confirm Kant's claim that only the pleasure associated with feeling beauty requires thought and disprove his claim that sensuous pleasures cannot be beautiful.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kant; aesthetics; beauty; emotiontracker; pleasure; psychophysics

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28502660      PMCID: PMC6778408          DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  10 in total

1.  The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure.

Authors:  Susanne M Jaeggi; Martin Buschkuehl; Walter J Perrig; Beat Meier
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2010-04-19

2.  Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?

Authors:  Rolf Reber; Norbert Schwarz; Piotr Winkielman
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2004

Review 3.  Neuroaesthetics: a coming of age story.

Authors:  Anjan Chatterjee
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: the pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking.

Authors:  Laura K M Graf; Jan R Landwehr
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-03-05

Review 5.  Neuroaesthetics.

Authors:  Anjan Chatterjee; Oshin Vartanian
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 6.  Naturalizing aesthetics: brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities.

Authors:  Steven Brown; Xiaoqing Gao; Loren Tisdelle; Simon B Eickhoff; Mario Liotti
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; Andrew R A Conway; Timothy K Miura; Gregory J H Colflesh
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Working memory and fear conditioning.

Authors:  Ronald McKell Carter; Constanze Hofstotter; Naotsugu Tsuchiya; Christof Koch
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-01-27       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  The brain on art: intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network.

Authors:  Edward A Vessel; G Gabrielle Starr; Nava Rubin
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Neuroaesthetics and the trouble with beauty.

Authors:  Bevil R Conway; Alexander Rehding
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 8.029

  10 in total
  11 in total

1.  Beauty at a glance: The feeling of beauty and the amplitude of pleasure are independent of stimulus duration.

Authors:  Aenne A Brielmann; Lauren Vale; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 2.  What is Beauty?

Authors:  Andrea Sisti; Payam Sadeghi; Negaar Aryan
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  The effects of visual discomfort and chromaticity separation on neural processing during a visual task.

Authors:  Lisa C Lindquist; Gregory R McIntire; Sarah M Haigh
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2021-02-13       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  e-Nature Positive Emotions Photography Database (e-NatPOEM): affectively rated nature images promoting positive emotions.

Authors:  Daniela Dal Fabbro; Giulia Catissi; Gustavo Borba; Luciano Lima; Erika Hingst-Zaher; João Rosa; Elivane Victor; Letícia Bernardes; Tinely Souza; Eliseth Leão
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Commentary: Beauty Requires Thought.

Authors:  Severi Luoto
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-08-02

6.  Kandinsky or Me? How Free Is the Eye of the Beholder in Abstract Art?

Authors:  Doris I Braun; Katja Doerschner
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-09-04

7.  Intense Beauty Requires Intense Pleasure.

Authors:  Aenne A Brielmann; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-11-05

8.  Beauty and the busy mind: Occupied working memory resources impair aesthetic experiences in everyday life.

Authors:  Rosalie Weigand; Thomas Jacobsen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Commentary: Commentary: Beauty Requires Thought.

Authors:  Katharina Bluehm
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-10-09

10.  Tracking two pleasures.

Authors:  Aenne A Brielmann; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.