I have the idea that aesthetics must have a biological basis, in the sense
that something aesthetically pleasing evokes different neural activation
patterns than something which is not. Is anything known about that?
Are we materialists or not? EVERY psychological process has biological
bases - one experience is different from the other (e.g. on the
dimension of aesthetical pleasure) IN VIRTUE of having different
biological events as basis - can you see an alternative way of seeing
Two questions are relevant:
- if the dimension of aesthetical pleasure corresponds to some
identifiable dimension in the description of neural events going on
(e.g. having sth in common (or not), and what with other pleasant
- what is the origin of these differences - it is worth it to look at
infant's perception here:
* there was research by Fantz (I believe 1963??) that showed
preference for some visual patterns v. early (before 2 month of age -
even before they show preference for novelty/familiarity!!!).
* there was a study (sorry I don't remember who and when)
showing that infants prefer some facial characteristics....
* Turkewitz and Kenny study (1982) - it is about the formation
of the visual system and the role of early experience (just not to get
too excited about Fanz study - these preferences can be functional only in
a brief period of time).
Psychology, Florida Atlantic U.
RACZASZE AT FAUVAX.