Cognitive neuroscience of art continues to be criticized for failing to provide interesting results about art itself. In particular, results of brain imaging experiments have not yet been utilized in interpretation of particular works of art. Here we revisit a recent study in which we explored the neuronal and behavioral response to painted portraits with a direct versus an averted gaze. We then demonstrate how fMRI results can be related to the art historical interpretation of a specific painting. The evidentiary status of neuroimaging data is not different from any other extra-pictorial facts that art historians uncover in their research and relate to their account of the significance of a work of art. They are not explanatory in a strong sense, yet they provide supportive evidence for the art writer's inference about the intended meaning of a given work. We thus argue that brain imaging can assume an important role in the interpretation of particular art works.

3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czechia

Faculty of Arts Masaryk University Brno Czechia

National Institute of Mental Health Klecany Czechia

See more in PubMed

Argyle M., Cook M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ashton J. (2011). Two Problems with a Neuroaesthetic Theory of Interpretation. Nonsite no. 2. Available online at: https://nonsite.org/two-problems-with neuroaesthetic-theory-of-interpretation (accessed March 15, 2021).

Baxandall M. (1979). The language of art history. New Lit. His. 10 453–465. 10.2307/468922 DOI

Baxandall M. (1985). Patterns of intention: on the historical explanation of pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Belting H. (2009). “The gaze in the image. A contribution to an iconology of the gaze,” in Dynamics and Performativity of Imagination: The Image between the Visible and the Invisible, eds Huppauf B., Wulf C. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 372–395.

Berger H. (1994). Fictions of the pose: facing the gaze of early modern portraiture. Representations 46 87–120. 10.2307/2928780 DOI

Brown S., Dissanayake E. (2009). “The arts are more than aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics as narrow aesthetics,” in Neuroaesthetics. Foundations and frontiers in aesthetics, eds Skov M., Vartanian O. (Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co; ), 43–57. 10.4324/9781315224091-4 DOI

Bullot N., Reber R. (2013). The artful mind meets art history: toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behav. Brain Res. 36 123–137. 10.1017/S0140525X12000489 PubMed DOI

Bundgaard P. F. (2015). Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 14, 781–801. 10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5 DOI

Cañigueral R., Hamilton A. (2019). The role of eye gaze during natural social interactions in typical and autistic people. Front. Psychol. 10:560. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00560 PubMed DOI PMC

Carrier D. (1991). Principles of Art History Writing. University Park, PA: The Penn State University Press.

Cavallo A., Lungu O., Becchio C., Ansuini C., Rustichini A., Fadiga L. (2015). When gaze opens the channel for communication: integrative role of IFG and MPFC. Neuroimage 119 63–69. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.025 PubMed DOI

Cela-Conde C., Agnati L., Huston J., Mora F., Nadal M. (2011). The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Prog. Neurobiol. 94 39–48. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003 PubMed DOI

Chatterjee A. (2012). “Neuroaesthetics: Growing pains of a new discipline,” in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, eds Shimaura A. P., Palmer S. E. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 299–317. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.003.0066 DOI

Chatterjee A., Vartanian O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18 370–375. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003 PubMed DOI

Commare L., Rosenberg R., Leder H. (2018). More than the sum of its parts: perceiving complexity in painting. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12 380–391. 10.1037/aca0000186 DOI

Conty L., George N., Hietanen J. (2016). Watching eyes effects: when others meet the self. Conscious. Cogn. 45 184–197. 10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.016 PubMed DOI

Conway B. R., Rehding A. (2013). Neuroaesthetics and the trouble with beauty. PLoS Biol. 11:e1001504. PubMed PMC

Cronan T. (2013). Against Affective Formalism: Matisse, Bergson, Modernism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001504 DOI

Donald M. (2006). “Art and cognitive evolution,” in The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity, ed. Turner M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 3–20. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.003.0001 DOI

Elkins J., Fiorentini E. (2020). Visual Worlds. Looking, Images, Visual Disciplines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ewing L., Rhodes G., Pellicano E. (2010). Have you got the look? Gaze direction affects judgements of facial attractiveness. Vis. Cogn. 18 321–330. 10.1080/13506280902965599 DOI

George N., Conty L. (2008). Facing the gaze of others. Neurophysiol. Clin. 38 197–207. 10.1016/j.neucli.2008.03.001 PubMed DOI

Gopnik B. (2012). “Aesthetic science and artistic knowledge,” in Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience, eds Shimaura A. P., Palmer S. E. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 299–317.

Hamilton A. (2016). Gazing at me: the importance of social meaning in understanding direct-gaze cues. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371:20150080. 10.1098/rstb.2015.0080 PubMed DOI PMC

Harman G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philos. Rev. 74 88–95. 10.2307/2183532 DOI

Heron J. (1970). The Phenomenology of social encounter: the gaze. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 31 243–264. 10.2307/2105742 DOI

Hietanen J. K. (2018). Affective eye contact: an integrative review. Front. Psychol. 9:1587. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01587 PubMed DOI PMC

Huber H. D. (2005). Paolo Veronese: Kunst Als Soziales Systems. München: Wilhelm Fink.

Hutzler F. (2014). Reverse inference is not a fallacy per se: cognitive processes can be inferred from functional imaging data. Neuroimage 84 1061–1069. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.075 PubMed DOI

Hyman J. (2010). “Art and neuroscience,” in Beyond Mimesis and Convention Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, eds Frigg R., Hunter M. C. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 245–261. 10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7_11 DOI

Kegel L. C., Brugger P., Frühholz S., Grunwald T., Hilfiker P., Kohnen O., et al. (2020). Dynamic human and avatar facial expressions elicit differential brain responses. Soc. Cogn. Affect Neurosci. 15 303–317. 10.1093/scan/nsaa039 PubMed DOI PMC

Kelley M. S., Noah J. A., Zhang X., Scassellati B., Hirsch J. (2021). Comparison of human social brain activity during eye-contact with another human and a humanoid robot. Front. Robot. AI 7:599581. 10.3389/frobt.2020.599581 PubMed DOI PMC

Kemp W. (1998). “The work of art and its beholder,” in The Subjects Of Art History?: Historical Objects In Contemporary Perspectives, eds Cheetham M. A., Holly M. A., Moxey K. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 180–196.

Kesner L. (2006). The role of cognitive competence in the art museum experience. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 21 4–19. 10.1080/09647770600302101 DOI

Kesner L. (2016). Against the affectless iconology of modern art. Umění/Art 64 2–19.

Kesner L., Horáček J. (2017). Empathy-related responses to depicted people in art works. Front. Psychol. 8:228. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00228 PubMed DOI PMC

Kesner L., Grygarová D., Fajnerova I., Lukavsky J., Nekovarova T., Tintera J., et al. (2018). Perception of direct vs. averted gaze in portrait paintings: an fMRI and eye-tracking study. Brain Cogn. 125 88–99. 10.1016/j.bandc.2018.06.004 PubMed DOI

Kubišta F. (1940). Bohumil Kubišta. Praha: Spolek výtvarných uměılců Mánes.

Kubovy M. (2019). Neuroaesthetics: maladies and remedies. Art Percept. 8 1–26. 10.1163/22134913-20191138 DOI

Lombrozo T. (2012). “Explanation and abductive inference,” in The Oxford Handbook Of Thinking And Reasoning, eds Holyoak K. J., Morrison R. G. (Oxford: Oxford library of psychology; ), 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0014 DOI

Massey I. (2009). The Neural Imagination: Aesthetic And Neuroscientific Approaches To The Arts. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Minissale G. (2013). The Psychology Of Contemporary Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Noah A., Zhang X., Dravida S., Ono Y., Naples A., McPartland J., et al. (2020). Real-time eye-to-eye contact is associated with cross-brain neural coupling in angular gyrus. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14:19. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00019 PubMed DOI PMC

Noë A. (2015). How Art Reveals The Limits Of Neuroscience. The Chronicle Of Higher Education. Available online at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-art-reveals-the-limits-of-neuroscience/ (accessed March 15, 2021).

Nummenmaa L., Calder A. J. (2009). Neural mechanisms of social attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13 135–143. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.006 PubMed DOI

Panofsky E. (1953). Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origins And Character. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pearce M., Zaidel D., Vartanian O., Skov M., Leder H., Chatterjee A., et al. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11 265–279. 10.1177/1745691615621274 PubMed DOI

Pfeiffer U., Vogeley K., Schilbach L. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37 2516–2528. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.017 PubMed DOI

Poldrack R. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10 59–63. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.004 PubMed DOI

Rampley M. (2017). The Seductions of Darwin: Art, Evolution, Neuroscience. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 10.5325/j.ctv14gpgkd DOI

Reitstätter L., Brinkmann H., Santini T., Specker E., Dare Z., Bakondi F., et al. (2020). The display makes a difference: a mobile eye tracking study on the perception of art before and after a museum’s rearrangement. Journal of Eye Movement Research 13 10.16910/jemr.13.2.6 PubMed DOI PMC

Schilbach L., Timmermans B., Reddy V., Costall A., Bente G., Schlicht T., et al. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behav. Brain Sci. 36 393–414. 10.1017/S0140525X12000660 PubMed DOI

Senju A., Johnson M. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13 127–134. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009 PubMed DOI

Srp K., Pelikánová G., Novotná Z. (eds) (2014). Bohumil Kubišta/Zářivý Krystal. Praha: Arbor Vitae.

Stawarska B. (2006). Mutual gaze and social cognition. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 5 17–30. 10.1007/s11097-005-9009-4 DOI

Vartanian O., Skov M. (2014). Neural correlates of viewing paintings: evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Brain Cogn. 87C 52–56. 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.004 PubMed DOI

Vassiliou F. (2020). Aesthetic disinterestedness in neuroaesthetics: a phenomenological critique. Aesthetic Invest. 4 77–95.

Wollheim R. (1987). Painting as an Art. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Zrzavý J. (1949). Bohumil Kubišta, in: Život a dílo Bohumila Kubišty ve vzpomínkách současníku. Praha: Aventinum.