How not to see                             Detlef B. Linke

Theses on Art and Brain

1.           Artists work since 200 years against Hegel. In Hegel’s opinion art had a leading role for the development in the history of mind only in the times of the ancient greek. For the integration of subject and object in modern times in Hegel’s terms the dialectical process is constitutive to which art can not contribute anymore. But art did show the resistance of the object, did even veil or destroy it, did show its non-presence or did deliver it into a process of its own, so, that a dialectical integration or “overcoming” of the object was no more possible. In this way art could show that it was more at the front of progress than Hegel’s attempt to integrate two steps into one.

2.           Cognitive processes need less neuronal capacity and have more flexibility when no constant pictures are engrammed but instead changing attributes are used. Not to see improves cognition. The objects which were covered by Christo and Jeanne-Claude are more accessible for cognition in the covered version than in the visible one. The prohibition of pictures or statues gives power for thinking. In case that the original which is not demonstrated is not known, thinking can start into an infinite process.

3.           It would be a deep misunderstanding to parallel the prohibition of pictures with oedipal blinding.

4.           The development of the nervous system is characterised by loss and gain. In artificial neuronal networks for object perception it can be demonstrated that perception can be improved by reduction of the elements for connection and by increase of connectivity. The fourth year in child development can be characterised by such a process. Now is the question, whether neuronal loss can be felt. Is it a reduction of existence? In many cases the nervous system does not notice its own shortcomings. But perhaps the cell death in development has some parallel in the dynamics of gaining strength in cognition and loosing some feeling of “being”. This dynamics lays the ground for many cultural interpretations and situations of which narciss and oedipus are only a selection. One might do the guess, that oedipus is more close to the interpretation of loss and gain. The narcissistic interpretation is less appropriate because it does not show why there comes pain. The process of loss and gain could give the possibility to describe the relation to the commandments not only as loss but also as gain.

5.           The neuronal metaphor gives space for conceiving the organisms infinite relation to law not merely as an entelechia but as being developed by corrections and feedback.

6.           The origin of metaphysics with its basic notions of actuality and potentiality can be made plausible by Socrates being a stonemason. The basic notions were developed by noticing that in the evening Socrates thought of the sculptures next day to make. He noticed their potentiality.

7.           Socrates, as a stonemason, had no proper relation to organisms. His maieutics  did not give birth to healthy babies but ended up with abortion.

8.           Nowadays Socrates projections might be realised in a computer model, allowing discrete interruption by Xantippa. The new media can help to overcome the problems with imagination.

9.           The description of the organism with the notions of actuality and potentiality is insufficient. In the concept of self-organisation the artist and the statue are identical. But we should not forget, that concepts of responsibility are based on the distinction of subject and object as in the distinction of artist and sculpture. Responsibility should not be lost in self-organisation.

10.        Self-organisation does not mean, that there need not be any influence of law or commandments onto society. Pedagogic needs to demonstrate basic laws (“don’t hurt”) to catalyse self-organisation, otherwise it would be a misunderstanding of self-organisation.

11.        Cathartic processes with violence in media help to get rid of aggressive potentials, but they constitute the form of a society by showing the way how to get rid of it. They free from actual aggression but facilitate to live it out next time.

12.        To prevent the violence in the virtual media to get into reality cannot sufficiently be secured by stressing the difference between virtuality and reality. This border becomes less and less clear. There must be some teaching of “don’t hurt”.

13.        Reality does not get lost by the media, but by not thinking of Auschwitz.

14.        To see the star you have sometimes to stare beneath. Look for the law even if it is in the dark, the light might follow.

15.        Artists experiment with their brain. They do not only show the specification of visual areas (V1, V4, V5 and so forth) but they also demonstrate the relation between seeing and not seeing, between consciousness and non-consciousness. They are candidates for a Nobel prize in medicine.

16.        Neuroscience can bring knowledge about the distribution of information in the left and right side of a picture. It may come to similar principles as aesthetic theory did come on intuitive grounds. So, for example, neuropsychology can affirm Kandinsky’s rule that the dark and heavy has got to be put into the left lower quarter of a picture.

17.        Art cannot be caught by neuroscientific principles. The principles of right-left organisation in art are overcome by art itself, so, when Sigmar Polke puts a black triangle into the right upper corner of a picture and writes: “Higher beings order: Black triangle into right upper corner!” Therefore Beuys saying that everybody is an artist can be transformed in such a way that one can say about everybody, that she is a scientist.

Bibliographical note

Linke, D.B.: Einsteins Doppelgänger. Das Gehirn und sein Ich.

C.H. Beck Verlag, München 2000

Linke, D.B.: Kunst und Gehirn. Die Eroberung des Unsichtbaren. Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 2001