I learned from William that a philosopher can be truly polyglot; in this case, William speaks fluently neuroscience, art, and body language (not mentioning philosophy), and combines them brilliantly. The trick is, with my preconceived idea of philosophy talks, I was initially expecting a lengthy wordy presentation. It ended up being way more arduous and multidisciplinary than I thought. It took me some time to adapt to the superimposed messages and the amount of visual information present in his slides. But when I managed (more or less...), I found his presentation really interesting and relevant to the subject of SEEING and KNOWING.

William explained the notion of fast response latencies: the knowledge of basic attributes (such as the structure or function of objects) is integrated very rapidly into perception. In parallel, there is a competitive process by which attentional circuits bias perceptual processing to diagnostic features. Selectivity is a strategy to make us allocate limited perceptual resources to this or this component, on the fly (=instantaneously). He gave the example of the painting Guernica, by Picasso, to show how categorization (KNOWING) can affect our way of looking (SEEING): if we look at Guernica as a cubist painting versus a representation of a village bombed in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, we perceive it differently. Try it (below): you may feel that in the first case, the impression is quiet, while in the second case, it is violent.

I also learned from William that if you push the concept a little further, playing with categorial mismatch can be funny. And here is an example of how a surrealist painter (Salvador Dali) used categorial mismatch to please the viewer in his painting Slave market with the disappearing bust of Voltaire (below), in 1940. Look at the first image, and think that Voltaire is in it. Then look at the the second, and think that the painting represents people all over the place. By KNOWING what you are looking for, you are SEEING differently.

I am tempted to apply William's demonstration to my own perception of his presentation. For example, when William said, in the middle of many other sentences: "categorization can change the diagnosticity of perceptual cues": how did I allocate my attention in the process of accessing and then perceiving his philosophical vocabulary, knowing that I categorized it right away as arduous and unusual to me, and that I categorized William as an a priori valuable speaker since he was invited to this conference? I think both categorizations hooked my attention and I processed it as something I want to learn more about. However this effect did not happened "on the fly" as he said, but rapidly progressively during his talk. 

Then today, 10 days later, I realize that William may actually embody the multidisciplinary aspect of this conference.  One thing for sure is that when I remember him speaking and jumping (conceptually and literally) from one concept to the other, and answering questions, I am thinking his response latencies must be extremely fast, indeed!


This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Ellen that visual design involves not only vision but also words, and that design can be extremely funny. Ellen thinks that design goes well beyond illustration, or pragmatic applications, it helps us telling stories. She illustrated her theory with many examples of visual stories ending up unexpectedly (misdirection), triggering hilarity.
Beyond the fact that she was a highly entertaining speaker (how much fun I had!), here I was again, wondering how the verbal and visual processes interact in the creative brain. Where does the story start: verbally or visually? What comes first, the chicken or the egg? It reminded me of the presentation of  Deborah Aschheim, where it was difficult to differentiate  both processes that were intertwined to create a piece of art. 
In this case Ellen showed us how to manipulate both to create a humorous story line. It reminded me of the reflections of Scott McLoud on sequential art (comics, graphic novels etc). Sequential art is a very good example where both visual and verbal languages are used to create a story, that can be extremely powerful. Scott McLoud analyzed the language of sequential art at length in his books, especially the first one: Understanding Comics, that was a revelation to me (I love comics and graphic novels).  

I find particularly interesting his theory about how the visual language interacts with the verbal language to create the narrative. There are three axes in his "triangle" (picture below): the top of the triangle is the picture plane (a visual and artistic term). I see the bottom left as "visual" (realistic representation of reality) and the bottom right as "verbal" (words and simplified or symbolistic representations of reality). What an original and meaningful way to reframe SEEING and KNOWING! You can visit more of Scott McLoud's work online. Else I would love to have him contribute to an upcoming Conference of Neuroesthetics. Maybe in collaboration with Ellen?

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Cristina that there is a way of SEEING for KNOWING that is highly specialized, practical, and that can be associated with an unexpected appreciation of beauty. As an anthropologist, Cristina is an expert in skilled visions and strongly believes these skills are developed through apprenticeship. 
I was amazed by her demonstration: she presented how cattle breeders produced a highly sophisticated set of visual standards to evaluate the value of the cows, only based on looking at them. By SEEING, these experts KNOW. Cristina also read comments of cattle specialists using a beauty vocabulary to describe the bovines.

I would love that Cristina study the community of contemporary artists with the same anthropologic eye that she put on cow experts: Is there such a thing as a standardized and skilled artistic eye? How would it affect our taste? What would be the gold standard: the now consensual eye of Picasso for example (picture 1)? Are there a lot of cow expert deviants, who question the standardized definition of a nice or valuable cow (picture 2), as there are numerous painters who don't follow the flow? This could lead to a fascinating and controversial anthropology/art joint presentation at an upcoming conference on neuroesthetics. 

I also learned from Cristina that the process of developing skilled vision involves three steps: looking (technique of the body); learning how to look through apprenticeship; and developing a sensibility through repeated acts of looking. Therefore, I imagine apprenticeship could twist our brain to develop either a funny eye (to be able to appreciate picture 3), a prehistoric eye (picture 4), or a butcher eye (picture 5). It makes me reflect on the way art schools train the artistic eye. Wouldn't it be great if Cristina did an anthropological comparison between the set of visual standards developed by artists with an MFA background versus those with none for example?

Finally, if I apply the 3-step theory of Cristina to visual arts, it confirms that developing a visual artistic eye as a skilled vision, regardless of what it means in terms of taste, requires looking, looking, and looking. And practicing. Seen that way, Cezanne, who was known to take an average of 20 minutes between two brushstrokes in order to look again and again at the Montagne Sainte Victoire, had indeed a highly skilled visual eye! 

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Deborah that when it comes to neurology, what is going on behind closed medical doors continues to fascinate non medical people, a la Oliver Sacks. Deborah is a visual artist and used the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, its patients and its machines (EEG, fMRI, eye tracker) as her subject matter. 

In the case of Deborah, I would be more interested to use neurosciences as a tool to analyze the way her brain functions when she manipulates visual versus verbal concepts, both being predominant in the work she showed us. For example, in the drawing below, she represents the mind of a patient with dementia. There is an explicit dialogue between the visual qualities in her work (ex: complex 3D structure floating in space, high contrasted black and white values) and the verbal and conceptual component (words in the bubbles, concept of empty bubbles referring to language loss in this patient). 

Verbal concepts, writing, reading, or drawing are processed through distinct and complex pathways in the brain, more or less overlapping with the visual pathways. What would Deborah's brain activation map look like had we analyzed it while she was developing the visual versus the verbal conceptual parts of her work? Could we connect the dots visually as in the connectome project, or using a visually enabled mapping of the artistic brain of some sort? Or watch it happening live as with the latest visualization technologies at the cellular level? 
Unfortunately, both artistic processes are so intertwined in her work that it would be hard to design an experiment to separate one from another - not talking about the whole thing happening in the tunnel of an MRI machine.
However, wouldn't it be fascinating -and controversial!- to compare how the brain is activated by predominantly conceptual versus predominantly visual art in general? Try out and compare your experience when you focus on each of the two pictures below, one after the other: do you think it triggered the same network of reactions in your brain?

This raises the eternal question of the feasibility of deconstructing the artistic process to a point that is accessible to scientific analysis.

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Harold that you can be a highly productive and internationally recognized visual artist with years of experience, practice and reflection on visual art and design, and still don't understand why this shape or this line does not look right in that particular place on a white sheet of paper. When Harold LOOKED at what he called "upside down scallops" that he just drew, he KNEW this was not right, but he could not explain why.

He told the story of his long neuroesthetic quest to understand the visual language:  he initially looked for "cognitive primitives", not finding them. He then reflected on the appearance of things: is it simply what they look like, or does it purely emerge from the physics of vision, or can a computer get it? And there he was, back to square one. He tried a new direction again: the initial scribble that children draw, that they then enclose in a closed form, that eventually becomes a face. Harold thus decided to draw things from inside. 
I think Harold will never end his quest. I found his persistent curiosity and creativity highly inspiring.
Below is one my favorite paintings of Harold, from his website. There are a few "scallop shapes" here and there if you look closely, but they are all in the "right" position!

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Derek that while we are not SEEING the legs of certain animals painted in prehistoric caves, our human ancestors were probably KNOWING these animals had legs (ex: pictures 1 and 2). A line was enough to embody the notion of horse, or lion etc. With our current brain, we can even SEE that these ancestral representations of nature ranged on a scale of ambiguity, from highly representative depiction of animals, to camouflage art. 

This suggests that the prehistoric visual brain already KNEW how to fill in the missing parts, which shows a certain ability of abstraction. As a matter of fact, Derek showed us some striking similarities between some visual patterns found on the walls in Lascaux, clearly on the ambiguous side of the spectrum, and Mondrian paintings (pictures 3 and 4). Derek also reminded us that the visual brain prioritize the processing of vertical and horizontal lines over other visual inputs in general, which sounded particularly relevant here.

As for Francisco Steen's presentation, I was again pleased to travel through time and imagine how our ancestors' brain functioned, but quite dismounted by the degree of interpretation based solely on visualization of very old paintings. What if the squares in picture 3 were actually the painter trying out new colors? 

Finally, I read online about Derek's interest in primates. I wonder if monkeys also paint like Mondrian? As a matter of fact, at a chimpanzee art context in 2013, the painting of the chimpanzee who won the $10.000 first prize shared some vague similarities with Mondrian and the Lascaux painting (picture 5). Does this validate Derek's working hypothesis? (even knowing the chimpanzee painted it with her tongue?)

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

What is your background?

I studied cognitive sciences in France. More precisely, I started with mathematics, and then I went on to experimental psychology. I did my PhD on signal processing, in Grenoble. Then I did a few post docs in computer sciences, neurosciences and psychology, all around the world (UK, Japan, France and USA).

What brought you to neuroesthetics?

I don’t consider myself a neuroestheticist! I am interested in understanding how people see and memorize. Besides that, what links me to neuroesthetics, indirectly, may be my PhD work on optical illusion, where I produced hybrid images of Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein that are now displayed in art museums.

What led you to the idea of studying memorability?

Memory is the soul. I believe there is a universal and common memory, shared by, let’s say, 50% of the people around the world. Memory is obviously related to culture, but I am interested in the memory that is the least dependent on culture.

How do you relate your work to subliminal images?

The first impression is what matters to me. This is not necessarily dependent on beauty and that is what fascinates me.

Are you an artist?

I appreciate art but I don’t consider myself an artist. However I am proud to have my hybrid optical images displayed in a museum, even though they are not pieces of art in the traditional sense.

Who are your favorite artists?

I like paintings the most. Especially those by Kandinsky or Picasso (cubists). I just love Vasarely. In general, I like when a painting requires that I spend at least 10 minutes watching it to understand it. I also like sculptures when they are very complex.

Art implies a slow process of looking. How would you apply your reseach to art? And do you think memorability, as you define it, should be a criteria to evaluate a good piece of art?

We are starting to look at how people memorize images after watching them for 10 seconds, instead of a few milliseconds.

What is next in the pipeline?

I would like to know how much time it takes for the visualization to take place before memorization. I would like to track exactly how a memorable image is processed, and its printing in the brain.

How did you enjoy the conference? What did you learn?

I learned a lot! What I particularly appreciated is that one can exist without focusing on statistical significance and p-values! I enjoyed this journey through knowledge without being constraint by numbers.


This interview was reviewed and approved but Aude Oliva


This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Aude that SEEING a beautiful image for a few milliseconds does not necessarily make it memorable. In fact, subjective judgement beforehand won't allow you to KNOW if you will remember the image or not. Fascinating in terms of understanding immediate imprint of visual information. However, I am more a painter than a SnapChat addict, so I know there is a lot to gain from slow painting - at least as much as from premier coup. Therefore, I wonder wether looking at the image for a little longer than that (ex 10 minutes) would lead to more familiarity, appreciation or dislike, and thus memorability? The experiment may be worth conducting, and the results more applicable in the art world (that I am interested in) than for social network innovation.

I also learned from Aude that the shape of objects (or faces) and the shape of space are processed through two distinct pathways in the brain. This is fascinating because it resonates with my understanding of brain functioning as a neurologist and applies directly to my work as an artist. I am thinking this may explain why it is so hard to integrate the background while painting a still life, unless space becomes an object to paint by itself. For example look at how the background is integrated in Cezanne's Still life with flower holder (left) and compare with Wettstein's Just an Old bottle... (right). I would love to record your brain while you are doing it. I would bet that when you look at each of these still lifes, the visual information is processed through two distinct pathways in your brain. The fact that this may happen after looking at it for only a few milliseconds, as the work of Aude on photos of objects suggests, makes it even more powerful.

Finally, I learned from Aude that modifying faces thanks to a computer program, can make them more (or less) memorable after looking at them for only a few milliseconds. I felt like we were walking on a slippery slope here. I would love to hear Aude discuss how she deals with ethics in her research on memorability, if we chose this theme for an upcoming neuroesthetics conference. 

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I learned from Francis that our human ancestors were scattered loners until they started producing artsy representations of the world (ex: cave painting like the one below), that anchored the development of their group identity: by recognizing the mind, they constructed the self, as if SEEING allowed them to KNOW they were a group. This loads visual arts with a great responsibility in the development of social humankind. I am not sure art is the sole medium or vector of the construction of the group. I naively think that empathy and mirror neurons may play a significant role in the development of the social bound as well - not mutually exclusive. 

It was very refreshing for me, given my scientific background, to attend this first presentation of the conference made of words and images only (no statistical analysis!), and see that one can develop so many hypotheses based on the sole visual observation of primitive objects of art. Isn't Francis' job itself really about SEEING and then KNOWING? At the same time, as a scientist, I can't resist to reflect on the limitations of post-processual archaelogogy, and wonder if one can really KNOW only by LOOKING (and thinking).

This is part of a series of posts on the 11th International Conference on Neuroesthetics (September 2014).

I was there!
This was my first time meeting a crowd of neuroestheticists: mainly academics and only a tint of art, but I felt overall at ease and at home. Very nice atmosphere and passionate discussions in the corridors. Hanging around with them was definitively more fun than attending a neurology or immunology conference!
See the program here.
Video recordings of the sessions on the Berkeley youtube channel in about 2 weeks. 
In the meantime, read my upcoming series of blog posts summarizing what I learned.