CHAPTER The Arts are More than Aesthetics Neuroaesthetics as Narrow Aesthetics Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake Neuroaesthetics is a young enough field that there seems to be no established view o - PDF document

CHAPTER4TheArtsareMorethanAesthetics:NeuroaestheticsasNarrowAestheticsStevenBrownandEllenDissanayakeNeuroaestheticsisayoungenoughfieldthatthereseemstobenoestablishedviewofitspropersubjectmatter.Morphologically,thetermimpliesthescientificstudyofneuralaspectsoftheperceptionofartworkssuchaspaintings,orelementsofartworkssuchasmusicalintervals.Weareconcerned,however,thatpractitionersofthisnewfieldmaynotbeawareofthetremendousambiguitiesinherentintheterms�aesthetics�and�art,�onesthatlimitaproperunderstandingofhumanartbehavior.Connotationsofthesetermsareparticularlyinappropriateandmis-leadingwhenconsideringtheexperiences,practices,andfunctionsoftheartsinpreindustrial,folk,aboriginal,orPleistocenesocieties,andevenincontemporarypopularculture.Itisonlyduringthelasttwocenturiesthattheterms�Art�(withanimpliedcapitalA,connotinganindependentrealmofprestigiousandrevelatoryworks)and�aesthetics�(asaunique,andevenreverential,modeofattentiontowardsuchworks)havetakenontheirpresentelitistmeaningsandbecomeunavoidablyintertwined(Davies,2006;Shiner,2001).Theword�aesthetic�(fromtheGreek,havingtodowiththesenses)wasfirstusedin1735byaGermanphilosopherinabookonpoetry(Baumgarten,1735/1954),andsincethattimehasbeenemployedintwodifferent,butnotalwaysdistinct,ways.Enlightenmentphilosophersandtheirfollowersgraduallydevelopedthenowelitistnotionofaesthetic��aspecialformofdisinterestedknowledgeandappreciation�todescribetheemotionalresponseelicitedbytheperceptionofgreatworksofart(Shiner,2001).Whilethismeaningofaesthetichasstronghistoricalconnectionswiththeartsandwithartworks,asecondusagehascometorefertoanyvaluesystemhavingtodowiththeappreciationofbeauty,suchasthebeautyofnature.Inrecentdecades,forexample,someethologistsandevolutionarypsychologistshaveadoptedthissecond,broadernotionofaestheticsinanewfield,originallycalled�landscape aesthetics�(Appleton,1990;Orians,2001;Ruso,Renninger,&Atzwanger,2003)or�Darwinianaesthetics�(Thornhill,1998),butgenerallycalled�evolutionaryaesthetics�(Voland&Grammer,2003)today.Evolutionaryaestheticsinvestigatessensorypreferencesinanimalsandhumansthatpromoteselectiveattentionandpositiveemotionalresponsestowardobjectsintheenvironmentthatleadtoadaptivedecisionmakingandproblemsolving(Orians,2001).Objectsperceivedinthismannerareconsideredtobebeautiful(Thornhill,1998).FollowingDarwin(1871),whonotedthatanimals(especiallybirds)seemedtoappreciatebeautyandwhoattributedthespectacularcolorsandpatternsofmalebirdstofemalechoice,someworkersinevolutionaryaestheticshaveproposedthathumanartarosebysexualselectioninasimilarmannertothecourtshipdisplaysperformedbymalebirdstoattractfemalesformating(e.g.,Miller,2000,2001).Althoughworkersinevolutionaryaestheticsdonotovertlyadheretotheelitistphilosophicalconnotationsofaesthetics,someneverthelesswriteasthoughtheirfindingsareapplicabletoanunderstandingofhumanresponsestoartandbeauty(e.g.,Thornhill,1998).Judgingbytheworkpublishedthusfarunderthebannerofneuroaesthetics,thisfieldseemstobeexpresslyconcernedwithart,notleastthemasterpiecesofEuropeanvisualartandevenabstractpaintings(e.g.,Kawabata&Zeki,2004;Solso,1994;Vartanian&Goel,2004;Zeki,1999).WesuspectthatthisinterestinelitevisualartarisesfromtheimplicitassociationofbothartandaestheticswiththeeighteenthcenturyEurocentricnotionsoftheseconcepts.Inthischapter,wesuggestthatpresent-dayneuroaestheticsislimitedinthreeimportantrespectsbyanarrow,culture-boundsenseofaesthetics/art.First,itsaestheticdata�basedonsensoryperceptsandpreferences�applytoamuchwiderrangeofobjectsthanartobjects.Neuroaesthetics,likeevolutionaryaestheticsandotherscientificnotionsofaesthetics,ispredicatedonaclassofemotionswhosebiologicalfunctionistogenerateanappraisalofthepropertiesofobjects.However,aestheticemotions,seenhereasgeneralappraisalsoflikeordislike,aresuperordinate:theyarecriticalinalllivingcreaturesforassessingawidevarietyofobjectsimportantforbiologicalsurvival,asinevolutionaryaesthetics,wheretheyincludelandscapes,foodquality,theappearanceandbehaviorsofconspecifics,andsoforth.Strictlyspeaking,itisthisbroadarea�notworksofartalone�thatdefinesthedomainofneuroaesthetics;abettergoalforthefieldwouldbetodevelopageneral,superordinatetheoryofaestheticresponsesthatappliestoallappraisedobjectsratherthanonelinkedtoartworks(orlandscapesormates,forthatmatter).Aspresentlyconceived,neuroaestheticshasnowayofdistinguishingartfromnonart.Characterizingtheneuralresponseselicitedbyviewingamodernabstractpaintingbegsthequestionthatwhatisbeingassessedisaresponsetoart.Inthenextsection,wepresentaviewofartasabehaviorof�artification,�aneologismthatallowsustothinkofartasanactivity,inotherwordsassomethingthatpeopledo(to�artify�).Second,theartsthemselvesdealwithamuchbroaderrealmofhumanexperiencethanaestheticresponsesorpreferencesforfeatures.Afocusonsuchresponsesandpreferences,eveninindividualartworks,reducestheartstothelevelofreceiverpsychologyandsocialfunctionlessness,aspresupposedinmanyphilosophicalapproachestothefineartsbasedonEnlightenmentprinciples.Although44/NEUROAESTHETICS ceremonies,asbehavioralmanifestationsofcognitivebeliefsystemsaboutthewaytheworldworks(Alcorta&Sosis,2005),havesomecommoncharacteristics.Theyareperformedattimesofperceiveduncertainty,whenindividualsandgroupswishtoinfluencetheoutcomesofcircumstancesthattheyperceiveasvitaltotheirlivelihoodandsurvival(Dissanayake1992,inpress;Rappaport,1999;Turner,1969).Theyaretypically,combiningsinging,instrumentplaying,dancing,literarylanguage,dramaticspectacle,andthedecorationofbodies,surroundings,andparaphernalia.Inaddition,theyaretypically:evenwhenanaudienceobservesspecialistsperforming,theyjoininbyclapping,moving,shouting,singing,andsoforth.AsJohnChernoff,ascholarofWestAfricandrumming,hasobserved:�themostfundamentalaestheticinAfricaisthatwithoutparticipation,thereisnomeaning�(Chernoff,1979,p.23).Theartsinceremonialcontextsprovideamultitudeofcriticalsocialfunctionsforculturessmallandlarge,includinghistoriographicfunctionsrelatedtoasociety�sancestryandidentity;discursivefunctionsrelatedtothejustificationandfeasibilityofplannedendeavors;functionsrelatedtothemarkingoftime(e.g.,calendricalrituals[harvests],life-cyclerituals[weddings,funerals,births]);communicationwithdeities;reliefofanxietyandstress;socialcoordination,tonamebutafew.Amajorpurposeofartsactivitiesistofostercooperationinsupportofcollectiveendeavors,suchashunting,foraging,resistingenemies,buildinginfrastructure,andthelike.Theartsarealsothemajormeansofmaintainingsocialharmonyandamelioratingconflictswithingroups.Thegroupbenefitsoftheartsacrossculturesarestrongandwidespread.Reducingthearts�adaptivefunctiontoindividualsexualdisplay,assexualselectionistshaveproposed(Miller,2000),makestheartsintoacompletelycompetitiveenterprise,whenthereisanabundanceofevidencetosuggestthattheartsdopreciselytheopposite,fostercooperationandobviateindi-vidualcompetitiveness.Hence,whileweacknowledgetheexistenceofsexualdisplayinthecontextofarts-suffusedrituals,werejectareductionoftheartstosexualdisplay.Infact,ifaconnectionisindeedtobefoundhere,itismorelikelythatsexualdisplayisasecondaryoffshootofthegroup-assemblyaspectofceremonialritualsratherthanthereverse(Brown,2000).Oncethegroupcomestogetherforthebusinessofcollectivesurvival,therecanbeopportunitiesforsexualdisplaywithinsuchacontext.Wesuggestthatitisprofitabletoconsidertheartsnotasobjects(paintings,songs),qualitiesofobjects(beauty,consonance),cuestosensory-cognitivepreferences,orpassiveregistrationsofsensory/cognitivestimuli,butasbehaviorsofartification�thingsthatpeopledo.Overseveraldecades,oneofus[ED]hasgraduallyrefinedsuchaconcept(Dissanayake,1988,1992,2000,inpress).Artification(originallycalled�makingspecial�)referstotheuniversallyobservedpenchantofhumanindividuals(andgroups)to�makeordinaryrealityextraordinary�(Dissanayake,1992,p.49).Anunderstandingofartificationanditsmanifestationsinhumanritualpracticesismadeclearerbyanapplicationoftheethologicalconceptof�ritualization,�asdevelopedinthestudyofotheranimals(Tinbergen,1952).Briefly,ritualizedbehaviorsarecommunicativedisplaysthattakeordinary,unremarkablebehaviors46/NEUROAESTHETICS (Murray&Trevarthen,1985;Nadel,Carchon,Kervella,Marcelli,&R�serbet-Plantey,1999).Suchcoordinated,dyadicbehaviorishypothesizedbyDissanayake(2000;inpress)tohaveoriginatedasabehavioraladaptationthataddressedthe�obstetricdilemma�oftwomillionyearsagowhentheanatomicaltrendtowardanarrowedpelvisinfullybipedalHomoerectusconflictedatchildbirthwithaconcomitantanatomicaltrendtowardenlargedbrainsandskulls.Amongotheradaptations(e.g.,separablepubicsymphysisinfemalesatparturition,compressibleinfantskull,extensivepostnatalbraingrowth),thegestationperiodwassignificantlyreduced(Falk,1998;Gould,1977;Portmann,1941),resultinginhelplessinfantsdependentontheircaretakersforyears,ratherthanweeksormonthsasinotherprimates.Amother�ssimplification,repetition,elaboration,andexaggerationofaffinitivecommunicativebehaviors(e.g.,smiling,openeyes,eyebrowflash,headbob,headnod,softundulantvocalization,touching,patting,kissing)servedtoreinforceaffinitiveneuralnetworksinherownbrainand,whenperformedonasharedtemporalbasis,alsosetupameansofneuralcoordinationofbehaviorandofmatchingofaffectivechangebetweenthepair(Beebe,Lachmann,&Jaffe,1997;Trevarthen,1979).Mother-infantinteractionwouldseemtooperatelikearitualizedbehavior,wheresignalsfromonecontext(affinitive,prosocialbehaviors,observableinhumanadultsandotherprimates)arealteredandcometomeansomethingdifferentor,inthiscase,fosteranadaptivemutualemotionalbond.Dissanayake(2000;inpress)suggeststhathumansensitivitytoandcompetencefortheoperationsofartificationoriginatedphylogeneticallyinevolvedinteractionsbetweenancestralmothersandtheirimmatureinfants.ATHEORYOFEMOTIONWehavearguedthattheconceptofaesthetics,unencumberedbyitsEurocentricconflationwithart,appliestoawidearrayofobjects(asinevolutionaryaesthetics),andthataneuraltheoryoftheartsrequiresmuchmorethananeuroaestheticanalysisofsensorypreferencesforartobjects.Anunderstandingoftheproperconnectionbetweenneuroaestheticsandtheartsrequiresnotonlyafunctionalanalysisofthebehaviorscomprisedintheartsbut,equallyimportantly,agroundingofaestheticresponsesinatheoryofhumanemotion.Weunderstandemotionsasbeingresponsestoeventsorobjectsintheenvironment,drivenbyappraisalsofgoodnessorbadness.Theyarestronglytiedtogoal-drivenmotivationalstatesimportantforsurvival,asrelatedtofeeding,self-defense,mating,migration,andsoforth.Theconceptofemotionrequiresthreecriticalfacets:valence,intensity,andfocus.Valencereferstothefactthatthevastmajorityofemotionsfallbinarilyintothecategoriesofpositiveandnegative(Ortony&Turner,1990).Inotherwords,mostemotionalappraisalsareexperiencedaseither�goodforme�or�badforme.�Incontrasttothisdiscretedivision,emotionsvaryinintensityalongagradedscalefromweaktostrong.Frustrationandgladnessarelow-intensityemotionscomparedwithhighlyintensecounterpartslikerageandecstasy.Syntheticschemasthatunitevalenceandintensityincludethe�circumplex�48/NEUROAESTHETICS moralassessmentoftheactionsofanagent(e.g.,ofapolitician,boss,orstoreclerk).Hence,aschemesuchasthatproposedbyCloreandOrtonypermitsanappreciationofthe�multifocus�natureofemotiontermsinawaythattheBETsimplycannot.Socialinteraction.Thefourthcategoryoffocus,whichweofferhereasarefinementoftheClore/Ortonyscheme,involvesvalencedreactionstosocialinteractionswithotherpeople.Whilesimilartothemoralemotionsdiscussedunderagency,theseemotionsgobeyondsimpleappraisalsofagency,andcanprobablybebestencapsulatedbythecomfort/discomfortemotionalspectrum.Dowefeelthatpeopleareonoursideoragainstus?Aretheysupportingourgoalsorthwartingthem?Whenouregofeelsthreatenedbysomeonewhomweperceiveasbeingbetterormorecompetentthanourselves,itisthisfourthcategorythatisexperienced.Onthepositiveside,thisinvolvesemotionslikelove,trust,andaffiliationthataresocentraltotheexperienceofthearts.Thesearerewardingemotionsthatarenotaestheticinnaturebutthatdefinitelyreinforceaestheticassessments.Wewilltalkmorebelowabouttheinterplaybetweenattraction(anaestheticemotion)andaffiliation(asocial-interactionemotion).Onthenegativesideisabasicemotionwhich,likedisgust,hascomplexmultifocusconnotations,namelyfear.Fearisan�outcome�emotionrelatedtopredictionsofnegativeconsequencesforfutureevents(e.g.,stagefrightrelatedtoaclasspresentation),butfearisalsoastrongsocial-interactionemotionrelatedtoaperceptionofpeople�sintenttothwartourgoalsorhurtus(i.e.,beingafraidofsomeone).Beyondthesefourgeneralfociofemotion,thereisanimportantinterplayamongemotionsofasimilarvalencethattendtoactinamutuallyreinforcingmanner.Weproposethatthereisaunionofemotionsthatvaryinfocusbutaresimilarinvalence.Forexample,peopletendtoevaluateasmorallygoodthosethingsthattheythinkofasaestheticallybeautiful,andasbadthosethingstheyassessasugly.Hence,inmythology,thewickedwitchisuglyandthegoodprinceishandsome.Innumerouspremodernsocieties(e.g.,Basongye,Dinka,Igbo,Javanese,Lega,Senufo,Temne,Wahgi,amongmanyothers),thegood(refined,wholesome)andthebeautifulareconceptuallyinseparable(Dissanayake,1992;vanDamme,1996).Socially,weassessasmorallygoodthosepeoplewhosupportourgoalsandaroundwhomwefeelcomfortable.Wetendtofindthemattractive(ifnotimmediately,atleastovertime).So,aestheticandmoralevaluationsofagivenobjecttendtobeparallel(Brown&Volgsten,2006).Situationswheretheyfailtobesotendtocausefeelingsofcognitivedissonance;weareconfusediftheuglywitchisbenevolentorthehandsomeprinceisevil.Insum,wetendtomakeparallelappraisalsofmultipleaspectsofobjectsorsituations,andtheseappraisalstendtobemutuallyreinforcingalongthelinesofvalence.Tosummarize,anunderstandingofaestheticsmustberootedinatheoryofhumanemotion,whichincludesthedimensionsofvalence,intensity,andfocus.The�basicemotion�theorylackssufficienttheoreticalsophisticationforanaccurateunderstandingoffocus.WebelievethattheClore/Ortonytheoryisaricherviewofemotion.Ofthefourfociofemotionthatwediscussed,�aspectsofobjects�istheonemostdirectlyrelatedtoaestheticemotions.However,ourpleaistolookbeyondaestheticemotionsandrecognizethecomplexnetworkofemotions50/NEUROAESTHETICS olfactionandgustationwithinneuronsoftheOFCisthoughttomediatethehigher-ordersensationofflavor(Rolls,2005).Cross-modalassociationsarepresenteveninveryyounginfantsandincludevisual,kinetic,andvocalassociations(Schore,1994).OtherbrainareasthathavebeenimplicatedinemotionalprocessingshowmorevalencespecificitythantheOFC.Forexample,positiveemotionsareassociatedwithareasliketheventralstriatum(nucleusaccumbens),ventraltegmentalarea,periaqueductalgray,andtheirassociateddopaminergicandopiateneurotransmittersystems(Burgdorf&Panksepp,2006).Negativeemotionsareassociatedwithareasliketheamygdalaandanterior/ventralinsula.So,theorbitofrontalcortexisperhapsthebestcandidateforasuperordinateemotionareathatspansbothvalenceandfocus.Itisalsooneofthecorticalreceivingareasforvisceralafferents,whichthusprovidescluesregardingthemechanismbywhichitcanmakeanappraisalofvalence.Bymediatingacomparisonbetweenexteroceptiveinformationfromallthesensorypathways(viatheir�what�orobject-recognitionpathways)andinteroceptiveinformationfromtheorgansystems,theorbitofrontalcortexisinagoodpositiontogenerateanassessmentof�goodforme�vs.�badforme�andhenceassignvalencetotheemotionalappraisalofastimulus.Inaddition,theOFCisaparalimbicareathatiscloselyconnectedwithmnemonicareasliketheparahippo-campalgyrusandhippocampus,thusmodulatingthememorabilityofstimuli.Italsoprojectsextensivelytosubcorticalmotivation-emotionintegrationcenters,especiallyintherighthemisphere(Tucker,1992).TheimportanceoftheOFCfortheappreciationofartobjectslikesymphoniesandsculpturesmayderiveevolutionarilyfromthefunctionofthispartofthecortexinmakingappraisalsoftheolfactoryandgustatorypropertiesoffoodsourcesandperhapsconspecificsaswell.TheOFCisalsoimportantforaffiliativeinteractions,whichisthetopicofthenextsection.AFFILIATIONvs.ATTRACTIONBothmusicalanthropologistsandpopularmusictheoristsagreethatWesternthinkingabouttheartsisbasedonanofartworks(seealsoculturaltheoristShiner,2001).Artgenresareseentobecomposedofcollectionsofdiscrete�artworks�(e.g.,books,symphonies,ballets)havingindividualauthorship(Stockfelt,2006).Becauseaestheticemotionsarethosethatrelatetothepropertiesofobjects,itisperhapsnaturaltoreducetheartstotheappraisalofobjects,namely,aestheticresponses.However,asdescribedabove,webelievethatatheoryoftheartsbasedexclusivelyonthepropertiesofobjectsisinadequate.HavingdescribedthefourfociofemotionsinourmodificationoftheClore/Ortonytheory,wefeelitimportanttoemphasizethattheefficacyoftheartsintermsofhumanbehaviorisdependentupontheproductionandperceptionofalltypesofemotionsandnotjustobject-basedaestheticemotions.Wesuggestthatoneofthemostsignificant(andunderstudied)emotionsthatdrivestheartsissocialaffiliation,anemotionofstrongrewardvalue.Thisistiedinwithourviewthatoneofthemostimportantfunctionsoftheartsistocreateandreinforceasenseofsocialunitysoastopromotecooperationandcohesionwithinsocialgroups.Infact,affiliativeinteractionsaretheverybasis52/NEUROAESTHETICS responsesareacriticalfacetoftheexperienceofthearts,neuroaestheticswillnodoubtprovideimportantenlightenmentfortheneuralstudyofthearts.Andyet,neuroartsologywillcovermuchmoregroundthanthatofferedbyneuroaesthetics.Asmentioned,theartstakeadvantageofallaspectsofcognitivelifeandcapitalizeonallfourcategoriesofhumanemotionsdescribedinthischapter,notonlyaestheticemotions.Inaddition,neuroartsologyplacesastrongemphasisonthebehavioralfunctionsofproducingandperceivingart.Itdoesnotreducetheproductsofartificationtotheaestheticresponsesofperceivers,responsesthatarelittledifferentfromresponsestoanyothersalientstimulus.Perhapsmostimportantly,neuroartsologyencompassesahostofcognitiveandbehavioralmechanismsoftheartsthathavenodirectaestheticfunctionsorconsequences.Featuresoftheartssuchaspitch-combinationrulesinmusic,rhythmicentrainmentindanceormusic,role-playingindramaordance,orimagecreationthroughdrawingorpaintingneednothaveanydirectaestheticfunctionandmayinsteadbeservingsocialrolesrelatedtomotivatingpeopletotakeuparms,communicatingwithdeities,educatingpeopleabouttheirancestrallineages,orassuaginganxietyandgeneratingcatharsisafteramisfortune.Aestheticemotionsareunquestionablyanintegralpartofthearts,buttheyareneithernecessarynorsufficienttocharacterizethem.Thus,anarrowfocusonaestheticresponsesisultimatelyadistractionfromthelargerpictureofwhattheartsareabout.Finally,totheextentthattheartsareperceivedasrewarding,thisisnotsoonlybecauseartworksareappealingobjects.Thereisawidevarietyofrewardingemotionsthatoccurwhenpeoplecreateandexperienceartapartfromsimplyobject-basedemotions,includingthepleasureofsocialcommunionandthemoralzealofcommoncause.Aharon,I.,Etcoff,N.,Ariely,D.,Chabris,C.F.,O�Connor,E.,&Breiter,H.C.(2001).Beautifulfaceshavevariablerewardvalue:fMRIandbehavioralevidence.Neuron,32,Alcorta,C.S.,&Sosis,R.(2005).Ritual,emotion,andsacredsymbols:Theevolutionofreligionasanadaptivecomplex.HumanNature,16,Anderson,A.K.,Christoff,K.,Stappen,I.,Panitz,D.,Ghahremani,D.G.,Glover,G.,etal.(2003).Dissociatedneuralrepresentationofintensityandvalenceinhumanolfaction.NatureNeuroscience,6,Appleton,J.(1990).Thesymbolismofhabitat.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress.Bartels,A.,&Zeki,S.(2004).Theneuralcorrelatesofmaternalandromanticlove.Neuroimage,21,Baumgarten,A.(1735/1954).Reflectionsonpoetry.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Beebe,B.,Lachmann,F.L.,&Jaffe,J.(1997).Mother-infantinteractionstructuresandpresymbolicselfandobjectrepresentations.PsychoanalyticDialogues,7,Blood,A.J.,&Zatorre,R.J.(2001).Intenselypleasurableresponsestomusiccorrelatewithactivityinbrainregionsimplicatedinrewardandemotion.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,98,11818-11823.Blood,A.J.,Zatorre,R.J.,Bermudez,P.,&Evans,A.C.(1999).Emotionalresponsestopleasantandunpleasantmusiccorrelatewithactivityinparalimbicbrainregions.Neuroscience,2,382-387.54/NEUROAESTHETICS Kawabata,H.,&Zeki,S.(2004).Neuralcorrelatesofbeauty.JournalofNeurophysiology,,1699-1705.Miall,D.S.,&Dissanayake,E.(2003).Thepoeticsofbabytalk.HumanNature,337-364.Miller,G.(2000).Thematingmind:HowsexualchoiceshapedtheevolutionofhumannatureNewYork:Doubleday.Miller,G.(2001).Aestheticfitness:Howsexualselectionshapedartisticvirtuosityasafitnessindicatorandaestheticpreferencesasmatechoicecriteria.BulletinofPsychologyandtheArts,2,20-25.Miller,W.B.,&Rodgers,J.L.(2001).Theontogenyofhumanbondingsystems:Evolutionaryorigins,neuralbases,andpsychologicalmechanisms.Dordrecht:Kluwer.Murray,L.,&Trevarthen,C.(1985).Emotionalregulationofinteractionbetweentwomonth-oldsandtheirmothers.InT.Field&N.Fox(Eds.),Socialperceptionininfants(pp.177-197).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.Nadel,J.,Carchon,I.,Kervella,C.,Marcelli,D.,&R�serbet-Plantey,D.(1999).Expectanciesforsocialcontingencyin2-month-olds.DevelopmentalScience,2,164-173.Nakamura,K.,Nagumo,S.,Ito,K.,Sugiura,M.,Kato,T.,Nakamura,A.,etal.(1998).Neuroanatomicalcorrelatesoftheassessmentoffacialattractiveness.NeuroReport,9,Nelson,E.,&Panksepp,J.(1998).Brainsubstratesofinfant-motherattachment:Contri-butionsofopioids,oxytocin,andnorepinepherine,NeuroscienceandBiobehavioralReviews,22,437-452.Nitschke,J.B.,Nelson,E.E.,Rusch,B.D.,Fox,A.S.,Oakes,T.R.&Davidson,R.J.(2004).OrbitofrontalcortextrackspositivemoodinmothersviewingpicturesoftheirnewbornNeuroImage,21,O�Doherty,J.,Winston,J.,Critchley,H.,Perrett,D.,Burt,D.M.&Dolan,R.J.(2003).Beautyinasmile:Theroleofmedialorbitofrontalcortexinfacialattractiveness.Neuropsychologia,41,147-155.Orians,G.H.(2001).Anevolutionaryperspectiveonaesthetics.BulletinofPsychologyandtheArts,2(1),25-29.Ortony,A.,&Turner,T.(1990).What�sbasicaboutbasicemotions?PsychologicalReview,,315-331.Pedersen,C.A.,Caldwell,J.D.,Jirikowski,G.F.,&Insel,T.R.(Eds.).(1992).Oxytocininmaternal,sexualandsocialbehaviors.AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences,652Portmann,A.(1941).DieTragzeitderPrimatenunddieDauerderSchwangerschaftbeimMenschen:EinProblemdervergleichendeBiologie.RevueSuissedeZoologie,48Rappaport,R.A.(1999).Ritualandreligioninthemakingofhumanity.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.Reisenzein,R.(1994).Pleasure-arousaltheoryandtheintensityofemotions.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,525-539.Rolls,E.T.(2004).Convergenceofsensorysystemsintheorbitofrontalcortexinprimatesandbraindesignforemotion.TheAnatomicalRecord,281A,1212-1225.Rolls,E.T.(2005).Taste,olfactory,andfoodtextureprocessinginthebrain,andthecontroloffoodintake.PhysiologyandBehavior,85,45-56.Ruso,B.,Renninger,L.,&Atzwanger,K.(2003).Humanhabitatpreferences:Agenerativeterritoryforevolutionaryaestheticsresearch.InE.Voland&K.Grammer(Eds.),Evolutionaryaesthetics(pp.279-294).Berlin:Springer-Verlag.Schore,A.N.(1994).Affectregulationandtheoriginoftheself:Theneurobiologyofemotionaldevelopment.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.56/NEUROAESTHETICS