The Deconstructive Theatre Project is hosting a panel discussion at 3rd Ward in Brooklyn on Thursday, September 13th, that will explore the intersection of brain science and the arts. The Beautiful Brain editor Noah Hutton will be on the panel along with several artists and a cognitive neuroscientist. Here is the description of the event from the site:
Are you curious about what occurs inside your head while you sit in the dark watching a film? How does your mind organize the bombardment of images, voices, music, and light in order to create a cohesive narrative experience? How does your brain keep track of story, why do you empathize so effortlessly with the characters, and what leads you to fall in love with or loathe a film?
This is Your Brain on Art is an interactive panel discussion exploring neuroaesthetics: the study of your brain during an artistic experience, and specifically neurocinematics: the study of your brain on film. The interactive conversation will feature guest cognitive neuroscientists and members of The Deconstructive Theatre Project’s performance ensemble and creative team. The conversation will be moderated by the company’s Founding Director, Adam J. Thompson.
On July 21, 2012 the Ukrainian scientist and doctor Leo Gerbilsky presented his ideas about art and the brain at the 8th FENS Forum of Neuroscience in Barcelona. His concept, called CEREBRART, integrates the cultures of the arts and sciences and suggests a new way of understanding neuroscience. Professor Gerbilsky has proposed a model of the brain as a chaotically connected dynamic network of seven modules: Integration, Information, Motivation, Intention, Volition, Action, and Reflection. Dr. Gerbilsky has created a blog, also called CEREBRART, where he explains his work and displays work that inspires him, such as this image of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.
In my work translating Santiago Ramón y Cajal’s Café Chats, I came across the following quote: “Like creatures of the deep sea, great geniuses go forth illuminated by their own light.” Cajal is referring to bioluminescence, the ability of certain creatures to produce light without the sun’s energy. Currently, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, there is a special exhibition called CREATURES OF LIGHT: NATURE’S BIOLUMINESCENCE, which highlights these amazing organisms. With scaled-up models of fireflies (not flies at all, but rather beetles, you will learn) and iPad videos of a dolphin swimming through sparkling dinoflagellates (some genera of the marine protist become blue-green when jostled), the exhibition provides you with that classic museum experience, one of magic and wonder. At the same time, the science that explains and attempts to explain this complicated trait, which evolved distinctly many times in life on earth, will humble and bewilder.
In 1920, the Nobel Prize-winning “founder of modern neuroscience” Santiago Ramón y Cajal wrote Charlas de café (Café Chats), a popular book of aphorisms and meditations inspired by his years of participation in tertulias, or Spanish salons. Contributing editor Ben Ehrlich has been working on an original translation into English, parts of which have just been published by the literary magazine New England Review. As always, the new issue of NER features great poetry, fiction, and non-fiction (including, incidentally, a re-discovered translation of “Rome: First Impression” by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, whom Cajal revered). Half of the Café Chats piece, selected from two chapters “On Glory, Death, and Immortality” and “On Sorrow and Old Age,” can be seen online here. Selections two other two chapters, “On Genius, Talent, and Stupidity” and “Thoughts on Pedagogical and Educational Tendencies,” can be found in the print edition.
“It is a moving sight to watch on summer mornings as young bees gather honey for the exhausted and dying workwomen who, before their eyes grow dim, receive a passionate kiss from the sun, our father of life. Hear the anxious cry of the dying—“Light, more light!”—from the great Goethe to the humblest creature. Might this universal plea signify an optimistic prophecy? After death’s darkness, will the sun of immortality rise? It is comforting to hope and to believe so.”
Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Café Chats (translated by Benjamin Ehrlich)
A review article published this month in the journal Neuron looks at the last decade of the brain in popular media. In “Neuroscience in the Public Sphere,” [full text available here], the authors reviewed media databases for articles discussing brain research published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 in the six top-selling British newspapers and tabloids. The results? The majority of stories (43%) dealt with brain optimization in some regard, with disease and psychopathology coming in second (36%). Most interesting to me was the topic at the bottom of this list: the brain as it relates to spiritual experiences and religion (1%).
From their analysis, some major, overarching themes jumped out about how the brain is typically portrayed or used to further a point in popular media. In the words of the authors:
This research identified three emerging trends in media interpretations of neuroimaging. Neurorealism describes the use of neuroimages to make phenomena seem objective, offering visual proof that a subjective experience (e.g., love, pain, addiction) is a “real thing.”Neuroessentialism denotes depictions of the brain as the essence of a person, with the brain a synonym for concepts like person, self, or soul. Finally, neuropolicy captures the recruitment of neuroscience to support political or policy agendas.
You can see the full results and read the article here.
In an interview with Casey Schwartz for Newsweek — The Daily Beast, neuroscientist Stuart Firestein argues that knowledge is overrated:
As I began to think about it, I realized that, contrary to popular view, scientists don’t really care that much about facts. We recognize that facts are the most unreliable part of the whole operation. They don’t last, they’re always under revision. Whatever fact you seemed to have uncovered is likely to be revised by the next generation. That’s the difference between science and many other endeavors. Science revels in revision. For science, revision is a victory. In religion, or astrology, or any other belief system, revision is a kind of defeat. You were supposed to have known the answer to this. But the joy of science is that it’s about revision.
Dr. Firestein, the chair of the biological sciences department at Columbia University, has taught a popular course called IGNORANCE, dedicated to what we don’t know. His new book, Ignorance: How it Drives Science, was released today by Oxford University Press. It promises to be a great read.