Interesting Study On the Effect of Painting on the Brain

This was originally posted on Gawker here, but I found it amazing.

Gawker

6,184 views, May 8, 2011 4:26 PM

SCIENCE

Art Can Provoke Same Brain Response as Being in Love

 Max Read — Gaze upon this painting—Le Grande Odalisque ("The Big Odalisque"), by the French artist Ingres. What do you think? Is it as fun as looking at your boyfriend? No? It doesn't matter what you think! Your brain loves it.

A recent study found that Ingres' art—along with that of British Romantic John Constable and Italian Baroque painter Guido Reni—provoked a near-10 percent increase in blood flow to the part of the brain associated with pleasure, the highest of any artists included in the study. This is, The Daily Telegraph informs us, "the equivalent of gazing at a loved one"; in other words, looking at paintings you find beautiful can be as joyful as nearly any other experience. (I already knew that, you might say; but no, you know nothing until science has proven it.)

What does this mean for Art, with a capital A? It means that those three artists are, scientifically, the best artists of all time. But wait, you're asking. How can I be sure that the study subjects weren't unduly influenced by current tastes and the fashionability of the artist? Fret not:

The test was carried out on dozens of people, who were picked at random but who had little prior knowledge of art and therefore would not be unduly influenced by current tastes and the fashionability of the artist.

Yes, there is "taste" and "fashion" — and then there is Art, eternal, neutral, and unchanging. And its greatest pracitioner is John Constable.

Does the Female Nude Really Dominate Art History?

Recently I was having a discussion with a very close friend about why Western Art has become a politically incorrect area of focus.  "Well it is true that there have been a disproportionate number of female nudes in art history." she said, which I accepted, assuming she was probably right.  But later that night I tested the hypothesis.

Titian, Bacchus and Ariadne, 1520-23, National Gallery, London 176 x 191 cm

Yes, I know that one isolated sample is not conclusive, but my business is painting not statistics.  I just thought you might want to know the results of my own experiment.

I began with the first page of H.W. Janson's History of Art, probably the most referenced art historical source, counting every clearly distinguishable nude male torso and female torso, excluding babies.

Out of 361 torsos distinguishable to me as male or female, here is what I found:

Nude male torsos:  240
Nude female torsos:  121

That's almost twice as many males as females.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. Le Grande Odalisque. 1814. Oil on canvas. Louvre, Paris, France.

In both genders an effort was usually made to hide or obscure the loins in frontal poses, in fact more than I supposed.  There were a few exceptions in which no attempt was made which I also numbered:

Males:  51
Females:  18

A scene from Genesis on the Sistine Ceiling fresoes by Michelangelo, 1508-1512

Only two images in the book could be definitively classified as a"female nude" in subject matter.  How many female nudes can the average person without an art degree even recall by name?  So where does the notion come from that Art History is so obsessed with the female nude?  I have my own opinions, but they are less interesting to me than the fact that the assumption appears to be untrue. Maybe if I picked another book I'd find different results, but...I don't have time!  I expect a survey of modern art would yield different results considering the likes of Picasso, Gaugin, Modigliani, and Matisse.