Neuroaesthetic Theories

Blog on art and philosophy

Reflection on Art Experience - Six Classical Art Theories positioned into one Framework

Artists have long tried to understand what art is. Over time, six major philosophical theories have emerged, each highlighting a different aspect of the artistic experience. Mimetic theories view art as an imitation of reality, asking how truthfully a work reflects the world. Expressive theories view art as a vehicle for emotion, focusing on the feelings or inner states being communicated. Formalist theories shift attention to visual structure (line, colour, rhythm, composition) and explore which aesthetic qualities make a work compelling in its own terms. Institutional theories argue that something becomes art because the art world frames it as such, raising questions about context, discourse, and cultural recognition. Historical and narrative theories understand art as part of a larger tradition, emphasizing continuity, influence, and the artist's intention in an unfolding story. Finally, aesthetic experience theories define art by the experience it creates, including intensity, attention, perception, and emotional resonance that arise in the viewer.

In the background of these debates, Jason Holt's 'Neuroaesthetics and Philosophy' article (Sage Open, 2013) responds to three groups of critics: those who reject empirical approaches to art, those who deny the existence of a distinct aesthetic experience, and those who believe that institutional or historical definitions make neuroscience irrelevant. Against them, he argues that neuroaesthetics is not a threat but a necessary complement because it helps explain the cognitive and emotional mechanisms that make all these theories meaningful.

The Artistic Reflection Framework (ARF) describes art experience as a dynamic interplay between three brain systems, three experiential phases, and three levels of thinking. In short, it begins with the primitive brain, which responds instinctively and sensorially, moves through the emotional brain, where affect, empathy, and narrative take shape, and culminates in the rational brain, where analysis and interpretation occur. These brain thinking systems unfold across three phases of OPEN (first impressions and sensory curiosity), CHANGE (emotional movement and meaning formation), and CLOSE (reflection, integration and contextual placement). In a third dimension, the perspective shifts between I-thinking as an inner experience, WE-thinking engaging the artwork (personalized by its creator) or the artist as an external presence, and US-thinking (situating the work within social, cultural, and historical contexts). When we map the six major art theories onto this matrix, each occupies a distinct zone.

Mimetic theory posits that the fundamental purpose of art is to imitate or represent reality. This is one of the oldest and most influential views in the history of aesthetics. Originating with thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, it treats art as a mirror of the world: a painting resembles a landscape, a sculpture resembles a body, and a story resembles human action. From this perspective, the value of art lies in its truthfulness, recognizability, and harmonious structure. Viewers engage with the artwork (and/or its creator) by comparing what they see with what they know, asking how convincingly the work reflects reality or human experience. Within the ARF model, mimetic theory seems to align with the primitive and rational brain, especially in the OPEN and CHANGE phases, where perception is sharpened and comparison begins. We propose that mimetic theory may be primarily reflected through the primitive and rational brain systems, empirical validation of this mapping remains to be conducted. It seems to operate through WE‑thinking, treating the artwork as an external object whose form and resemblance can be examined by the observer.

"The mimetic theory sits in the primitive and rational brain during the Open-Change phases, focusing on the artwork as a recognizable object."

Expressive theory is the idea that art's primary purpose is to express emotion and to make the viewer feel something in return. Instead of focusing on how well a work imitates reality or how it fits into an art-historical narrative, expressive theory looks at art as a form of emotional communication. Thinkers such as Tolstoy, Croce, and Collingwood argued that artists transform their inner experiences — joy, grief, fear, longing, and wonder — into a visible or audible form that others can resonate with. In this view, the artwork becomes an emotionally driven bridge between the inner worlds of the maker and viewer. What matters most is not accuracy or context but authenticity: the sense that the emotion is genuinely felt and transmitted. Expressive theory asks a simple but powerful question: what emotion or inner state is being expressed here, and how does it move me? This highlights the affective core of art and aligns closely with the emotional brain and the CHANGE phase in the ARF model, where resonance, tension, and transformation occur. Is also aligns with the inner experience level, thus within the I-thinking mode, and finds connection through WE-thinking.

"The expressive theory lives in the emotional brain during Change, where emotion flows between artist, artwork, and viewer"

Formalist theory holds that the value of art lies primarily in its form — the visual or structural qualities that can be perceived directly, without the need for story, symbolism, or context. Instead of asking what a work represents or expresses, formalism asks you to pay attention to the line, color, rhythm, texture, balance, composition, and specific qualities of the medium. Thinkers like Clive Bell and Clement Greenberg argued that great art creates a distinctive kind of aesthetic intensity through its formal arrangement alone — what Bell famously called "significant form." In this perspective, the artwork is treated as an autonomous object, something to be experienced through focused looking rather than interpreted through narrative or cultural framing. The central question is: what formal qualities make this artwork compelling or powerful on its own terms? Within the ARF model, formalist theory aligns with the primitive and rational brain in the OPEN phase, where sensory attention sharpens and the viewer engages with the artwork directly through WE‑thinking, encountering it as a structured presence that invites careful perception rather than emotional interpretation.

"The formalist theory belongs to the sensory‑analytic openness of the primitive and rational brain, treating the artwork as an autonomous form"

Institutional theory argues that something becomes art not because of its form, emotion, or resemblance to reality, but because it is presented, framed, and accepted as art within the art world. In this view, museums, curators, critics, galleries, and cultural institutions play a decisive role in creating the conditions in which an object is recognized as art. A urinal in a hardware store is just a urinal; placed in a museum, it becomes Duchamp's Fountain. Thinkers such as George Dickie and Arthur Danto have emphasized that art is embedded in a network of practices, conventions, and discourses that give it meaning. The key question is: why is this object positioned as art in this particular context, and who has the authority to make that call? Within the ARF model, institutional theory aligns with the rational brain in the CLOSE phase, where interpretation, framing, and cultural placement occur, and with US thinking, which situates art within social and historical systems rather than individual perception alone.

"The institutional theory resides in the rational brain in the Close phase, where context and legitimacy are established"

Historical art theory understands art as something that gains meaning through its place in a larger artistic story. Instead of defining art by imitation, emotion, or form, this perspective sees every artwork as part of an evolving lineage — a chain of influences, traditions, and intentions that stretch across time. Thinkers such as Jerrold Levinson and Noël Carroll argue that to understand a work, one must understand where it comes from: which earlier practices it builds on, which conventions it transforms, and which artistic problems it inherits. From this perspective, art is never isolated; it is always in dialogue with what came before. The central question is as follows: How does this artwork connect to earlier forms, traditions, or artistic developments? Within the ARF model, historical theory sits in the emotional and rational brain, moving from the CHANGE phase into the CLOSE phase, where the interpretation deepens and context settles. This aligns with US thinking because it situates art within shared cultural narratives rather than individual perception alone.

"Historical theory spans the emotional and rational brain from Change to Close, grounding art in tradition and continuity"

The aesthetic experience theory states that art is defined not by what it represents, expresses, or how institutions classify it, but by the experience it creates in the viewer. Instead of treating art as an object with fixed properties, this theory focuses on the event that occurs when someone encounters a work: a moment of heightened attention, perceptual intensity, emotional resonance, and meaningful reflection. Thinkers such as Dewey, Beardsley, and Carlson, along with contemporary researchers in neuroaesthetics, describe this experience as a distinctive mode of engagement in which perception becomes vivid, emotion becomes structured, and the viewer becomes fully present. In this view, art is not a category but a quality of experience: something becomes art when it invites you into a state of focused, enriched, and transformative perception. Aesthetic experience theory therefore asks: What does this artwork do to your awareness, senses, emotions, and thinking? Because it spans perception, emotion, and meaning, it aligns closely with the ARF model, engaging all three brain systems across the full open–change–close cycle and integrating I, WE, and US modes of thinking into one unified understanding of how art works on us.

"The aesthetic‑experience theory stretches across the entire matrix, engaging all brain systems, all phases, and all thinking modes"

Together, these placements show how the ARF integrates the full spectrum of art theories into a coherent model of perception, emotion, meaning, and context. Many debates in art theory arise from scepticism about what art is, how we experience it, and whether science has anything meaningful to say about it. Philosophers who resist empirical approaches argue that art is too cultural, symbolic, or value-laden for neuroscience to illuminate. Others deny that a distinct aesthetic experience exists, claiming that what we call "aesthetic" is simply a social construct. Institutional and historical theorists add another layer of doubt by insisting that context, discourse, and tradition define art rather than perception or emotion.

Short Art Philosophy Theories quotes

• Mimetic — art as imitation
• Expressive — art as emotional expression
• Formalist — art as form and aesthetic qualities
• Institutional — art as what the artworld designates
• Historical/Narrative — art as part of a tradition
• Aesthetic‑experience‑based — art as what creates an aesthetic experience

The ARF Brain Matrix offers a way through this landscape of competing viewpoints by showing that these perspectives are not mutually exclusive but describe different layers of the same experience. By integrating perception, emotion, meaning, and context into a coherent model, the ARF bridges the gap between philosophical reflection and neuroaesthetic insight. It acknowledges the cultural and historical framing of art while grounding the experience in the body and brain. In doing so, the ARF dissolves the old opposition between "science/neuro-aesthetics' and "the humanities/philosophy" and demonstrates that understanding art requires both the philosophical depth that interprets meaning and the neuroscientific clarity that explains how art moves us. Neuroaesthetic theory and the ARF Brain Matrix are similar because both treat art as a multi-layered experience grounded in the body and brain, but they differ in their scope, purpose, and structure. Neuroaesthetics explains how the brain produces an aesthetic experience, and ARF explains how artists and viewers can navigate, reflect on, and deepen that experience (see overview tables below).

Other art philosophers positioned within this specific context

These philosophers are directly associated with contemporary analytic aesthetics when discussing aesthetic experience theory. Other philosophers on art belong to different traditions (rationalist, empiricist, idealist, phenomenological, hermeneutic, critical theory, analytic language philosophy) and although they are not canonical representatives of aesthetic experience theory, they do have specific points of view on this topic. In chronical order, some of them discussed within the context: Baumgarten, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Ingarden, Gadamer, Adorno, Wittgenstein, all of them positioned on the topics 'beauty' and in the given artistic experience and framework.

Baumgarten treats beauty as a special kind of sensory knowledge: a way of understanding the world through perception rather than logic. For him, art sharpens our ability to notice subtle qualities, patterns, and feelings. Beauty is not decoration but clarity in experience, a refinement of how we sense. This aligns with WE‑thinking and the OPEN phase of the ARF, where perception becomes vivid and attentive. Hume sees beauty as a feeling that arises in sensitive, trained observers. It is not objective, yet not arbitrary: people with refined taste tend to converge in their judgments. Art becomes a space where sentiment becomes communal, shaped by practice, comparison, and delicacy of perception. This fits the ARF's CHANGE phase, where emotional resonance becomes shared through US‑thinking. Kant defines beauty as a free play between imagination and understanding, a pleasure that is "disinterested," meaning not tied to desire or use. When we judge something beautiful, our mental faculties fall into a harmonious rhythm. Beauty is thus a mental experience, not a property of objects. This maps onto OPEN → CHANGE → CLOSE in the ARF, where perception, resonance, and reflection align. For Hegel, art is the sensuous appearance of spirit: ideas made visible, audible, tangible. Art is part of a historical unfolding in which humanity comes to understand itself. Beauty arises when form and idea fuse into a meaningful whole. This view emphasizes context, history, and cultural meaning, aligning with the ARF's US‑thinking and CLOSE phase. Schopenhauer sees art as a momentary release from the restless "will" that drives human suffering. In aesthetic contemplation, we step outside desire and experience the world with pure, quiet attention. Beauty is the feeling of being freed from striving. This resonates with the ARF's I‑thinking and the deep absorption of OPEN → CHANGE, where inner stillness emerges. Ingarden views artworks as stratified objects: material form, perceptual qualities, meaning structures, and metaphysical aspects all interact. Beauty arises from how these layers are intentionally organized and experienced. His phenomenological approach mirrors the ARF's three brain systems and CLOSE phase, where interpretation integrates multiple layers of experience. Gadamer treats art as a dialogue between viewer and work, a meeting of horizons. Beauty is not a property but an event of understanding that happens in context. Art reveals truth by engaging us in interpretation shaped by history and culture. This fits the ARF's US‑thinking and CLOSE phase, where meaning emerges through relational engagement. Adorno sees art as autonomous resistance against social norms. Beauty is not harmony but tension, dissonance, and non‑identity — a way of revealing contradictions in society. Aesthetic experience becomes a form of critical awareness. This aligns with the ARF's CHANGE phase (disruption) and CLOSE (reflection), where art unsettles and reorients perception. Finally, Wittgenstein rejects fixed definitions of art. Instead, art is a family of practices connected by overlapping similarities. Beauty is not a property but a way of seeing, a shift in perspective. Meaning arises from how artworks are used, interpreted, and embedded in life. This aligns with WE‑thinking and US‑thinking, where perception and context intertwine.  

In short Quotes from Context Philosophers from different traditions

• Baumgarten — Beauty as Sensory Clarity
• Hume — Beauty as Shared Sentiment
• Kant — Beauty as Free Harmony
• Hegel — Art as Sensuous Spirit
• Schopenhauer — Art as Escape from the Will
• Ingarden — Art as Layered Structure
• Gadamer — Art as Dialogue and Understanding
• Adorno — Art as Resistance and Negative Knowledge
• Wittgenstein — Art as Practice and Seeing‑As

How Neuroaesthetic Theory and the ARF Brain Matrix Overlap and Where They Diverge?

Neuroaesthetic theory and the ARF Brain Matrix share a common starting point: the idea that art is not just a cultural object but a dynamic experience shaped by perception, emotion, and meaning-making in the brain. Both frameworks reject the old split between "cold science" and "warm art" and argue that understanding art requires looking at how the brain processes sensory input, how emotion and memory shape interpretation, and how context influences what we see and feel. In this sense, neuroaesthetics and the ARF are deeply aligned: they both treat art as an embodied, cognitive, and emotional event, not merely a symbolic or institutional category.

They differ in purpose and design. Neuroaesthetic theory is primarily descriptive and scientific; it studies what happens in the brain during aesthetic experience using tools such as fMRI, predictive processing, embodied cognition, and affective neuroscience. It asks questions such as, How does the visual system respond to symmetry? Why do certain patterns evoke pleasure? Which neural networks support aesthetic judgment? Its goal is to explain the mechanisms underlying perception and emotion.

In contrast, the ARF Brain Matrix is a practical, phenomenological, and reflective framework designed for artists, educators, and viewers. It integrates neuroscience, philosophy, and art theory into a usable map of artistic experience. The three dimensions give structure to the lived experience of encountering art. Instead of asking "which neural networks are active?" The ARF asks, What am I sensing? What is moving in me? How is meaning forming? How does the context shape my interpretation? It is a tool for awareness rather than a scientific model.

Another difference lies in the scope of the study. Neuroaesthetics focuses mainly on perception, emotion, and reward, whereas the ARF includes social, cultural, historical, and relational dimensions. The ARF can integrate mimetic, expressive, formalist, institutional, historical, and aesthetic experience theories into one matrix — something neuroaesthetics alone does not attempt.

To come back to the initial starting point of this conversation, Holt's work adds a sharp, clarifying angle to the comparison between neuroaesthetics and the ARF model. His analysis of blindsight shows that experience is not a single unified thing but a layered phenomenon, where perception, awareness, and meaning can come apart. This resonates strongly with neuroaesthetics, which studies the mechanisms behind these layers, but it also supports the ARF's claim that aesthetic experience unfolds across multiple systems and phases. Holt insists that consciousness is real, physical, and structured, not mysterious or optional, a view that strengthens the ARF's experiential architecture while grounding it in empirical reality. Where neuroaesthetics explains how these layers operate, and the ARF explains how we move through them, Holt shows why these layers matter: because they reveal the architecture of experience itself. His perspective therefore acts as a bridge, confirming that the ARF's phenomenological map and neuroaesthetics' scientific mechanisms are not competing accounts but complementary descriptions of the same multi‑layered event.

In summary, neuroaesthetics explains the mechanisms, and the ARF explains the experience. Neuroaesthetics is a science, the ARF provides a structured framework for reflecting on and categorizing aspects of aesthetic experience. Neuroaesthetics tells us how the brain responds, and the ARF shows us how to work with that response as artists, educators, and viewers.

The Art Of Mind' - An Artistic Reflection Framework

For the previous published blogs, please check homepage link below.

Want to follow 'A Taste of Art' experience?
Subscribe, keep being informed or get in contact!

© De Kunst Proeverij (DKP) (A Taste of Art) – Bruno Hoste

* Content has been generated with the help op AI *

'The Art of Mind' - homepage blog

Tables. How philosophical art theories are positioned in the ARF dimensions (Brains, Phases & I-WE-US)