Mirrors of the Soul and Mirrors of the Brain? The Expression of Emotions as the Subject of Art and Science

Is it not surprising that we look with so much
pleasure and emotion at works of art that were
made thousands of years ago? Works depicting
people we do not know, people whose backgrounds
are usually a mystery to us, who lived in
a very different society and time and who, moreover,
have been ‘frozen’ by the artist in a very
deliberate pose. It was the Classical Greek philosopher
Aristotle who observed in his Poetics
that people could apparently be moved even by
the imitation of a person or an act. And although
we are usually well aware that it is a simulacrum,
not a real situation, it nevertheless sometimes
seems as if we ourselves are standing there on the
stage or in the painting, so intense and emotional
is our response, even though we are just spectators.
Aristotle concludes from this that we have
intellectual capacities that allow us put ourselves
in another’s place and consequently to react to
simulated situations as though they are actually
happening to us, here and now. In this process,
he contends, observation, memory, imagination
and emotions are crucial elements.1
In the past it was not customary to invoke human
mental faculties to explain our response to
works of art. The Ancient Greeks, after all, knew
little about the human body or brain and usually
referred to the extended world of the gods
in their endeavours to comprehend the ‘inner
world’ of human beings. In our time the situation
is completely different - such an allusion to the
brain no longer surprises us. Whether it is about
the mystery of the consciousness, the question
of free will or accounts of bizarre psychological
aberrations or disorders, we have become
accustomed to references to parts of the brain,
to images of brain scans, to reports about neural
networks and the like.2 However, because there
are so many factors that play a part in our appreciation
of works of art we need a complex explanation
for it, and it is not enough to look only
at certain properties of the brain that are determined
by evolution. Those properties are shared
by every human being, and so are of little use in
explaining people’s different reactions to the
same work of art. Evidently the brains of individuals
differ so much that they make it possible
for people to respond differently to one and the
same work. This, of course, raises questions concerning
the painted emotions that can be seen
in this exhibition. Virtually everyone, after all, is
fascinated by such paintings and usually recognizes
the emotions they represent. The reactions
to these painted emotions are also often similar.
This is probably why works of art like this are
generally highly valued, then and now, here and
elsewhere: from the enigmatically smiling Egyptian
Queen Nefertiti and the startled Rembrandt
to a seemingly despairing African mask.
Aristotle observed that in the theatre players
imitate actions that are associated with emotions
in a number of ways and that these emotions are
shared in a particular fashion by the playwright,
the actors and the audience. The audience may
even be carried away by these emotions to such
an extent that they are in a sense purged of them
and can subsequently leave the theatre relieved.3
Are such emotional reactions perhaps related
to the fact that emotions are universal and that
brains respond similarly to them? Is this why we
can so readily identify painted emotions? May
we therefore also assume that the properties
of the brain determined by evolution help us to
explain these emotions?
In answering these questions we shall discuss
a number of insights into emotions in psychology
and brain science and explore some theories
about the possible function of emotions and
their expression.