Abstract
This paper discusses the question of how art might reveal important aspects of human cognition by taking as a starting point Alva Noe’s book Strange Tools. Art and Human Nature (2015). I argue that the enactive approach defended in this book has strong affinities with some recent art-historical approaches that take their cue from cognitive neuroscience, such as neuroarthistory (Onians, 2016). My main claim is that the extended mind thesis, which is implied in both approaches, fails to capture important aspects of the cognitive underpinnings of artistic practices. Finally, I bring into focus Noe’s ambiguous position with respect to the role of perception in aesthetic appreciation. What good comes from distinguishing between various ways of seeing while at the same time holding that art appreciation is a matter of value and judgment rather than perception and response?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.