Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Theorising performance and technology: Aesthetic and neuroaesthetic approaches|
|Keywords:||Performance and technology;Art and perception;Aesthetic theorization;Defamiliarization;Merleau-Ponty;Extended body;'Visible’ and ‘invisible’;Embodied experience;Neuroaesthetic approach;Visual perception|
|Publisher:||University of Queensland, Department of English|
|Citation:||Australasian Drama Studies, 65, pp. 212 - 236, (2014)|
|Abstract:||In this article, it is my intention to examine and compare aesthetic and neuroaesthetic theorisation in order to provide interpretive strategies that would be capable of addressing sophisticated technological art practices. In doing so, I will provide a study of two mutually enhancing approaches to this analysis - namely, the writings and aesthetic theorisation of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and a neuroaesthetic approach linking performance and art practices to neuroscientific research in order to provide some understanding of the biolog ical underpinnings of aesthetic experience. It is my belief that these diverse approaches have much to contribute to interpreting such developments. Due to the vast amount of research undertaken in this area, visual perception is central (though not exclusive) to a biologically related approach. The general direction of such research illuminates the problem as summarised by Francis Crick: 'It is difficult for many people to accept that what they see is a symbolic interpretation of the world - it all seems so much like "the real thing"'.|
|Appears in Collections:||Dept of Arts and Humanities Research Papers|
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.