Beauty Requires Thought

Aenne A. Brielmann, Denis G. Pelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The experience of beauty is a pleasure, but common sense and philosophy suggest that feeling beauty differs from sensuous pleasures such as eating or sex. Immanuel Kant [1, 2] claimed that experiencing beauty requires thought but that sensuous pleasure can be enjoyed without thought and cannot be beautiful. These venerable hypotheses persist in models of aesthetic processing [3–7] but have never been tested. Here, participants continuously rated the pleasure felt from a nominally beautiful or non-beautiful stimulus and then judged whether they had experienced beauty. The stimuli, which engage various senses, included seeing images, tasting candy, and touching a teddy bear. The observer reported the feelings that the stimulus evoked. The time course of pleasure, across stimuli, is well-fit by a model with one free parameter: pleasure amplitude. Pleasure amplitude increases linearly with the feeling of beauty. To test Kant's claim of a need for thought, we reduce cognitive capacity by adding a “two-back” task to distract the observer's thoughts. The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure experienced from stimuli that otherwise produce strong pleasure and spares that of less-pleasant stimuli. We also find that strong pleasure is always beautiful, whether produced reliably by beautiful stimuli or just occasionally by sensuous stimuli. In sum, we confirm Kant's claim that only the pleasure associated with feeling beauty requires thought and disprove his claim that sensuous pleasures cannot be beautiful.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1506-1513.e3
JournalCurrent Biology
Volume27
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - May 22 2017

Fingerprint

Beauty
Pleasure
candy
aesthetics
ingestion
gender
Emotions
Processing
testing
Candy
Esthetics

Keywords

  • aesthetics
  • beauty
  • emotiontracker
  • Kant
  • pleasure
  • psychophysics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Beauty Requires Thought. / Brielmann, Aenne A.; Pelli, Denis G.

In: Current Biology, Vol. 27, No. 10, 22.05.2017, p. 1506-1513.e3.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brielmann, AA & Pelli, DG 2017, 'Beauty Requires Thought', Current Biology, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1506-1513.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018
Brielmann, Aenne A. ; Pelli, Denis G. / Beauty Requires Thought. In: Current Biology. 2017 ; Vol. 27, No. 10. pp. 1506-1513.e3.
@article{ad7598415257444c87eeb9bd4ec940e0,
title = "Beauty Requires Thought",
abstract = "The experience of beauty is a pleasure, but common sense and philosophy suggest that feeling beauty differs from sensuous pleasures such as eating or sex. Immanuel Kant [1, 2] claimed that experiencing beauty requires thought but that sensuous pleasure can be enjoyed without thought and cannot be beautiful. These venerable hypotheses persist in models of aesthetic processing [3–7] but have never been tested. Here, participants continuously rated the pleasure felt from a nominally beautiful or non-beautiful stimulus and then judged whether they had experienced beauty. The stimuli, which engage various senses, included seeing images, tasting candy, and touching a teddy bear. The observer reported the feelings that the stimulus evoked. The time course of pleasure, across stimuli, is well-fit by a model with one free parameter: pleasure amplitude. Pleasure amplitude increases linearly with the feeling of beauty. To test Kant's claim of a need for thought, we reduce cognitive capacity by adding a “two-back” task to distract the observer's thoughts. The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure experienced from stimuli that otherwise produce strong pleasure and spares that of less-pleasant stimuli. We also find that strong pleasure is always beautiful, whether produced reliably by beautiful stimuli or just occasionally by sensuous stimuli. In sum, we confirm Kant's claim that only the pleasure associated with feeling beauty requires thought and disprove his claim that sensuous pleasures cannot be beautiful.",
keywords = "aesthetics, beauty, emotiontracker, Kant, pleasure, psychophysics",
author = "Brielmann, {Aenne A.} and Pelli, {Denis G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "1506--1513.e3",
journal = "Current Biology",
issn = "0960-9822",
publisher = "Cell Press",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beauty Requires Thought

AU - Brielmann, Aenne A.

AU - Pelli, Denis G.

PY - 2017/5/22

Y1 - 2017/5/22

N2 - The experience of beauty is a pleasure, but common sense and philosophy suggest that feeling beauty differs from sensuous pleasures such as eating or sex. Immanuel Kant [1, 2] claimed that experiencing beauty requires thought but that sensuous pleasure can be enjoyed without thought and cannot be beautiful. These venerable hypotheses persist in models of aesthetic processing [3–7] but have never been tested. Here, participants continuously rated the pleasure felt from a nominally beautiful or non-beautiful stimulus and then judged whether they had experienced beauty. The stimuli, which engage various senses, included seeing images, tasting candy, and touching a teddy bear. The observer reported the feelings that the stimulus evoked. The time course of pleasure, across stimuli, is well-fit by a model with one free parameter: pleasure amplitude. Pleasure amplitude increases linearly with the feeling of beauty. To test Kant's claim of a need for thought, we reduce cognitive capacity by adding a “two-back” task to distract the observer's thoughts. The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure experienced from stimuli that otherwise produce strong pleasure and spares that of less-pleasant stimuli. We also find that strong pleasure is always beautiful, whether produced reliably by beautiful stimuli or just occasionally by sensuous stimuli. In sum, we confirm Kant's claim that only the pleasure associated with feeling beauty requires thought and disprove his claim that sensuous pleasures cannot be beautiful.

AB - The experience of beauty is a pleasure, but common sense and philosophy suggest that feeling beauty differs from sensuous pleasures such as eating or sex. Immanuel Kant [1, 2] claimed that experiencing beauty requires thought but that sensuous pleasure can be enjoyed without thought and cannot be beautiful. These venerable hypotheses persist in models of aesthetic processing [3–7] but have never been tested. Here, participants continuously rated the pleasure felt from a nominally beautiful or non-beautiful stimulus and then judged whether they had experienced beauty. The stimuli, which engage various senses, included seeing images, tasting candy, and touching a teddy bear. The observer reported the feelings that the stimulus evoked. The time course of pleasure, across stimuli, is well-fit by a model with one free parameter: pleasure amplitude. Pleasure amplitude increases linearly with the feeling of beauty. To test Kant's claim of a need for thought, we reduce cognitive capacity by adding a “two-back” task to distract the observer's thoughts. The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure experienced from stimuli that otherwise produce strong pleasure and spares that of less-pleasant stimuli. We also find that strong pleasure is always beautiful, whether produced reliably by beautiful stimuli or just occasionally by sensuous stimuli. In sum, we confirm Kant's claim that only the pleasure associated with feeling beauty requires thought and disprove his claim that sensuous pleasures cannot be beautiful.

KW - aesthetics

KW - beauty

KW - emotiontracker

KW - Kant

KW - pleasure

KW - psychophysics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019152306&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019152306&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018

DO - 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 28502660

AN - SCOPUS:85019152306

VL - 27

SP - 1506-1513.e3

JO - Current Biology

JF - Current Biology

SN - 0960-9822

IS - 10

ER -