Week 14 Question 2

It is more likely neuroscience will be used in the study of Art History in the future, because there has been a lot more interest in the brain, and its relation to people's action in the past decade. Take Jackson Pollock for instance. His painting style is wild, and his canvas is filled with unexplainable beauty. It appears a small child could create an image similar to Pollock's, but with further understanding of Pollock, and his impressionistic style it is obvious that a re-creation of any of his work is inconceivable. A psychologist/scientist would take great interest in Pollock, and his free-flowing abstract style.
The science of psychology is being studied and respected more today than it ever has. As scientist make new discoveries about the human brain, I believe a lot of art historians will attempt to use psychology as a way of explaining, and investigate the minds abstract expressionalist painters, and try and learn about their unconscious motivations, and emotions that are reflected in their works. Personally, I believe art history is a study that should not involve science. I enjoy paintings, and the critique of art because there is no formula, there is no right way of going about the investigation of an artist's work. I do not support the use of neuroscience in the art history world, but would not be surprised if in the near future, more scientists are found browsing the art galleries, in hopes of deciphering the thoughts of each artist who created the different works hanging from the museum walls.