What’s Good For The Brain May Be Mud For the Soul

by:

Joe Patti

As something of a counterpoint to my entry yesterday on how exposure to the arts can benefit one’s neurological development is this National Review piece from December in which Robert Fulford reminds us that arts exposure won’t save your soul or improve your personality.

He quotes George Steiner, “‘We know that a man can play Bach and Schubert and go to his day’s work at Auschwitz in the morning,'” and notes “…we also can’t claim that immersion in the arts will create a lively mind. Art education has produced armies of learned bores.”

He also points out that artists are not imbued with any special grace as people and may possess the most vie personalities even as they produce the most engaging works we have ever encountered.

This observation is has become less true of late as an ever increasing tabloid eye on the activities of celebrities has seen art valued in the context of the artist. This isn’t just a matter of actors being fired from Lost to minimize the bad press from a DUI. There is often trouble with the performance of J.S. Bach’s work given a perception of anti-Semitic sentiments which may have simply been a reflection of the time in which he lived and text which he drew from. (The Gospel of John from which he derived his St. John Passion contains a good deal of derogatory content.)

What Fulford says the arts do guarantee is, “Those who give it their time and love are offered the chance to live more expansive, more enjoyable and deeper lives.” It is somewhat reminiscent of the proverb about leading a horse to water since the arts only afford the opportunity of improvement. Education and religion can also prove uplifting but only if they are embraced. Likewise, exposure to the arts with the intent of developing the neurological structures discussed in yesterday’s entry only becomes meaningful in someone’s life if they value the experience.

This Is Your Brain On Art

by:

Joe Patti

On Artjournal.com was a link to this article on Science Daily about a study the Dana Foundation commissioned on the question of “Are smart people drawn to the arts or does arts training make people smarter?” For three years researchers at a number of universities have studied this question resulting in a recently released report (downloadable as an Acrobat document here.)

I haven’t read the report yet. But the Science Daily article mentions some interesting findings though they repeat the Dana Foundation disclaimer that “Much of this research is of a preliminary nature, yielding several tight correlations but not definitive causal relationships. ”

1. An interest in a performing art leads to a high state of motivation that produces the sustained attention necessary to improve performance and the training of attention that leads to improvement in other domains of cognition.

2. Genetic studies have begun to yield candidate genes that may help explain individual differences in interest in the arts.

3. Specific links exist between high levels of music training and the ability to manipulate information in both working and long-term memory; these links extend beyond the domain of music training.

4. In children, there appear to be specific links between the practice of music and skills in geometrical representation, though not in other forms of numerical representation.

5. Correlations exist between music training and both reading acquisition and sequence learning. One of the central predictors of early literacy, phonological awareness, is correlated with both music training and the development of a specific brain pathway.

6. Training in acting appears to lead to memory improvement through the learning of general skills for manipulating semantic information.

7. Adult self-reported interest in aesthetics is related to a temperamental factor of openness, which in turn is influenced by dopamine-related genes.

8. Learning to dance by effective observation is closely related to learning by physical practice, both in the level of achievement and also the neural substrates that support the organization of complex actions. Effective observational learning may transfer to other cognitive skills.

The Dana Foundation lists suggested directions for research given what has been learned thus far near the bottom of their research summary. To read the list you would think they hadn’t many any progress in the research at all which is probably indicative of just how little study has been devoted to the ways art shapes our neurological processes.

Something that really surprised me comes up in the video of the presentation of findings. Michael Posner of the University of Oregon talks about how liking a particular art form, be it visual arts, linguistic arts, movement arts and music, was independent of other art forms. In other words, an artist is not particularly inclined to like arts in general but rather only find one particularly appealing. He seems to say there are structures in the brain that develop which are aligned with certain activities that exist prior to exposure to information or experience which would predispose someone toward that subject based on how developed those areas of the brain are. There is overlap in many areas, but there is enough separation to make one’s interests independent of each other.

The other important element, Posner says, is an openness to the experience. You need to be open and have certain existent neural pathways to begin developing an affinity for an experience. (Unfortunately, the video has no time index that I can reference for you.) One thing he briefly mentions that made me concerned was the idea that attention needs to be sustained over a long period of time. He talks about this in connection with young children and the fact that kids acquire many of their skills by essentially engaging in repetitive play over a period of time. My concern was based on the general shortening of attention span as people seek constant stimulation from portable technology. I worried about people not cultivating an interest in the arts which will actually indicate a possible lack of important sections of the brain. (i.e. dance skills are connected to observation.)

The one bit of solace is that many kids are more interested in playing with boxes and keys on a ring than they are with what came in the box and maybe likely to develop their brains despite all the things that distract their parents and older siblings. Though it won’t be long before they replicate the behavior of their family members and friends. It should also be noted that the formation of these neural structures isn’t necessarily happening only in children. One of the people in the video admit that there are brain structures developing throughout one’s life whose purpose scientists aren’t necessarily certain about.

But this is only a small part of the study and even the research presentation. My plan is to take a more indepth look at the study soon.

Its What It Doesn’t Have That Is Most Important

by:

Joe Patti

It has been a busy couple days here at Butts In the Seats so I have brief offering for folks to ponder.

An illustration about how technology is changing our expectations and how tough it can be to keep abreast of the changes. When I was at the Arts Presenters conference in January I overheard people on no less than 5 occasions express a sentiment along the lines of “If only we could figure out how to use text messaging to promote our shows.”

My assumption was that the difficulty people were facing is that you can only send about 160 characters via SMS and it is pretty tough to make your case and provide your contact information in that short a space. Given that many cell phone users pay per text message, they might tolerate one text message from you but sending multiple ones as a modern day Burma Shave advertisement could cause quite a bit of ill will. But since most young people don’t view email as a their primary communication tool vs. texting, figuring out how to best use it is important.

I mentioned this problem in an email to Drew McManus and in his reply he essentially pointed out that with the abilities of the iPhone, the SMS format is probably going to be abandoned soon. Not everyone may buy an iPhone, but the features it contains will generate an expectation that new phones contain similar abilities. Since the iPhone does support email, perhaps that will become a valued form of communication with young people again.

But rather than re-emphasizing the use of existing channels of communication, I have a feeling we will see arts organizations scrambling to replace email blasts with distributed videos that are perhaps tailored to deliver different appeals for the same performances to various age or interest groups. The fact that the iPhone web browser doesn’t support Flash images which is an element of many webpages but does have a special YouTube video player is pretty telling about the areas Apple expects to be important in the future. Steve Jobs didn’t put 3.5 inch disk drives in the iMac because he didn’t think that was the direction things were going. Now, even if you do have a 3.5″ drive on your computer, do you use it?

But this just goes to show how quickly technology moves. It wasn’t that long ago that we started seeing research that most young people eschewed emails for texting. Now just as arts managers start to think about how they can tap into that trend, a change in the favored communications channel seems likely.

Tough to Move Up, Tough to Move Out

by:

Joe Patti

Came across a link to the results of a listening tour Building Movement did among non-profit leaders back in 2004. The results of the conversations they recorded are very similar to the observations made by Ben Cameron in his address to the Southern Arts Federation this Fall. (Perhaps his speech was based on Building Movement’s study?)

The conversations Building Movement (BM) recorded were mainly among leaders of social service agencies, but as implied, had many common elements. Both noted that the younger generation is interested in balancing their lives rather than devoting so much of themselves to the job as their predecessors have done. Both also discuss the eagerness of the younger generation to participate in substantive decision making and responsibilities.

The BM conversations revealed that members of Generation X feel a great deal of pressure caught between an older generation which isn’t retiring and a younger generation coming into their own looking to become involved and effect change. Whereas the older generation has remained in the same positions for years, the younger ones move often looking for more promising opportunities and often contemplating leaving the field. This causes organizations to have people of a great deal of experience at a certain level and then a sharp decline just below. This can have grave implications for those places that haven’t engaged seriously in succession planning.

Part of the problem, Building Movement notes, is there is no structure currently that provides these leaders with a place to go or even transition to other than retirement. They are healthy enough to continue working but there are no opportunities available to them that would result in a net increase of openings for younger people. Since they did not open a retirement account in their 20s and 30s and with Social Security and health care iffy propositions, retirement may not be a very attractive option.

The lack of mentors to help cultivate the necessarily skills was a big concern. One of the few people who did have a mentor of sorts praised the mentor’s ability and willingness to point out that “new” ideas were actually old ones that have been revisited a number of times which prevented him from trying to reinvent the wheel. Another problem that was mentioned was that the older generation had all these relationships with funders that they weren’t passing on to the younger generation. Because they had not had extensive interactions with long term funders, when the younger leaders took over they were “perceived as less seasoned.” This lack of contact could have severe consequences for many organizations.

The most surprising result of the conversations for me was the reluctance to become executive director many of the younger generation had. I figured that position was the logical goal for those chomping at the bit for their predecessors to retire. This reticence stems back to the desire for a balanced life. The executive director position was seen as thankless and too heavy a burden to shoulder to still have time for one’s family. I don’t know if this sentiment is carried over to the arts. Having family members who have worked for social service non-profits, I can see the truth of this for that sector. Though I imagine they would say the same thing for the performing arts from the perspective of an outsider.

Building Movement has a monograph that integrates the findings of the talking sessions with research to make suggestions for cultivating new leaders and planning for the transition of existing leaders in a healthy manner. I haven’t had a chance to look at it at any length but since I often harp on succession planning, it would be a smart thing for me to cover it here in a future entry.