Voices from the Field: Anjan Chatterjee

In this installment of Voices from the Field, we speak with Dr. Anjan Chatterjee—neurologist, author, and founding director of the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics—about what first drew him to the intersection of the arts, health, and science. Reflecting on the challenges and opportunities within the evolving neuroarts landscape, Dr. Chatterjee shares candid insights on interdisciplinary collaboration, the importance of cross-cultural research, and his bold hope for a future where aesthetics are recognized as essential to human wellbeing.

What first inspired you to explore the connection between the arts, health, and/or science?

The inspiration to explore arts, health, and science came from a barroom conversation in early 1999. At the time, I was on faculty at University of Alabama at Birmingham. My plan was to move back to the University of Pennsylvania where I had been a medical student and was being recruited to join the newly forming Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. Before I left Birmingham, a close friend posed the following question: Ten years from now, what would you regret if you had not done professionally? I had long been interested in aesthetic experiences. I drew growing up and later was preoccupied with photography. I realized that, as a cognitive neuroscientist, I would regret not studying the science of aesthetics. At the time, I did not know that there was virtually no neuroscientific work in this area.

In your view, what makes the arts and aesthetic experiences uniquely powerful tools for advancing health and wellbeing—and how does your work contribute to translating that potential into practice?

I do not believe that the arts are an unmitigated good. The arts are a tool and can be used for different purposes, including nefarious ones like propaganda promoting problematic causes. Having said that, we need basic foundational knowledge on which to build important applications that themselves meet standards of rigor. On the use of the arts to advance health and wellbeing, it is critical to ask 1) what kind of art, 2) for whom, and 3) in what context. Addressing each of these questions is complex; not doing so risks offering platitudes.

Some relevant examples from our recent work: we examined the question of whether art in health-care spaces are beneficial. We are looking formally at the effects of art therapy in veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress symptoms. For people recovering from substance use disorder and the staff caring for them, we have designed refresh rooms based on biophilic principles to reduce stress and anxiety.

What challenges do you see in building a more cohesive and equitable neuroarts ecosystem?

We, especially in the US, operate in a scarcity model. There are simply not enough resources available to go around. In my view, it is premature to seek cohesion. We need creative chaos and ferment to drive innovative fundamental science and their applications.  We might seek cohesion after we establish a rich and solid base of evidence.

The hope that the arts should be inclusive and equitable is likely shared by most people who would be reading this Q&A. But, what would that aspiration mean in terms of research? In my view, we focus too much on North American and European art. We desperately need cross-cultural studies that allow claims to be generalized and work that might even mitigate cultural divisions. The framework of what constitutes art and creativity also needs to expand beyond “fine” art ensconced in elite institutions often burdened by historical baggage. Finally, a critical challenge in scientific aesthetics is how best to incorporate qualitative phenomenological accounts with quantitative information while maintaining rigor.

What kinds of support, collaboration, or infrastructure would most help you expand and/or scale your work? What are existing resources that you have found most useful?

Interdisciplinarity and exchange of ideas in this field is critical. For example, in my center, we have an artist-in-residence, an art-historian, and an anthropologist in addition to psychologists and neuroscientists. We host visitors frequently - including artists, architects, philosophers, and folks from industry - who present their ideas to us. Graduate students from other labs (recently, London, Turin, Istanbul, Münster) spend time with us. We have collaborators around the world and also engage with local arts institutions. At this point, I personally do not have the bandwidth to scale up into unfunded collaborations. Meetings of organizations like the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics and the Division 10 of the American Psychological Association are key to finding like-minded scientists and interested folks from the humanities. I might offer a note of caution. Successful collaborations are hard to legislate in a top-down manner. However, platforms through which relationships, compatibility, shared language, and common goals can be sought and fostered could be very helpful.

Looking ahead, what is one bold idea or hope that you have for the future of neuroarts?

My one bold hope is that the cultural zeitgeist (in the US) changes from viewing arts and aesthetic experiences as a “nice to have,” to realizing that arts and aesthetics are a “need to have.” Similar to the shifts in cultural thinking about nutrition, exercise, and sleep as critical to our wellbeing, I hope for a shift to thinking that aesthetics are a key ingredient for wellbeing. Such a shift would invite openness, exchange of ideas, varied practices, and bolster support for research in aesthetics and the integration of the arts in all our lives.