Vincent Tijms reviewed The age of insight by Eric R. Kandel
Review of 'The age of insight' on 'Goodreads'
2 stars
Eric Kandel deserves a lot of praise. Not only did his pioneering work on the neurobiology of memory pave the way for our modern understanding of mind, he has also untiringly pursued the integration of neuroscience and psychiatry. Moreover, he has always resisted going along with the widespread dismissal of Freudian thought in neuroscience, and kept an open mind with regard to psychoanalysis. For all his work, Kandel deserves praise.
But not for this book.
While I enjoyed his depiction of coffeehouse Vienna, where a new understanding of humanity was translated into medical practice, psychological thought and artistic expression, the book is mostly a failed attempt at integrating neuroscience and art. Failed, because the discussion of art is too limited in scope. Failed, because much of the neuroscience is superfluous. Failed, because these two strands only meet in a superficial, trivial fashion - it hardly ever becomes clear how the …
Eric Kandel deserves a lot of praise. Not only did his pioneering work on the neurobiology of memory pave the way for our modern understanding of mind, he has also untiringly pursued the integration of neuroscience and psychiatry. Moreover, he has always resisted going along with the widespread dismissal of Freudian thought in neuroscience, and kept an open mind with regard to psychoanalysis. For all his work, Kandel deserves praise.
But not for this book.
While I enjoyed his depiction of coffeehouse Vienna, where a new understanding of humanity was translated into medical practice, psychological thought and artistic expression, the book is mostly a failed attempt at integrating neuroscience and art. Failed, because the discussion of art is too limited in scope. Failed, because much of the neuroscience is superfluous. Failed, because these two strands only meet in a superficial, trivial fashion - it hardly ever becomes clear how the neuroscience of art perception is anything more than the neuroscience of perception, let alone how neuroscience could influence art, or the theorizing about it.
Moreover, despite Kandel's eminence in the field, his neuroscience is oversimplified. This is not just due to the popular nature of the book, it really seems like Kandel wants to shoehorn empirical data into his framework of how minds work. A naive reader might be forgiven for thinking that neuroscientists have no problem distinguishing conscious from non-conscious processes, that the social brain is a clearly delineated system and that brain lateralization holds the key to understanding creativity. However, none of this is the case and Kandel is most definitely overplaying the implications and certainty of the research he discusses.
This book could have been interesting, if it had been a more earnest attempt to bridge the gap between art and science. Spending more time on accurately portraying the state of neuroscience, having art historians weigh in on the claims about Vienna 1900 and focusing more on those areas where neuroscience and art theory can inform each other, might have made for a more enlightening read.