Search

Art is one of life’s great joys, whether beautiful, ugly, sublime or shocking. Whilst neuroimaging studies using visual art as stimuli have yielded a wealth of information regarding aesthetic appreciation and beauty, few have considered a wider range of emotions or the effect of expertise and context. In order to address this three studies were conducted. The first studied the time course of visual, cognitive and emotional processes in response to visual art by investigating the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited whilst viewing and rating the visceral affect of art, in artists and non-artists. The second, behavioural, study questioned the ecological validity of using reproductions of art. Contextual differences in arousal, aesthetic response, viewing time and memory, were explored. The final study aimed to extend the findings of the first two. Continuous EEG was recorded to explore effects of expertise and context on phase synchrony bands during the contemplation of art in a gallery. Behavioural measures and structured interviews were employed to examine the impact of contemplating art on subjective feelings, mood and memory. A number of negative environmental factors adversely affected collection and validity of the continuous EEG data, which was not considered further. There were three prominent findings. First, looking at art is interesting and rewarding, particularly for experts. It is not dependent on aesthetic preference, although expertise is important regarding the appreciation of abstract art. Second, the response to art is not isolated from the context in which it is experienced, whether the physical context of a gallery vs. laboratory, or original vs. reproduction. Finally, both the prospect of looking at art and contemplation of art, whether original or reproduced, increases calmness and contentedness and decreases alertness, irrespective of expertise. Interest and curiosity are the dominant factors eliciting positive mood and positive emotions. Looking at art is relaxing and is good for you.

Since its establishment, the National Health Service has presented successive Governments with problems of ensuring accountability of the organisation for the conduct of affairs, and the quality of service. The difficulties are compounded by the dependance of the NHS on professional staff, who each have their own values and collegiate culture. It is argued these include certain perceptions concerning professional accountability. Consequently, reliance on organisational structures and management systems to ensure accountability has met with limited success. This approach has also set the scene for potential conflict between manager and professionals concerning the means of demonstrating accountability. This possibility was explored by examining a range of techniques which have grown in prominence in the 1980s, Quality Assurance. Research centred on three Health Districts, focusing on the largest single group of NHS staff claiming professional status, nurses and midwives. Interviews were conducted with managers, staff responsible for Quality Assurance implementation, and nurses and midwives at clinical level. The role and influence on members attitudes of the main nursing and midwifery professional organisations was examined by interviews with key officers. Empirical data supports the contention that whereas managers view themselves as accountable for the organisation as a whole, nurses and midwives see their accountability as owed primarily to patients, a view reinforced by the professional organisations. Senior Nurse Advisors within Health Districts played a crucial ro*le in the resolution of this dichotomy. Finally, it is argued that Quality Assurance programmes incorporating both perspectives hold the best prospect of improving the quality of health care.