Just now tuning in? You might want to start with Part 1 and Part 2.

There is no doubt in my mind that science will one day have everything (or most of everything) figured out. It’s rather disturbing to think that things like love, personality, religion, art, and all the things we take today as being part of the human “soul” will one day be firmly grounded in the physiology of our brains.

But that day won’t be here for a while.

The more I read about Ramachandran’s and Semir Zeki’s efforts in neuroaesthetics the more I realize that I’m not so much bothered by the attempt itself to create a science of art (I never really was to begin with), but by the approach the two are taking. I would think it would be very reasonable to start from the most basic of visual principles and create strong foundational knowledge on the neurology of color, shape, line, texture, the building blocks of art. Instead it seems Ramachandran and Zeki and others are going straight for the Holy Grail—forget climbing to the peak of the mountain, let’s take one giant leap straight to the top, let’s talk about art.

I feel they’ve bitten off a bit more than they can chew (all emphases are mine):

What does it mean to ‘capture the very essence’ of something in order to ‘evoke a direct emotional response’? The answer to these questions, it turns out, provides the key to understanding what art really is. -V. S. Ramachandran and W. Hirstein

What is art? What constitutes great art? Why do we value art so much and why has it been such a conspicuous feature of all human societies? These questions have been discussed at length though without satisfactory resolution. This is not surprising. Such discussions are usually held without reference to the brain, through which all art is conceived, executed and appreciated. Art has a biological basis. It is a human activity and, like all human activities, including morality, law and religion, depends upon, and obeys, the laws of the brain. -Semir Zeki

My point is not that culture is not important but that it’s what most people study—it’s called art history. On the other hand almost no real progress has been made in understanding universal principles that cut across cultures and that’s what interests me as a scientist. Even if only 10% of art turns out to be lawful it’s that 10% that interests me, not the unlawful 90% that interests sociologists and historians. -V. S. Ramachandran

And even if 90% of the variance seen in art is driven by fad, fancy, and culture (or, worse yet, by the auctioneer’s hammer), it is the remaining 10% (influenced partly by genes and partly by environmental universals) that interests scientists. -V. S. Ramachandran

What are they really after? Zeki asks the big questions (“What is art?” and etc.) and Ramachandran and Hirstein mention a “key to understanding what art really is.” But then I sense some backpedaling when Ramachandran says that he’s only attempting to explain 10% of art. So are they really trying to find the biological basis for what 10% of great art really is? And can that mere 10% really be the key to making art? Can there be art that doesn’t contain this 10%?

Although we are a long ways away from anything close, I find myself concerned that this could lead to a “scientific formula” for art, even though Ramachandran denies this:

My spelling out universal ‘laws’ of aesthetics does not negate the originality of the artist. I am merely asking what rules of thumb the artist consciously or unconsciously deploys. But which laws a given artist chooses to emphasize and how effectively she does it is entirely up to her skill and originality.

But even though the “originality of the artist” won’t be negated, isn’t he still creating a set of qualifiers, a system by which art can be judged by?

Freeman: …if your ideas about Picasso are correct, then why doesn’t everyone like Picasso?

Ramachandran: This is an important question. The surprising answer might be that everyone does ‘like’ Picasso but not everyone knows it! The key to understanding this is to realize that the brain has many quasi-independent ‘modules’ that can at times signal in consistent information. It may well be that all of us have the basic neural circuits in the fusiform (and especially at the next stage) i.e. the ‘master face neurons’ that would show a heightened response to Picasso, but perhaps in many of us other ‘higher’ cognitive systems (e.g. the interpreter in the left hemisphere) might kick in and censor or veto the output of the face neurons by saying, in effect, ‘There is something wrong with this face — two eyes cannot possibly occur on a profile—so ignore that signal from the master face cells even though it is very strong’. In short I am saying all of us do like Picasso but many of us are ‘in denial ‘about it…

I’m going to give in to temptation here, because I like my colorful analogies. Imagine Ramachandran were trying to develop a set of “universal laws,” a neurological basis for religion. Couldn’t these principles then be used to define the “correct” faith(s)? For me, as an artist, his quote about Picasso is almost like saying, “everyone believes in christianity, but many of us are in denial about it.” And who really wants that? (Other than christians, I mean.)

But Ramachandran has already ventured to create these universal laws. Here they are, The 10 Commandments of Art:

1. Peak shift
2. Perceptual Grouping and Binding
3. Contrast
4. Isolation
5. Perceptual problem solving
6. Symmetry
7. Abhorrence of coincidence/generic viewpoint
8. Repetition, rhythm and orderliness
9. Balance
10. Metaphor

Where’s Charlton Heston when you need him?

I’m not going to go into these here. There are some very good articles and blog posts that have already done so. I highly recommend Mixing Memory’s posts:

The Cognitive Science of Art: Goals and Motivations of Neuroaesthetics
The Cognitive Science of Art: Ramachandran’s 10 Principles of Art, Principles 1-3
The Cognitive Science of Art: Ramachandran’s 10 Principles of Art, Principles 4-10

And, for an in-depth look at the “Peak Shift” principle, check out this essay:

Unfortunately, however, Ramachandran’s theory has three fatal weaknesses. First, Ramachandran seems to have misunderstood the peak shift effect. Second, the theory is not really about art at all. It is really about why men are attracted to women with big breasts. And third, the theory is based on an extremely limited knowledge of art.

-John Hyman, Art and Neuroscience

Next: tune in for Part 4, where we’ll find out if Lassie helped Timmy get out of the well.

Filed under: Pretentiousness

Discussion: 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Neuroaesthetics, Part 3”

1. Aasp:
   June 13th, 2007 at 1:38 am

   Are you suggesting that science will one day allow us to know why we
   want to pursue a scientific approach to art? Does that negate the
   potential of an artistic approach to science?  Who benefits from the
   valor of joining the two concepts but ultimately sneaks back to the
   practice of science as the underlying alpha dog?

2. jschnapp:
   June 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am

   No, I'm more concerned that the science of science will hook up with the art of war because then it would be the science of art and the science of war versus the art of art while we all get double-crossed by the artistic war of science.

   Maybe we should consider a restraining order?