Ramachandran Theory Of Art Essay

  • Arnheim, R. (1956/1974). Art and Visual Perception. A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Benjamin, W. (1936/2008). The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Second Version, trans. E. Jephcott, R. Livingstone & H. Eiland. In The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media, ed. M. W. Jennings, B. Doherty & T. Y. Levin (pp. 19–55). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corporation.Google Scholar

  • Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

  • Bourdieu, P. (1979/1987). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bullot, N. J. (2009). Material Anamnesis and the Prompting of Aesthetic Worlds: The Psycho-Historical Theory of Artworks. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(1), 85–109.Google Scholar

  • Bullot, N. J. and R. Reber (2013a). The Artful Mind Meets Art History: Toward a Psycho-historical Framework for the Science of Art Appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(02), 123–137.Google Scholar

  • Bullot, N. J. and R. Reber (2013b). A Psycho-historical Research Program for the Integrative Science of Art. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(2), 163–180.Google Scholar

  • Carruthers, P. (2006). The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Carruthers, P. (2009). Mindreading Underlies Metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 164–182.Google Scholar

  • Chatterjee, A. (2011). Neuroaesthetics: A Coming of Age Story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(1), 53–62.Google Scholar

  • Clark, T. J. (2001). Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clottes, J. (2005). Return to Chauvet Cave: Excavating the Birthplace of Art — The First Full Report. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar

  • Coremans, P. B. (1949). Van Meegeren’s Faked Vermeers and De Hooghs: A Scientific Examination. Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff.Google Scholar

  • Crane, D. (1989). The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World, 19401985. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Croce, B. (1902/1909). Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic [1902], trans. D. Ainslie. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar

  • Croce, B. (1921). The Essence of Aesthetic, trans. D. Ainslie. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar

  • Currie, G. (1995). Imagination and Simulation: Aesthetics Meets Cognitive Science. In Mental Simulation: Evaluations and Applications, eds. M. Davies and T. Stone (pp. 151–169). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Currie, G. (2004). Arts and Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G. P. Putnam.Google Scholar

  • Danto, A. C. (1964). The Artworld. Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571–584.Google Scholar

  • Danto, A. C. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Danto, A. C. (1998). After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Danto, A. C. (2009). Andy Warhol. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Davies, D. (2007). Telling Pictures: the Place of Narrative in Late Modern “Visual Art.” In Philosophy and Conceptual Art, eds. P. Goldie and E. Schellekens (pp. 138–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, D. C. (1971). Intentional Systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(4), 87–106.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms. Montgomery: Bradford Books.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, D. C. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, D. C. (1990). The Interpretation of Texts, People and Other Artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50 (Issue Supplement), 177–194.Google Scholar

  • Dickie, G. (1962). Is Psychology Relevant to Aesthetics? The Philosophical Review, 71(3), 285–302.Google Scholar

  • Dickie, G. (1984/1997). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art [1984]. Evanston, IL: Chicago Spectrum Press.Google Scholar

  • Dickie, G. (2000). The Institutional Theory of Art. In N. Carroll (Ed.), Theories of Art Today (pp. 93–108). Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

  • Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining Behavior: Reasons in a World of Causes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Ducasse, C. J. (1964). Art and the Language of the Emotions. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 23(1), 109–112.Google Scholar

  • Dutton, D. (1979). Artistic Crimes: The Concept of Forgery in the Arts. British Journal of Aesthetics, 19(4), 302–341.Google Scholar

  • Dutton, D. (2005). Aesthetic Universals. In The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, 2nd edn, ed. B. N. Gaut & D. M. Lopes (pp. 279–292). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Dutton, D. (2009). The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure & Human Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ekman, P. (1992). An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200.Google Scholar

  • Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fechner, G.T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik [Elements of Aesthetics]. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

  • Fodor, J. A. (1993). Déjà Vu All Over Again: How Danto’s Aesthetics Recapitulates the Philosophy of Mind. In Danto and His Critics, ed. M. Rollins (pp. 41–54). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Freedberg, D. (1989). The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Freedberg, D. & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, Emotion and Empathy in Esthetic Experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 197–203.Google Scholar

  • Fried, M. (1998). Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Frijda, N. H. (1986). The Emotions. Cambridge/ Paris: Cambridge University Press/ Editions de la Maisons des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar

  • Gelman, S. A. (2003). The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • German, T. P. & Johnson, S. C. (2002). Function and the Origins of the Design Stance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3(3), 279–300.Google Scholar

  • Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gombrich, E. H. (1979). The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. London: Phaidon.Google Scholar

  • Gombrich, E. H. (2000). Concerning “The science of art”: Commentary on Ramachandran and Hirstein. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(8–9), 17.Google Scholar

  • Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

  • Gopnik, A. and Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Greenberg, C. (1961). Art and Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

  • Harris, P. L. (2000). The Work of the Imagination. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3): 61–83.Google Scholar

  • Hilpinen, R. (2011). >Artifact (revised version). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/ Google Scholar

  • Julius, A. (2002). Transgressions: The Offences of Art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar

  • Kawabata, H. & Zeki, S. (2004). Neural Correlates of Beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91, 1699–1705.Google Scholar

  • Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and Understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 227–254.Google Scholar

  • Keil, F. C. & Wilson, R. A., eds. (2000). Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kelemen, D. (1999). Function, Goals and Intention: Children’s Teleological Reasoning about Objects. Cognition, 3(12), 461–468.Google Scholar

  • Kelemen, D. & Carey, S. (2007). The Essence of Artifacts: Developing the Design Stance. In Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, ed. E. Margolis & S. Laurence (pp. 212–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kreitler, H. & Kreitler, S. (1972). The Psychology of the Arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lambie, J. A. & Marcel, A. J. (2002). Consciousness and the Varieties of Emotion Experience: a Theoretical Framework. Psychological Review, 109(2), 219–259.Google Scholar

  • Lamiell, J. T. (1998). “Nomothetic” and “Idiographic”: Contrasting Windelband’s Understanding with Contemporary Usage. Theory & Psychology 8(1): 23–38.Google Scholar

  • Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). a Model of Aesthetic Appreciation and Aesthetic Judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.Google Scholar

  • Lipton, P. (1991/2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Locher, P. J. (2003). An Empirical Investigation of the Visual Rightness Theory of Picture Perception. Acta Psychologica, 114(2), 147–164.Google Scholar

  • Locher, P., Gray, S., & Nodine, C. (1996). The Structural Framework of Pictorial Balance. Perception, 25, 1419–1436.Google Scholar

  • Margolis, J. (1980). Prospects for a Science of Aesthetic Perception. In Perceiving Artworks, ed. J. Fisher (pp. 213–39). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

  • Margolis, E. and Laurence, S., eds. (2007). Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Martin, L. J. (1906). An Experimental Study of Fechner’s Principles in Aesthetics. Psychological Review, 13, 142–219.Google Scholar

  • Martindale, C. (1984). The Pleasures of Thought: A Theory of Cognitive Hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 49–80.Google Scholar

  • Martindale, C. (1990). The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous Findings for Berlyne’s Psychobiological Theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53–80.Google Scholar

  • Matan, A. & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental Changes within the Core of Artifact Concepts. Cognition, 78(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

  • McManus, I. C., Cheema, B. & Stoker, J. (1993). The Aesthetics of Composition: a Study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11(2), 83–94.Google Scholar

  • Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and Development of Everyday Social Explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978.Google Scholar

  • Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Millikan, R. G. (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Millikan, R. G. (2004). Varieties of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Morris, M. W., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1995). Causal Attribution across Domains and Cultures. In Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate, ed. D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (pp. 577–613). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. (1985). The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, S. ed. (2006). The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility, and Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, S. & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

  • Panofsky, E. (1995). Three Essays on Style. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Parsons, G. & Carlson, A. (2008). Functional Beauty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Parsons, M. L. (1987). How We Understand Art: A Cognitive Developmental Account of Æsthetic Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Peretz, I. (2006). The Nature of Music from a Biological Perspective. Cognition, 100(1), 1–32.Google Scholar

  • Pickford, R. W. (1972). Psychology and Visual Aesthetics. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

  • Ramachandran, V. S. (2001). Sharpening Up “The Science of Art.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(1), 9–29.Google Scholar

  • Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.Google Scholar

  • Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 199–226.Google Scholar

  • Riegl, A. (1890/1992). Problems of Style. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, J. (1995). Startle. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(2), 53–74.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, J. (2005). Deeper than Reason: Emotion and Its Role in Literature, Music, and Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Roskill, M. (1976/1989). What Is Art History? 2nd edn [1976]. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar

  • Ruben, D. H. (1990). Explaining Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Shimamura, A. P. & S.E. Palmer, eds. (2012). Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 3–23.Google Scholar

  • Tanner, J., ed. (2003). The Sociology of Art: A Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Vartanian, O. & Goel, V. (2004). Neuroanatomical Correlates of Aesthetic Preference for Paintings. NeuroReport, 15, 893–897.Google Scholar

  • Walton, K. L. (1973). Pictures and Make-Believe. The Philosophical Review, 82(3), 283–319.Google Scholar

  • Walton, K. L. (1978). Fearing Fictions. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(1), 5–27.Google Scholar

  • Walton, K. L. (1987). Style and the Products and Processes of Art. In The Concept of Style (2nd edn), ed. B. Lang (pp. 72–103). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ Discrimination of Paintings By Monet and Picasso. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63(2), 165–174.Google Scholar

  • Windelband, W. (1894/1998). History and Natural Science. History and Theory 8(1): 5–22.Google Scholar

  • Wölfflin, H. (1920/1950). Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art, trans. M. D. Hottinger. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.Google Scholar

  • Zeki, S. (1999). Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • The Cognitive Science of Art: Ramachandran's 10 Principles of Art, Principles 1-3

    As a starting point for the attempt to discover universals in art based on our knowledge of neuroscience, and visual neuroscience in particular, V.S. Ramachandran has proposed ten principles of art (eight of which come from the paper he wrote with William Hirstein, titled "The Science of Art") . The principles, in the order that Ramachandran discusses them, are:
    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
    In this post, I'll discuss three of these, and in a subsequent post I'll describe five others. I am excluding balance, because it seems to have been added only to address the criticism that balance is excluded from the list, and repetition, rhythm, and orderliness, because Ramachandran has yet to discuss this principle in depth. You may notice that some of these principles are not new (e.g., grouping), but the approach -- the grounding of the principles in neuroscience -- is fairly novel. Hopefully I'll be able to do justice to Ramachandran's theory, and by the end, people will have a lot to think about.

    Peak Shift

    The concept of peak shift is probably familiar to some of you. First demonstrated in pigeons1, the peak shift effect occurs when an animal is rewarded for responding to a particular stimulus (the S+ stimulus, for positive stimulus), and not rewarded for responding to another (S-, for negative stimulus). After the training phase, the animal is tested with a range of stimuli to test for generalization. The animal will, of course, respond to S+, and not respond to S-, but surprisingly, the animal will respond the most to stimuli that are further from S- on the dimension(s) on which S+ and S- differ. For example, if pigeons are rewarded for responding to a flash of light of a particular wavelength (e.g., S+ = 550 nm), and not rewarded for responding to wavelengths higher than S+, then during the testing phase, they will respond the most vigorously to wavelengths under S+, with the size of the response increasing as the wavelength decreases. For another example (from Ramachandran and Hirstein) that might make the role of peak shift in art more clear, consider rats that are trained to respond to rectangles, and not to squares. Since rectangles and squares differ on a single dimension (e.g., width or height), then rats trained to respond to a rectangle of a certain length will respond more vigorously to rectangles of even greated width (or height, depending on the original stimulus).

    Ramachandran and Hirstein (RH) compare the peak shift effect to the Sanskrit word "rasa," which is loosely translated as "essence." The peak shift involves the extraction of the "rasa" of a particular shape, color, etc. For example, consider the Hindu sculpture below. RH argue that the artist has abstracted the female body shape, and exaggerated it in a direction that takes it away from the male body shape, thus making the sculpture more aesthetically pleasing.

    From Ramachandran's BBC Lectures, Lecture 4.

    This explanation actually fits nicely with research on face and body attractiveness. There researchers have found that in some contexts (e.g., during periods of high fertility), women find artificially produced faces with exaggerated masculine features more attractive than normal or "average" faces (usually eigen-faces)2. In addition, participants find exaggerated female or male bodies more attractive than the real bodies rated most attractive, and exaggerated female bodies with male features, or male bodies with female features, are rated as the least attractive (see this PPT presentation).

    Another example that RH use to illustrate the peak shift effect in art is the work of François Boucher, and his nudes in particular (see the painting below). RH argue that Boucher exaggerates the rosey hue in the womens' skin color, making them more attractive than figures with normal hues. They write:
    [T]he primate brain has specialized modules concerned with other visual modalities such as colour depth and motion. Perhaps the artist can generate caricatures by exploiting the peak shift effect along dimensions other than form space, e.g., in ‘colour space’ or ‘motion space’. For instance consider the striking examples of the plump, cherub-faced nudes that Boucher is so famous for. Apart from emphasizing feminine, neotonous babylike features (a peak shift in the masculine/feminine facial features domain) notice how the skin tones are exaggerated to produce an unrealistic and absurd ‘healthy’ pink flush. In doing this, one could argue he is producing a caricature in colour space,particularly the colours pertaining to male/female differences in skin tone.

    François Boucher, "Nude on a Sofa"

    The Hindu scuplture and Boucher painting illustrate examples of exaggeration, or peak shift, that are easily identifiable. However, it may not always be possible to identify what is being exaggerated in art. This is not a problem for the theory, however. RH mention the example of seagull chicks, which instinctively peck at their mother's beak, which has a bright red spot at the tip. Researchers have shown that seagull chicks will also peck at a stick with a red dot at the end. Suprisingly, they will peck the most (when compared to the mother's beak and the stick with the red dot) at a stick with three red stripes. This stick bears no resemblance to their mother's beak, but the exaggeration of the relevant features (the red) produces an extreme response. RH call this last stick an "exaggeration in beak space," and argue that it is a "super-stimulus" that is the seagull equivalent of a Picasso. Concerning the human version of a Picasso, then, Ramachandran believes that Picasso's combination of two views of one face in a painting serve as a similar super-stimulus. In an interview, Ramachandran put it this way:
    When a convergence of axons from several ‘regular’ face cells occurs on a single master cell, nature (or evolution) is not going to go through all the trouble of ensuring that the convergence results in a perfect ‘OR-gate’. On the contrary it may well be that if both views are simultaneously presented to the master cell then the converging inputs from the two corresponding regular ‘single view’ cells may simply add linearly — until saturation. This means you would be hyperactivating the master neuron in a manner that could never occur in nature (Ramachandran, 2000a,b). So this master face neuron may scream out loud (so to speak)‘WOW—what a face! and excite the limbic system correspondingly. Now the advantage with this explanation is that it can be tested experimentally.

    Neuroscientists at Oxford and Princeton are currently recording from both types of cells in these very areas. My prediction is that if you find a regular face cell, it should get excited by regular faces but not any more so by a Picasso face (since only one of the views will excite the cell). But if you go to the master cell, where convergence of many views occurs, then that cell will not only respond to any individual view but even better to two views presented simultaneously as in a cubist portrait!
    Finally, the peak shift principle may also help to explain the relationship between a particular artist and her influences. RH write:
    Often paintings contain homages to earlier artists and this concept of homage fits what we have said about caricature: the later artist makes a caricature of his acknowledged predecessor, but a loving one, rather than the ridiculing practised by the editorial cartoonist. Perhaps some movements in the history of art can be understood as driven by a logic of peak shift: the new art form finds and amplifies the essence of a previous one (sometimes many years previous, in the case of Picasso and African art).

    The early parts of our visual system are designed, in large part, to detect signals in a world of noise. RH argue that discovering correlated features in the visual field, and binding those features, must be rewarding, in order to ensure that we continue to do so despite the difficult. The rewarding nature of this is illustrated in the "AHA" sensation that we often get when we discover a figure among a noisy background. After discovering this figure, we are unable not to notice it again (think of the man, or rabbit, in the moon). To illustrate this, RH provide two figures, which I've given below. In the first, random splotches turn into a face as we bind the features together. In the second, the same processes discover a dalmation. They argue that the discovery of such groupings on different perceptual dimensions (they list space, colour, depth, and motion) are individually reinforcing because it is adaptive to keep such discoveries from individual perceptual modules in memory for later processing. Thus, the presence of groupings on various perceptual dimensions in art should produce an aesthetically pleasing experience.

    For examples of this principle from art, consider the following painting by Paul Klee:

    Paul Klee, "Ancient Sound, Abstract on Black"

    It is impossible not to see the bright squares as a group in contrast to the darker squares that form its background. According to RH, this grouping on the brightness dimension should cause the relevant module in the visual system to send a signal straight to the limbic system, which then causes a pleasant sensation, producing the aesthetic experience that we get from the painting.


    The Klee painting also helps to illustrate another of Ramachandran's principles, contrast. RH write:
    Cells in the retina, lateral geniculate body (a relay station in the brain) and in the visual cortex respond mainly to edges (step changes in luminance) but not to homogeneous surface colours; so a line drawing or cartoon stimulates these cells as effectively as a ‘half tone’ photograph. What is frequently overlooked though is that such contrast extractions — as with grouping — may be intrinsically pleasing to the eye (hence the efficacy of line drawings). Again, though, if contrast is extracted autonomously by cells in the very earliest stages of processing, why should the process be rewarding in itself? We suggest that the answer... has to do with the allocation of attention. Information (in the Shannon sense) exists mainly in regions of change—e.g. edges—and it makes sense that such regions would, therefore, be more attention grabbing — more ‘interesting’ — than homogeneous areas. So it may not be coincidental that what the cells find interesting is also what the organism as a whole finds interesting and perhaps in some circumstances ‘interesting’ translates into ‘pleasing’.
    In the Klee painting, the contrasts make the painting. In this case, the groupings that are pleasing are created by the perception of edges between squares of different levels of brightness (for more examples, see thesetwo paintings). Brightness need not be the only dimension on which we find contrast pleasing, however. Color, for instance, is often used to form striking contrasts (see, for example, thesetwo paintings by Matisse).

    While these examples, and the primary motivation for this principle, come from our knowledge of the early visual system, RH also give one example of the use of contrast that may utilize higher-order visual processes. They write:
    A nude wearing baroque (antique) gold jewellery (and nothing else) is aesthetically much more pleasing than a completely nude woman or one wearing both jewellery and clothes, presumably because the homogeneity and smoothness of the naked skin contrasts sharply with the ornateness and rich texture of the jewellery.
    They admit that this example may bear only a figurative resemblance to contrasts on early visual dimensions like color and brightness, but the use of such examples may lead to interesting predictions about the use of higher-order contrasts in art, and their role in the aesthetic experience. If these higher-order contrasts turn out to be aesthetically pleasing for reasons similar to those of the lower-order contrasts, then we may find that contrast itself is one of the most pervasive principles in art.

    That's probably enough for one post. In the next post, I'll discuss the remaining principles. Feel free to comment on these before I get to the rest.

    UPDATE: The third post in the series is here.

    1 Hanson, H. M. (1959). Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 321-334.
    2 Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 452-460.

    0 thoughts on “Ramachandran Theory Of Art Essay”


    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *