V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein’s “The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience”

In the introduction of V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein’s “The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience”, I was specifically intrigued by their description of the purpose of art, which they claim “is not merely to depict or represent reality — for that can be accomplished very easily with a camera — but to enhance, transcend, or indeed even to distort reality.” However, I was not quite sold on this, because art has been around long before cameras were invented. Did the purpose of art then change with the invention of the camera? How has the purpose of art evolved over time, and how will it continue to change in the future?

Symmetry I enjoyed reading their description of the law of Symmetry. I had never really thought about the root of our visual interest in symmetry, so it was cool to understand the connection to symmetrical biologically important objects that may have served as an early-warning system. However, although we may have a built-in attraction to symmetry, I find that symmetry in art is only effective with certain intentions. In many cases, artists can effectively utilize asymmetry to create a visual tension and reject the appeal of symmetry.

The Generic Viewpoint The generic viewpoint principle reminded me of the Gestalt principles we talked about, specifically the Law of Closure and the Law of Prägnanz. In the example where we see one square occluding the other, even though the form in the back is not explicitly shown as being a closed square, that is how we complete the missing piece. In the next example where both views could be cubes, we only see one of them as a cube and we see the other as a hexagon with scopes, which is similar to the concept of the Law of Prägnanz.

Contrast The description of the principle of contrast was very thorough, but it did seem to be a bit antithetical at first to read how contrast extraction is reinforcing right after reading how perceptual grouping is reinforcing. The following examples of the two patterns clarified this complementary complexity, though, because we see both the groupings and contrasts by texture and color. Also, I was intrigued by the description of their differing spatial constraints, with contrast tending to occur between dissimilar features that are close together. I never really though about the spatial implications of creating a contrast between two objects.