by Jon Lackman | 31 March 2006 | Theory
India’s Frontline interviews V.S. Ramachandran (who recently spoke at the “New Biology of the Mind” symposium): “I said [in The Emerging Mind] OK, here are ten laws of art. And I make it clear that these are not like laws of physics … They are trial balloons. While a majority of scholars were intrigued and impressed, some of them get riled up and very territorial. And some art historians wrote, how would he feel if we came into Dr. Ramachandran’s field and started speculating? I would welcome it. There are no boundaries in scholarship … what I suggest is that for every one of these aesthetic principles or laws, there are three corners: how, what, why. `What’, meaning what is the law – symmetry, a statement, that’s easy enough. Why symmetry? You mentioned evolutionary psychology. In other words, why did it evolve? It evolved to detect prey, predator or mate. That’s all there is to it. Otherwise the Taj Mahal would not be appealing. That may sound reductionist, but that’s the truth. But that doesn’t mean if you simply make something symmetrical, it’s going to look beautiful. This is the mistake they make. So like that, I have a whole list. Some of it may turn out to be important laws, some of it may fizzle out and I may be wrong.”
