by Jon Lackman | 9 August 2006 | Theory
From the New Scientist: “[Neuroscientist] Vilayanur Ramachandran … claims to have discovered ‘the key to understanding what art really is.’ Semir Zeki … claims that great art can be defined ‘in neurological terms’ … [According to Ramachandran,] works of art that we appreciate or enjoy activate the same neural mechanisms that are activated when we see the kinds of objects they represent (a person, a bowl of fruit, a landscape), only more powerfully. His favourite examples are the classical Indian sculptures in which goddesses are depicted with large breasts, narrow waists and wide hips … the most serious problem with Ramachandran’s theory is that it is not really about art at all. To be blunt, it is really a theory about why men are attracted to women with big breasts … I firmly believe that neuroscience can contribute to our knowledge about art. I doubt, however, whether Ramachandran’s claim that his ideas are superior to ‘the vague notions of philosophers and art historians’ is right. We cannot expect to make progress without learning from and engaging with the intellectual tradition we have inherited. This is especially true of neuroscience, which is a 19th-century subject deeply rooted in the philosophy of Locke and Kant … If we ignore the philosophy of the past, we run the risk of basing our ideas on jejune philosophy of our own.”
