Connecting the Cerebral Cortex with the Artist's Eyes, Mind and Culture

Journal of Consciousness Studies 7 (8-9):21-27 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein's thought-provoking article ‘The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience’ and the accompanying commentaries raise serious questions about what a science of art is. Unfortunately this short piece will only be able to address them broadly. Overall the problems arise from the exclusion of neurological studies of artists, the exclusion of the artist's experience, and the premises of the theory, which are based on problematic valuations related to aesthetics and spirituality. With these valuations, for which there is no scientific proof, the model is unable to sufficiently address the scope of what artists do and what art forms are. While it is my view that the Ramachandran and Hirstein theory is fundamentally flawed, it is likely the flaws are due to implicit assumptions rather than explicit intentions

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,509

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Another Variety of Vision.John R. Skoyles - 1997 - Trends in Neurosciences 20 (1):22-23.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-04

Downloads
3 (#1,305,094)

6 months
1 (#417,896)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Aesthetics and Cognitive Science.Dustin Stokes - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (5):715-733.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references