Danny Monterroso

The Biological Basis of Aesthetics and the Laws of Art

Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran
UC-San Diego

Dr. R talks about the neural underpinnings of art and its arbitrary nature-- a pig dipped in
formaldehyde, if given support, can be considered art strangely enough, he says. A type of
prosoprognosia of the medial inferior parts of temporal lobes are damaged on both side of the brain
become phase blind, and can't differentiate between faces.
When talking about art, Dr. R. discusses Indian art and its connections with his time in the UK,
and how an Englishman talks about the “ugly” Indian art that they felt wasn't realistic, and
aesthetically appealing. He talks about contortion of people is what makes art interesting. He then
makes the comparison of these ancient Indian art and Picasso, who have done essentially the same
thing – contort the human body to make a visually pleasurable image – but with one only having
acclaim of this Englishman. He talks about that simple perceptions of a picture can take a high amount
of judgment, such as the interpretation of the picture that simultaneously shows a young woman and an
old lady. The reason art works, he says, is that you can selectively titillate images which can lead to art.
He then gives 9 “laws” of aesthetics: Peak shift, grouping, contrast, isolation, perceptual problem
solving, symmetry, visual rhythm/ repetition, balance and harmony, and metaphor. For these laws, he
says at least three of these laws need to be in effect to see a visual aesthetic. He believes that
neuroscientists aren't looking too much in the subjective portion of a visual image, while psychology
isn't looking at the objective portion of a visual image. He discusses grouping, which he says is the
combination of different colors and shapes that elicit an interpretation of what the image could be. An
example of the grouping law, he gives out, are a number of green five's surrounded by reverse fives that
are red, and how we're able to separate the two. An external stimulus sends a signal to the limbic area
that gives an emotional response that can give an aesthetic appreciation.
In peak shift, talks about exaggeration in artists in color and form domain. In form domain, he
goes back to a woman with broad hips and round figures. In peak shift, when you teach a rat to know
the difference between a square and a rectangle, he'll only go to the rectangle. If you give it a longer,
skinnier rectangle, it will go to that one as well. What the rat has learned is that the more obtuse the
rectangle, the more interested the rat will be become in it. Peak shift has mostly to do with caricature;
an average form, and giving an amplification.
Straying off from the rules, he talks about visual recognition in offspring of avians that tell them
to peak on a beak with a red circle. The coding parameters get crazy if the original is obfuscated. For
example, not even giving the baby seagulls a beak with a red dot, but a stick three red lines. More red
outline, the better. The avians go crazy for three lines instead of the prototype, which supports his
theory that obfuscation of a prototypical image is visually appealing. If the seagull had an art gallery,
he said, the seagull would consider this “great art.”
He gives an interesting comparison of a young girl who makes an incredible horse drawing,
which shows incredible emotion mechanics. A normal boy, however, gives a typical boy drawing. How
can you explain this? This is the principle of isolation, of the “savant.” Most of the brain areas are
functioning deficiently, so most of the neural connections are devoted to one area that can give highly
detailed drawings. Residual island of cortical tissue that are for artistic proportion, which gives this
autistic child the ability to draw a highly detailed horse.