{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Tagore referred to the taj mahal as a teardrop on the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: heek of time”). The same thing is possible in visual art. For example, the multiple arms on the Chola bronze of the dancing Shiva or Nataraja (Figure 4) are not meant to be taken literally, as they were by the Victorian art critic Sir George Birdwood, who called it a multi-armed monstrosity. (Funnily enough, he didn’t think that angels sprouting wings were monstrosities—although I can tell you as a medical man that to possess multiple arms is anatomically possible, but wings on scapulae are not!) The multiple arms are meant to symbolize multiple divine attributes of God, and the ring of fire that Nataraja dances in—indeed his dance itself—is a metaphor of the dance of the cosmos and of the cyclical nature of creation and destruction, an idea championed by the late Fred Hoyle. Most great works of art—be they Western or Indian—are pregnant with metaphor and have many layers of meaning.9 Everyone knows that metaphors are important, yet we have no idea why. Why not just say “Juliet is radiant and warm” instead of saying “Juliet is the sun”? What is the neural basis for metaphor? We don’t know. Many social scientists feel rather deflated when informed that beauty, charity, piety, and love are the result of the activity 186 the artful brain Figure 4. Nataraja, or dancing Shiva. Chola dynasty, copper alloy, thirteenth century. of neurons in the brain, but their disappointment is based on the false assumption that to explain a complex phenomenon in terms of its component parts (“reductionism”) is to explain it away. To understand why this is a fallacy, imagine it’s the twenty-second century and I am a neuroscientist watching you and your partner (Esmeralda) making love. I scan Esmeralda’s brain and tell you everything that’s going on in it when she is in love with you and making love to you. I tell you about activity in her septum, in her hypothalamic nuclei, and how certain peptides are released along with the affiliation hormone prolactin, etc. You might then turn to her and say, “You mean that’s all there is to it? Your love isn’t real? It’s all just chemicals?” To which Esmeralda should respond, “On the contrary, all this brain activity provides hard evidence that I do love you, that I’m not just faking it. It should increase your confidence in the reality of my love.” And the same argument holds for art or piety or wit. 187 the internet and the university Do these laws of neuro-aesthetics encompass everything there is to know about art? Of course not; I have barely scratched the surface. But I hope that these laws have provided some hints about the general form of a future theory of art and about how a neuroscientist might try to approach the problem. The solution to the problem of aesthetics, I believe, lies in a more thorough understanding of the connections between the 30 visual centers in the brain and the emotional limbic structures (and of the internal logic and evolutionary rationale that drives...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online