Skip to main content

Against the reduction of art to galvanic skin response

Buy Article:

$18.02 plus tax (Refund Policy)

This essay exposes several problems with reductionist approaches to art, placing some specific focus on ‘The Science of Art’ by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein (1999). Their article seems to be representative of this genre in general, though particularly egregious in certain dimensions. My approach will differ greatly from that of a neuroscientist, philosopher, or psychologist, since I primarily take a critical feminist, social-literary perspective. I will argue that reductionist approaches to art are an intoxicating composite of arrogance, insight, confusion and precision, an amalgam that challenges the commentator to distinguish what is worth praising, what is worth attacking, and what is best left alone. In particular, I will demonstrate that Ramachandran and Hirstein confuse arousal (in a certain technical sense) with beauty, with the disastrous result of excluding most of what is usually taken to distinguish ‘high’ art from its ‘lower’ forms, such as advertising, industrial design, and pornography.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Document Type: Review Article

Affiliations: Donnya Wheelwell is the pseudonym of a science professional.

Publication date: 2000-08-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more