3 ms·

I also have a degree in experimental psychology and a masters in neuroscience, and to be honest, I think you're just describing the neurobiology of vision. Newb

I also have a degree in experimental psychology and a masters in neuroscience, and to be honest, I think you're just describing the neurobiology of vision. Newborns prefer high-contrast images, but I presume you wouldn't consider them to have an understanding of art. And the "red/green" axis just makes me think of the red/green cones in the retina. It sounds like a very naive view of "art". The comment "if you only consider fine art" also feels like you're moving the goalposts, where you're saying "within these works of visual art people prefer high-contrast images", but the categorisation of those images is that they're a subset of visual art within which people prefer high-contrast images.

Daub 5y ago
I am also sure that I am describing the neurobiology of vision, though I would love to know more about it. Such preferences need to come from somewhere. For example, I have always thought that the popularity of the vignette derives from the fact that our visual field is oval not square. As for the fine art issue…. As the previous poster implied, art pretty much changed form around 150 years ago. It went from being pretty much rule-based to pretty much rule-breaking. It would be a waste of time to apply My own research on art to (for example) Tracy Emins tent or Joseph Beuy’s dead hare. I always thought that art would be much easier to talk about if we came up with different names for the stuff that was made since Picasso’s gurnicca and the the stuff made before. They are different things, with different functions and it is only confusing that they are both called art.