Dear Lauri, You wrote:
> Laws should be independent of each other. Why? Who says so? Cheers, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: Lauri Gröhn To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Neuroscience of art Hi all, I am afraid that list can't be validated as a set "laws". Laws should be independent of each other. Regards, Lauri Gröhn metacomposer www.synestesia.fi On 18.9.2008, at 18.30, Sonu Bhaskar wrote: The cognizance between the art and cognitive neuroscience has been relatively ignored in the scientific fraternity. The recent proposition regarding the ten laws of art, as Dr. V. S. Ramachandran puts it, has ignited a new debate among the philosophers and the neuroscientists about neural correlates of art in its different forms. Professor Ramachandran's suggested 10 universal laws of art: 1.. Peak shift 2.. Grouping 3.. Contrast 4.. Isolation 5.. Perception problem solving 6.. Symmetry 7.. Abhorrence of coincidence/generic viewpoint 8.. Repetition, rhythm and orderliness 9.. Balance 10.. Metaphor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
