Did classic artists paint the brain into their art?

Some scientists seem to think so. Check out this comparison between a sagittal section of a brain and this piece of art:

i-569126f20ab0bd3a19283f1618454cfd-brain372.jpg

Pretty striking similarity isn't there?

Partly as a joke to entertain sceptical colleagues, he and the team went on a brain trawl, and found many other examples. The team is convinced the artists were fascinated by the scientific discoveries being made by anatomists, but their theories had to be concealed in the imagery of their paintings, particularly when their clients were so often senior clergy who might see their scientific interests as blasphemous or even heretical, an offence punishable by death. The study, Brain imaging in the Renaissance, features in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

I'm not sure if I buy their explanation but hey it's pretty cool either way.

-Via Mind Hacks-

More like this

Michelangelo's Creation of Adam From Paluzzi et al., Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2007 For a few years, Nature Reviews Neuroscience stuck to a humorous theme in its cover art: everyday objects that mimic brains. A dandelion, spilled wine, a rock, a cave painting: if you know what…
Dinner inside the belly of Iguanodon.My fellow scibling Jonah Lehrer has a new piece in SEED extending the argument from the end of his book Proust Was a Neuroscientist called "The Future of Science... Is Art?" It's pretty interesting, exploring the relation between physics and neuroscience to art…
It's Ada Lovelace Day! Ada Lovelace (1815 - 1852) is often referred to as the world's first computer programmer. The daughter of the famous poet Lord Byron, and the admired intellect, Annabella Milbanke, Ada Lovelace represented the meeting of two alternative worlds: the romanticism and art of her…
Ouch. I got my first nasty review today. (For some nice reviews, check out the NY Times, LA Times, NY Post, Amazon, etc.) In Salon, Jonathan Keats takes issue with the basic premise of the book, which is that meaningful connections can be drawn between science and art: Lehrer's book is worth…

This notion seems to be based partly on the currently popular theory that Renaissance paintings had hidden layers of secret meaning, and partly on the incompatible notion that an artist would put something in just because it looked pretty.

While these might apply to an artist's private doodles, it seems unlikely that they could apply to highly stylised and symbolic devotional art (the meanings are indeed "hidden" to us, but only because we have forgotten the language in which they were expressed!).

By Ian Kemmish (not verified) on 07 Jan 2008 #permalink

"The team is convinced the artists were fascinated by the scientific discoveries being made by anatomists, but their theories had to be concealed in the imagery of their paintings,"

It sounds at least plausible. Even if they didn't know as much about how the brain works as we do, I am sure they must have thought it was real cool!
Dave Briggs :~)

By Dave Briggs (not verified) on 07 Jan 2008 #permalink