In their paper, “The Science of Art,” V.S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein put forth a more concrete hypothesis. They state that beauty, in terms of art, is predicated on three core principles:
1. The logic of art
2. The evolution of art
3. The neurophysiology of art
Ramachandran and Hirstein assert that much of the way we perceive art is based upon how our brains have been conditioned to see art. Through experience, we develop a beauty ideal, or a predefined aesthetic based on reward, what Ramachandran and Hirstein call the “peak shift principle.”
Like lab rats that are rewarded for identifying a rectangle, and thereby respond stronger to a more exaggerated rectangle in subsequent tests, Ramachandran and Hirstein assert that the human neurobiological response is similar. Our brain tends to respond to art forms it can relate to and/or can connect with prior emotional and cognitive experiences.
Does this mean that art is not an individual experience? Even Ramachandran and Hirstein do not make this claim. It simply means that the ‘essence’ of art, the rasa, is largely a cognitive process, and the more experience you have with art and the deeper your understanding and appreciation of other cultures and styles, the greater your enjoyment of art will become—in all of its forms.
Popular Brain Tips 
The neurobiological response to beauty In Indian art, there is a term, rasa, which has no literal translation but can be paraphrased as “the very essence of.” It suggests that the beauty of art is not necessarily in its form but in the way that it is experienced.
