Correct me if I'm off base here, but the speaker's idea of an "intelligible theory" sounds a lot like an extended intuition pump a la Dennet. I'm wondering in particular what he means when he says understanding doesn't require true theories (what's a "true theory", anyway? all models are wrong etc.)

engage with art on a human level. It makes for better science. After all, the process of discovery is not like the deductive thing that ends up in the paper. And finally it goes without saying that it's preferable to have our top experts stay in touch with the human experience. 🙃

I don't think science will ever "explain" the qualia of artistic experience, but I think there are many layers before we hit that ceiling that we have as yet not explored, that science can meaningfully address. This to me is independent of its being desirable for scientists to

I think it may be possible to understand why playing with certain visual principles "tickles the brain" (maybe it's similar to the 'aha' moment when grasping a metaphor?) as well as why the artistic medium carries the signal better to another mind than does a very accurate, dry representation.

translates it into something that can induce some version of that experience in another person (the viewer). Understanding visual perception is only one small part -- for example, what is engaging about an impressionist work vs something like a journalistic photograph or a diagram of the same scene?

While I deeply agree with this last post, I think the bit about intuitive understanding of visual perception doesn't mean impressionists are reduced to amateur neuroscientists. Rather, art (not exclusively visual art) takes some experience of the world meaningful to the artist and