Dear Derek,
Thank you for your e-mail. I will give myself some time to think about your first reply. I think that this goes to the core of the definitional aspect of the discussion we were having re. neuro-aesthetics and I would like some time to prepare my response.

But on maggots and massive facial wounds (I am currently working on a book on serial murder and popular culture that takes WWI trauma into account): traumatized flesh may not be a source of beauty per se but it can be sublimated via artistic appropriation to create an effect or sensation of the beautiful; Goya did this with his 'Disaster of War' series.

And re Museums: sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I think that the Museum has become one of the primary 'factories' of the commodification of artistic consumption.

Re. Chomsky v Norvig: what I meant was that Bryan's rejection of our demand that he define Art closely mirrored Norvig's rejoinder to Chomsky: that AI research does not require a definition of human intelligence in order to progress; simulation via mimicry is sufficient. Like Norvig, Bryan deliberately bracketed out of the conversation the very thing that we thought essential in order for neuro-aesthetics to succeed as a research paradigm.

As Chomsky put it: it is a very strange way to do Science if you do not attempt to define the nature of the thing that you are studying.

Of course, as Norvig said, Chomsky's demand for a substantive definition of human intelligence constituted an older way of doing Science. All that matters is the raw data.