Please don't be put off by the Introduction. Keep reading; you'll be glad you did. The Intro seemed (to me) to be an extreme example of the overly precise elaboration of subtle(!) nuances that readers of scholarly writings learn to tolerate because we NEED the information buried - somewhere - within. But as soon as he moved away from trying to explain himself (his intentions, his book), and moved onto his topic, the writing began to flow. It became a wonderful opportunity to "listen" while an expert mused upon the historical intertwinement of the evolution(s) of art (his field) and science (one he has bothered to learn quite a lot about) ... and their apparent interdependence. He claims interest only in the varied uses of visual experience, but not in the currently-popular reconciliation of art and science. Yet, page by page, I found myself developing clearer understanding of why so many thinkers are feeling driven to try to reconcile these realms of activity that are often contrasted in ways that demean one or the other. Similarly, he shows no particular interest in a third currently-popular realm that I expected to find treated, our evolving brain and its wiring &/or activity. But he has made it easier for someone who does have this interest to write the next book in what could become a "series."