Fact and fiction in the neuropsychology of art

This paper provides a critical discussion of Zaidel's (2005) attempt to shed light on the neuropsychology of art by studying brain damage in established artists. We conclude that the methods used are inappropriate to the subject matter, and progress in the study of neuropsychology of art is more likely to be made if the topic is approached in a different way. Rather than relying on gappy historical records, data should be gathered on living painters using state of the art technology, and these painters can be chosen arbitrarily since nothing depends on their standing in the art world.