Mark Rothko painting might be nothing but perplexed neurons in the V4 area of the visual cortex, or abstract art might be nothing but the peak shift effect. That, I think, is reckless hyperbole. The beauty of art is that it needs to be explained at multiple levels, from the action potential of retinal photoreceptors to the cultural shifts of 19th century France. Each of these descriptions is valid and important and essential. There is no privileged kind of discourse when it comes to understanding why we stare at Pollock's colorful drips of paint, or Cezanne's mostly empty watercolors. What intrigues me about neuroaesthetics is that it's another (and mostly novel) way to understand art.* But that doesn't mean it's the only way.The senstivity of a set of symbolic rules and procedures to the context in which they are communicated could be described as a continuum from thin to thick -- i.e., from mathematical equations that are contextually invariant to English, for example, which can express multiple nontrivial messages to different (or even the same) audience simultaneously. There is a tradeoff between economy of information and adaptability with context.