It has been argued that art does not reproduce the visible-it makes things visible-but this does not go far enough. In fact, visual art explores and reveals the brain’s perceptual capabilities and the laws governing it, among which two Line stand supreme: law of constancy and law of abstraction. According to the law of constancy, the visual brain’s function is to seek knowledge of the constant properties of objects and surfaces: the distance, the viewing point, and the illumination conditions change continually, yet the brain is able to discard these changes in categorizing an object. It was an unacknowledged attempt to mimic the perceptual abilities of the brain that led the founders of Cubism, Picasso and Braque, to alter the point of view, the distance and the lighting conditions in their early, analytic period.The second law is that of abstraction, the process in which the particular is subordinated to the general, so that the representation is applicable to many particulars. This second law has strong affinities with the first, because without it, the brain would be enslaved to the particular; the capacity to abstract is also probably imposed on the brain by the limitations of its memory system, because it eliminates the need to recall every detail. Art, too, abstracts and thus externalizes the inner workings of the brain, so that its primordial function is areflection of the function of the brain.Through a process that has yet to be physiologically charted, cells in the brain seem to be able to recognize objects in a view-invariant manner after brief exposure to several distinct views synthesized by them. The artist, too, formsabstractions, through a process that may share similarities with the physiological processes now being unraveled but certainly goes beyond them, in that the abstract idea itself mutates with the artist’s development. But abstraction, a key feature of an efficient knowledge-acquiring system, also exacts a heavy price on the individual, for which art may be a refuge and the abstract "ideal" can lead to a deep discontent, because the daily experience is that of particulars. Michelangelo left three-fifths of his sculptures unfinished, but he had not abandoned them in haste: he often worked on them for years,because time and again the sublimity of his ideas lay beyond the reach of his hands, impressing on him the hopelessness of translating into a single work or a series of sculptures the synthetic ideals formed in his brain. Critics have written in emotional and lyrical terms about these unfinished works, perhaps because, being unfinished, the spectator can finish them and thus satisfy the ideals of his or her brain. This is only qualitatively different from finished works with the inestimable quality of ambiguity-a characteristic of all great art-that allows the brain of the viewer to interpret the work in a number of ways, all of them equally valid. The author implies that the work of Picasso and Braque shifted over the course of their years in that it later came to（）

A. (A) render unseen objects in a visible manner, thus permitting access to the subconscious of the visual brain
B. (B) portray a variety of visual perspectives simultaneously, displaying many sides of an object
C. (C) abandon and forswear the use of all techniques of lighting and distance in their artwork
D. (D) consciously apply the law of abstraction to their paintings to illustrate an understanding of the visual brain
E. (E) critique the brain’s ability to mimic by demonstrating the limits of visual representation