[Fis] Art and the Cognitive (Is art a human phenomenon?)

[Pedro C. Marijuán]

Dear László,

Thanks a lot for your exposition. It is great counting with a point of 
view from someone in the humanities camp.
Having worked recently on a BioSystems special issue on Anthropogenesis, 
I have no trouble to admit that art(s) are a species specific trait of 
the Homo genus, discussing whether its beginnings belong to Homo 
Erectus, Antecessor, Neanderthal, or Sapiens. Artifacts with a  truly 
esthetic sense are found in the later ones, and some traces are presumed 
in the others. Origins of art(s)? In my opinion they appear as an 
"overflow" derived from two sources: the strong brain demands from 
social groups involved in emerging linguistic practices, plus a strange 
aesthetic impulse that i do not know how to qualify (and perhaps has a 
deep biological significance). Your Vectors 2 & 1, Communication and 
Creativity would look congruent with this initial rumination.

In sum, when you ask "Do you agree or disagree that art is a human 
ability? If yes or no: what kind of evidence can we set up for the 
argumentation?"
My response is yes, and the best evidences would stem from 
anthropogenesis, from archeology, from current anthropology, and from 
new neuroscience approaches to Art (but not enough! The aesthetic 
impulse looks quite enigmatic to me, maybe close to the transcendent).

This was my initial reaction, I will read more carefully your text and 
the ongoing argumentation.

Let me thank, again, your work for the FIS New Year Lecture!
Best--Pedro



.  El 09/01/2026 a las 0:59, Csáji László Koppány escribió:
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> This is rather a starting point of a conversation than a report of 
> research results; a call to think together and share our thoughts and 
> knowledge. The question in this kick-off text is very simple: Is art a 
> human ability? As a social and cultural anthropologist, I conducted 
> fieldworks in Asia, Africa, and Europe over the last few decades. Art 
> penetrates our everyday life and rituals; just think of the built 
> environment, music, design, literature, fine arts, vernacular arts, 
> etc. I have recently published a paper that addresses art(s), aiming 
> to develop a new definition from the perspective of cognitive sciences 
> (see: Toward a Multidimensional Definition of Art from the Perspective 
> of Cognitive Sciences | MDPI <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.mdpi.com/3042-8084/2/1/1__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QMhJvU3t9o-eVI16E99VZkqXDdBSeEZIyrn9pPXel1iFL7OyQ2OecuICg7GrSJwKlryBYEbudcxEiWiplQs0c7O45afi$ >). 
> My attached kick-off text largely relies on this long paper.
>
> Numerous attempts to define art have been made from antiquity to the 
> present, yet historical overviews often adopt a Eurocentric (and 
> American-centric) perspective focused mainly on culturally dependent 
> aesthetic approaches. As a universal social and cultural phenomenon, 
> art resists center-periphery models. Art is not merely a unique 
> representation of reality, but also an ability to create new realities 
> and thereby shape society. Art has attracted and accompanied people 
> from the dawn of history. Some argue that acquiring the ability to 
> create and appreciate art was one of the few important steps in the 
> process of becoming Homo Sapiens. Thus, it is a universal phenomenon 
> that spans ages and cultures—arising from something fundamentally 
> human. However, is it really fundamentally human? What gives its 
> "merely" human factor? Do our experiences (image) on AI development 
> and its social functions support this idea? Ethologists, cognitive 
> scientists, and psychologists often over-emphasize one element (e.g., 
> visual symmetry-asymmetry, harmony, beauty, etc.) of art(s) that seems 
> suitable for their research methods. This seems a pragmatic and 
> reasonable solution, but it easily obscures the “big picture” and the 
> core of the problem. Thus, it remains a question how art can be 
> considered as a human activity. Consequently, artists and scholars 
> have been preoccupied since ancient times with the question of what 
> art is, or how certain prominent forms of art (visual arts, drama, 
> music, literature, etc.) work. Nevertheless, the abstract concept of 
> art is not expressed by a notion (word) in every culture. There are 
> significant differences in the use of the words linked to art. 
> Moreover, the meaning of art has changed continuously and 
> significantly over time, albeit at different rates.
>
> The cognitive turn reshaped art theory by reconsidering art as a 
> cognitive dimension of humanity. Art has no limits on who can create 
> or enjoy it. The ability to use and understand metaphor, for instance, 
> demonstrates everyday human artistic cognition. I introduced a simple 
> vectorial model that aligns closely with the idea of family 
> resemblance in the sense that cognitive semantics conceives it as a 
> kind of categorization (meaning construction). This a 3D model rather 
> than a simple definition. Since art lacks a single, definitive 
> prototype, no strict, universal definition can capture all its forms 
> in a yes or no spectrum. My filed studies showed me the variability of 
> artistic practices (in craft, value, range of affect, etc.) that can 
> be placed in different ways within a space (and not a category) of 
> art. In this model, three coordinates form a space. These vectors 
> (coordinates) are equally relevant cognitive aspects: 1. Creativity, 
> 2. Communication, 3. Experience. For further, detailed argumentation 
> see the attached file.
>
> Dear FIS members, dear colleagues in different scientific disciplines! 
> Do you agree or disagree that art is a human ability? If yes or no: 
> what kind of evidence can we set up for the argumentation?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>                           László Koppány Csáji
>
>
> P.s. See the attached file for further details and argumentation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20260109/d6b5f92e/attachment.html>