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

[Csáji László Koppány]

Dear Gordana,
Yes, the question is totally valid. Some birs' mating dance or excellent
nests, some fish-built dwellings
or other structures really seems art - for humans. But aren't them only
functional behaviors that are
"recognized" as art only by us? This really turns us back to the
fundamental question - what art is, how
we define it? Can beauty be considered without interest or function for an
animal? For humans - yes.
I am - of course - only loudly thinking. I am not sure for the anser to my
question yet, so I really thank
for thinking together!
Best regards,
                         László

Gordana Dodig Crnkovic <dodig at chalmers.se> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jan.
11., V, 9:57):

> Dear László,
>
>
>
> Thank you for opening this important question.
>
> What do you think about this fish art?
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/a-pufferfishs-masterpiece/a-pufferfishs-masterpiece/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!ScQxBLV21qWfNXIiq1daD0JiBzt3Yeluy5KJlxf-uWMxp4AEwH7qwfG7gAKzPV1ksOh19yiJJpGGD9jy4pPJn9WaCQ$ 
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://gordana.se/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!ScQxBLV21qWfNXIiq1daD0JiBzt3Yeluy5KJlxf-uWMxp4AEwH7qwfG7gAKzPV1ksOh19yiJJpGGD9jy4pPmpmjs0w$ 
>
>
>
> *From: *Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of "Pedro C.
> Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 9 January 2026 at 22:25
> *To: *Csáji László Koppány <csaji.koppany at gmail.com>, "
> fis at listas.unizar.es" <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Art and the Cognitive (Is art a human phenomenon?)
>
>
>
> 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/20260111/5cece84f/attachment-0001.html>