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

[Csáji László Koppány]

Dear Pedro,
It is really great that you gave a detailed and clear argumentation that I
can apprehend - even
if we are from very different parts of sciences. Yes, the archaeological
evidences suggest that
art joined the human evolution much before the Upper Paleolitic (see
Morriss-Kay 2010). Let
me add two other apsects: function and interest. (The latter I borrowed
from Kant.) Does art
really lack direct biological or social functions and comes beyond
interest? There are examples
in Morriss-Kay argumentation that the first step was (supposedly) to
recognize something in
natural forms (stones, for instance), and then - later - it was modified a
little bit. This kind of
"linking two different things" are the core concept of metaphorical
thinging (see Lakoff & Johnson
1980 - a superexcellent book). Maybe it started with only a minor mistake
to identify sg wrongly?
Let me mention a story: my dog and I was walking on an empty road in
semi-strong wind. There
came a rubbish (a paper) that was moved slowly and gradually by the wind.
My dear dog -
mistakenly - recognised it from a distance as a cat or a rat or something
he wants to catch.
When we arrived more closely, he became very absorbedly tensed (strung
actually). When
he later on recognized that it not a living creature, he was first
disappointed, then after some
seconds, he started to play with it as it was a real enemy (and hunt for
it). This kind of "mistaken
recognition" might be (maybe) a starting point of this kind of evolutionary
development - or not?
As a social and cultural scientist I am much more rarely sure of anything
than the my colleagues
dealing with natural sciences. What do you thing of the origing of this
metaphorical thinking
that is supposed to be in very close relation with art?

Best,
           László


Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jan.
9., P, 22:24):

> 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!WgZ9Trv_6p2drMWktT2dj4f3QMCW3sumaAxZwrB7DztZVLpCLSgKmpzeX8bwbf6LzVUWbYag3mQOq9E9rvnplNWJvQ$ >). 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/20260111/500f3cdf/attachment.html>