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

[Csáji László Koppány]

Dear Steve,
I must think on your comment and opinion some more a little bit. As a quick
response: thank you for taking this conversation seriously: the comparative
experimental study could be a base for producing acceptable evidences, I
totally agree with you. All the other ideas might be exciled to
speculations
by those who disagree with them (anyway, speculations seem necessary, as
we cannot go back in time to the down of human evolution, for instance).
The
methodology should also be well considered before starting to laboratory
work. Can you suggest some of such research results, papers?
Best wishes,
                         László

Steve Watson <sw10014 at cam.ac.uk> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jan. 11., V,
21:43):

> Dear László, Gordana, Mark, Pedro, Kate, John, and colleagues,
>
> Picking up on László’s request for evidence about “actually art” (not just
> beauty ratings or film clips), and Gordana’s pufferfish puzzle: one way
> forward is to treat “art” less as a single trait and more as a stabilised
> operation that can be studied comparatively.
>
> A minimal operational handle might be: art-like practices are those that
> generate re-enterable forms (rhythm/gesture/mark/object) that reorganise
> attention and affect and become socially taken up (repeated, copied,
> curated, evaluated, ritualised). This gives us things to measure without
> settling the metaphysics of consciousness.
>
> Concretely, that suggests at least four empirical “ports of entry”:
> 1) Entrainment and joint attention (music, chant, dance; coordination
> dynamics);
> 2) Expectation/violation and predictive timing (why some patterns feel
> compelling);
> 3) Trace, durability, and re-entry (what media make forms revisitable and
> transmissible);
> 4) Uptake and norming (how groups converge on “this counts” and stabilise
> conventions).
>
> The pufferfish case is interesting here: it looks like an ecology where a
> particular medium (sand), repeated performance, and mate-choice attention
> stabilise an elaborate, repeatable form—continuity at the level of
> operations (salience/selection + trace), even if cumulative culture differs.
>
> Best wishes,
> Steve
>
> Sent from Outlook for iOS <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XqKmQC17Q9TFbGaZ_LJBvdP09nbPIDo2Y60vbq3i1zlvOS8xYntvY7gkoQsHQZ0slq6VmkWT25KtnmnDnB0b1RAQeQ$ >
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Gordana
> Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 11, 2026 4:17:15 PM
> *To:* Csáji László Koppány <csaji.koppany at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* fis at listas.unizar.es <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Art and the Cognitive (Is art a human phenomenon?)
>
>
> Dear László
>
>
>
> What confuses me is that this little fish makes such a huge effort to
> produce (for us, and probably for similar fish) such a beautiful artifact.
>
> It would function even without the elaborate structure pufferfish is
> making.
>
>
>
> If we look at art from the point of view of cognitive function, and we
> claim cognition shows evolutionary continuity
> (e.g. „From Bacteria to Bach and Back“, Dennett) why dont we see some
> reasonable continuity in artifacts production?
>
>
>
> I am not aware of monkeys spontanously producing artifact of similar
> complexity.
>
> Searching for reasonable way to understand what this little fish is doing.
>
>
>
> It is a communicative act, and it works, but why is it so extremely
> elaborate?
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Csáji László Koppány <csaji.koppany at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 11 January 2026 at 20:30
> *To: *Gordana CHALMERS <dodig at chalmers.se>
> *Cc: *"fis at listas.unizar.es" <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Art and the Cognitive (Is art a human phenomenon?)
>
>
>
> 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!XqKmQC17Q9TFbGaZ_LJBvdP09nbPIDo2Y60vbq3i1zlvOS8xYntvY7gkoQsHQZ0slq6VmkWT25KtnmnDnB0cHABTXA$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/a-pufferfishs-masterpiece/a-pufferfishs-masterpiece/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UTJhK5INBASbWZLZ0JkLf9l1e4Ku-XUZFWWLyzVUPRN3gjXbABoUpV5G9oM4ccu1aqSdUHYaIFjSSCb-sgTumeug9ljt4A$>
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://gordana.se/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XqKmQC17Q9TFbGaZ_LJBvdP09nbPIDo2Y60vbq3i1zlvOS8xYntvY7gkoQsHQZ0slq6VmkWT25KtnmnDnB35CKvyCQ$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://gordana.se/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UTJhK5INBASbWZLZ0JkLf9l1e4Ku-XUZFWWLyzVUPRN3gjXbABoUpV5G9oM4ccu1aqSdUHYaIFjSSCb-sgTumes47vNBRA$>
>
>
>
> *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/20260111/2e0be3e5/attachment-0001.html>