<div dir="ltr">Dear Pedro,<div>It is really great that you gave a detailed and clear argumentation that I can apprehend - even </div><div>if we are from very different parts of sciences. Yes, the archaeological evidences suggest that </div><div>art joined the human evolution much before the Upper Paleolitic (see Morriss-Kay 2010). Let </div><div>me add two other apsects: function and interest. (The latter I borrowed from Kant.) Does art </div><div>really lack direct biological or social functions and comes beyond interest? There are examples</div><div>in Morriss-Kay argumentation that the first step was (supposedly) to recognize something in</div><div>natural forms (stones, for instance), and then - later - it was modified a little bit. This kind of</div><div>"linking two different things" are the core concept of metaphorical thinging (see Lakoff & Johnson</div><div>1980 - a superexcellent book). Maybe it started with only a minor mistake to identify sg wrongly? </div><div>Let me mention a story: my dog and I was walking on an empty road in semi-strong wind. There</div><div>came a rubbish (a paper) that was moved slowly and gradually by the wind. My dear dog - </div><div>mistakenly - recognised it from a distance as a cat or a rat or something he wants to catch. </div><div>When we arrived more closely, he became very absorbedly tensed (strung actually). When </div><div>he later on recognized that it not a living creature, he was first disappointed, then after some</div><div>seconds, he started to play with it as it was a real enemy (and hunt for it). This kind of "mistaken </div><div>recognition" might be (maybe) a starting point of this kind of evolutionary development - or not? </div><div>As a social and cultural scientist I am much more rarely sure of anything than the my colleagues </div><div>dealing with natural sciences. What do you thing of the origing of this metaphorical thinking</div><div>that is supposed to be in very close relation with art? </div><div> </div><div>Best,</div><div> László </div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jan. 9., P, 22:24):<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div>Dear <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">
László,</span></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks a lot for your exposition. It is
great counting with a point of view from someone in the humanities
camp.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?" </div>
<div>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). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This was my initial reaction, I will
read more carefully your text and the ongoing argumentation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me thank, again, your work for the
FIS New Year Lecture!</div>
<div>Best--Pedro
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif;color:black"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
. El 09/01/2026 a las 0:59, Csáji László Koppány escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Dear
FIS Colleagues,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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: </span><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.mdpi.com/3042-8084/2/1/1__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WgZ9Trv_6p2drMWktT2dj4f3QMCW3sumaAxZwrB7DztZVLpCLSgKmpzeX8bwbf6LzVUWbYag3mQOq9E9rvnplNWJvQ$" style="color:rgb(5,99,193)" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Toward
a Multidimensional Definition of Art from the Perspective
of Cognitive
Sciences | MDPI</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">).
My attached
kick-off text largely relies on this long paper. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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 </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">and
its </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">social
functions support this idea? Ethologists, cognitive
scientists, and
psychologists often over-emphasize one element (e.g., visual
symmetry-asymmetry, </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px">harmony,
beauty, etc.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">)
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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif;color:black"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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 t</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">hat </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">aligns
closely with the idea
of family resemblance in the sense that cognitive semantics
conceives it as a
kind of categorization (meaning construction). T</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">his
a 3D model rat</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">her
t</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">han
a simple definition. </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">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 s</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">howed
me </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">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. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif;color:black"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">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? </span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif;color:black"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;color:black"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">Best
regards,</span></font></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;color:black"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">
László Koppány Csáji</span></font></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;color:black"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></font></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:14pt;color:black"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">P.s.
See t</span></font><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">he
attac</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">hed
file for furt</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">her
details and argumentation</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>