date: 2023.01.31

The Mental World Reflected in Art

The way we understand art fundamentally carries duality. One aspect is aesthetic, and artistic value can be traced back to Aristotle’s physics era in science, where beauty is understood in the same sense as the geometric beauty (symmetry) defined by Pythagoras or the meaning expressed by Aquinas: beauty is that which pleases the senses (id quod visum placet)! In the subfields of science that follow Kantianism, the definition of art appreciation isn’t dealt with in grand terms but is confined to neural responses inside the human body [1]. On the other hand, art history rejects this aesthetic perspective as outdated and strictly refuses to interpret it as such. Another way to understand art is as described by Arthur Danto in After the End of Art: modern art has evolved in a way that completely shatters the form of art as aesthetics. You can’t say something is art or not art anymore. That is all finished. Warhol made it no longer possible to distinguish something that is art from something that is not.

What makes art art, and what makes an artist an artist? Is there a right way to appreciate art? Where do the qualities of an artist come from? These may sound like foolish questions, but the fact that art, artistry, and artists are discussed on different levels will be a key point going forward. This article briefly discusses a few big questions that we follow when talking about art—mainly limited to visual art for convenience. It proceeds through discussions on artists, art and artistry, obscenity, and finally, an interpretation of the drawing conjecture(HD).

[1] This is discussed in Science of Art Appreciation. References: Neurobiological Foundations of Art and Aesthetics, Questions for the Psychology of the Artful Mind, Differential Effect of Visual Art Production and Cognitive Art Evaluation on Functional Brain Connectivity.

---

a. On the Characteristics of Art and the Artist’s Mind

Is it merely those who obtain a degree from an art school or engage in officially sanctioned artistic activities who are artists, and is what they produce considered art? Or can we consider all creations by anyone who chooses to make them as art? In everyday situations, we often call people artists if they can buy and sell their own creations for economic gain or if they are certified as artists by official institutions. Even amateurs who self-proclaim themselves as artists can use the title if they desire [1a]. Despite this autonomy, those who do not find enjoyment in creating are unlikely to be interested in artistic activities. In other words, artists usually begin their creative endeavors out of sheer curiosity. What determines these different levels of interest among individuals? Why do some people become obsessed with creating things with their own hands while others do not? Mark Turner’s The Artful Mind seeks to elucidate the mysteries of such human creativity. Personally, I like to translate “artful mind” as “artist’s mind,” referring to the unique quality of creativity shared by artists across different times and levels. Until the human mind is fully understood, the origin of the artist’s mind will remain a mystery, yet hints about it continue to be suggested. Merlin Donald links cognitive abilities with artistic characteristics [2a]:

• (A) Art as Cognitive Engineering: The goal of art is to move the viewer’s mind. The artist’s role is semi-fixed, but art always aims towards cognitive results.

• (B) Cognitive Theory: Art is influenced by the collective intelligence shaped by the physical and sociocultural context between individuals and groups (distributed cognition). Most art is reflective not only of the artist but also of the society to which the artist belongs (metacognition).

• (C) Art as Constructivism: In art, the artist’s worldview—structurally accumulated through experiences of real life, nature, and sensations—is deliberately reconfigured and expressed.

• (D) Art as Technology: The form and medium of art are technology-driven, meaning that the birth of new art necessarily leads to the development of new technology.

The interaction among the reality, the artist, the image, and the observer, as explained through (A)–(C), was elegantly systematized by Fredo Durand in The Art and Science of Depiction. When we first learn physics, the basic concepts introduced are (1) objects and matter, (2) time and space, and (3) mass, with their arrangement forming the basis for (4) all scientific work that explains the regularity of natural phenomena. In a theatrical analogy, (2) represents the stage where (1) the actors appear, (4) the script drives the action, and (3) the scenes are directed. In a musical analogy, (2) is the concert hall where (1) the musicians appear, (4) they play music according to the scores, and (3) perform in front of the audience. Depicting artistic work through physics can be compared to (2) the space where (1) the artwork, created by someone, is (3) displayed to the audience [3a].

This structure includes even the cases where issues arise in understanding relationships between information—such as those who lack a well-formed Theory of Mind (ToM) or whose environmental context prevents proper acquisition of real information. In low-functioning autism, issues in ordering information make it difficult to complete the task of rearrangement. However, in high-functioning autism spectrum individuals, with sufficient training, they can grasp the artistic process as well as or better than the average person [4a]. There are also instances where the link between reality and abstract concepts is misconnected or absent altogether. It must be noted that this theory is limited to visual art. Although art heavily relies on visual perception, it does not encompass all senses needed for appreciating art. Even someone born completely blind can grasp and apply the concept of visual perception if they have the cognitive ability to infer vague abstractions through touch and spatial awareness [5a]. Ultimately, however, the artist’s mind begins with seeing, feeling, and thinking. Artists need insight to observe carefully, intuition to understand well, and inspiration to describe beautifully [6a]. An artist, despite having something observed, felt, and thought through rearrangement, cannot transmit that exactly to others, and observers cannot precisely trace the path of the artist. Conversely, the artist can also become an observer. Observation is a hermetic act, isolated within consciousness, and to express it, one must open that closed loop back to the outside world. At this point, the artist’s mind becomes a concentration and summation of the human mind. After all, Plato’s allegory of the cave reminds us that the freed individuals who confronted reality were descendants of ancient artists who painted those cave walls! Though those early murals, representing the art of their time, were redefined during Plato’s era, they were still born of a context that isolated them in a specific place and time. Art after Plato’s time also shaped future art, just as modern art is an extension of previous eras. Modern art will be shaped by our present and continue interacting with future works, completing a dialogue across time. Thus, the true spirit of an artist lies in building the frame itself. Wassily Kandinsky aptly captured this spirit when he described it as the creative soul residing within and outside the substance [7a]: “When the painter’s reason prides itself to explain his work constructively… We have before us the age of conscious creation with which the spiritual in painting will be allied organically; with the gradual forming structure of the new spiritual realm, as this spirit is the soul of this epoch of great spirituality.”

[1a] On DeviantArt, a community famous for creative works, users have the discretion to choose titles such as hobbyist and artist.

[2a] Art and Cognitive Evolution.

[3a] Another example can be found in Segre’s Faust in Copenhagen, where the standard model was depicted as actors on a stage.

[4a] This is different from savant syndrome, which features exceptional artistic techniques and abilities in those with an autistic disposition. (A), (B), (C) suggest that art involves understanding others and the world in specific contexts—highlighting the importance of sociality. General intelligence affects the ability to find and apply social rules and common sense, but other elements do not have significant connections with intelligence. See Is Superior Local Processing in the Visuospatial Domain a Function of Drawing Talent Rather than Autism Spectrum Disorder?, Discrimination of Two Aspects of Cognitive-Social Intelligence from Academic Intelligence.

[5a] Relevant reading: The argument that visual, auditory, and tactile perception are inseparable arises from this point, implying that if the core of sensory systems is discovered, solving the mysteries of human intelligence becomes a matter of time.

[6a] The Mind on Art: Cognitive Functions and States Associated with Aesthetic Engagement.

[7a] On the Problem of Form, On the Spiritual in Art.

---

b. On Art and Artistry

Where is art, what is it, and how does it exist? Is there a better direction for art? Art is notoriously difficult to describe, capable of evoking feelings of aesthetic or sublime pleasure in viewers, or alternatively feelings of bizarre, filthy, and ugly discomfort, or even all of these feelings simultaneously. Clearly, defining art requires appropriately evaluating the following basic elements:

(1) The artwork

(2) The artist who produced the work

(3) The group of people or audience who view and evaluate the work

In Tolstoy’s What Is Art?, we see his particular ideas on defining art [1b]. It can be said that the views on art shared by Tolstoy and most philosophers until the advent of intelligent computers were largely similar. Art can be considered such if (2) the artist expresses emotions they have experienced through specific techniques that correspond to certain forms of art, and (3) this expression is universally acknowledged by others [2b]. For this argument to hold, it must imply that art follows some form. Thus, comparisons between the methodology of science and artistic schools of thought, similar to those in section a, are also employed by Tolstoy and others like Heisenberg. “Just as understanding reality in art requires an idealization over many years, art, unlike general scientific research, does not aim for something pursued perpetually. Science continues regardless of the identity of the researcher, but art endures only among artists who collectively engage in that school of thought. Art is born out of the interaction between the artist and the zeitgeist, which may or may not be tied to the era.” In this view, the methodologies of science and art are not fundamentally different. Like science, art also requires forming a system for dealing with separate aspects of reality over centuries.

It is reasonable to acknowledge that art is expressed through at least a form—whatever that form may be. Simple doodles alone cannot be called art. Any casual scribble, no matter how unrefined, must exist within a certain “frame” [3b], and it must have at least one viewer to create the basis of art.

However, even if we assume that the basic elements (1)–(3) are essential, attempting to define art solely by the existence of these elements is akin to stubbornly equating current computer functions with human intelligence. This is a critical flaw in the behaviorist interpretation, similar to the lack of persuasiveness in Blake Lemoine’s argument for LaMDA’s sentience [4b]. Lemoine failed to explain the distinction between machine learning technology that mimics high-level intelligent behavior and the human cognitive system that interacts with non-humans, and he could not persuade experts in the field either, thus leaving his argument as merely his personal value judgment as an engineer. This debate serves as an example of how the issue of defining art aligns with human personification tendencies. Regardless of whether LaMDA has a mind, this LLM seems sufficiently intelligent to us [5b], just as the winning artwork by Midjourney in the Colorado State Museum’s art competition can look artistic to us. Here, the validity of (2) can be questioned: in a blind scenario, we cannot predict how different the results of sufficiently advanced AI—though strictly speaking, the term artificial intelligence is misleading—are from human creations. Regardless of whether the artwork is created by a human, a lesser being, or a machine, we may still find it strangely beautiful. However, is LaMDA’s language ability truly intelligence? Is the artwork by Midjourney truly art? Concluding that a non-human entity possesses a human-like mind simply because it produces human-like results might be considered a hasty judgment. Since we are human, we will never be able to perceptually grasp something outside the frame of human cognition [6b]. Without a definitive answer, how can we define it in an all-or-nothing way? Moreover, this leads to the need for redefining (2) the artist and encountering the infinite regression of defining that definition again. But if we argue in such a nitpicking way, no definition can be established in language. At least, it can immediately be understood that the inherent limitations of language itself make it impossible to accurately categorize art [7b].

Fuzzy theory calculates such ambiguous categories through linguistic approximation, allowing us to classify artistry as a spectrum between art and non-art. For instance, let Y be the set of artistic works, and suppose we have a specific piece x. Representing how artistic x is with logical symbols is nearly impossible. However, since we know there are certainly artistic and non-artistic samples in the distribution of Y, we can express the degree between them. The degree of artistry X of x can be determined by comparing neighboring samples y in set Y, satisfying the extended modus ponens [8b]. Even if the concept of art does not need to be strictly defined in this interpretation, the ambiguity of the definition does not hinder predicting artistic qualities. It is indeed peculiar to discuss art while deliberately excluding the concept of art. Ultimately, artistry becomes a meta-work on the concept of art, explained within system theory, much like fuzzy logic. This meta-concept can be found even in the comics and animations we enjoy. Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics offers an excellent example through its pictorial vocabulary, illustrating the relationship between images, text, and objects in visual art as a vast triangular relationship [9b]. Regardless of how a character in a drawing looks, the reason we can attribute a sense of personhood, empathize, and be emotionally moved is because of cognitive principles that work to evoke specific emotions when we observe certain movement patterns [10b]. The same applies to appreciating artistry—the existence of (3) an audience that appreciates (1) is more important than (2) in this approach, meaning that the concept of artistry is largely influenced by the judgment, or preferences, of the audience [11b].

In this perspective, deciding which is more professional—industrial art evolving according to popular taste or pure art filtered by a trained elite group—holds little persuasive power beyond personal preference or authority. Since art must inevitably follow the current zeitgeist, absolutes—right and wrong—neither exist nor do not exist. The presence or absence of absolutes either conceptually doesn’t exist, necessarily leads to contradictions within the concept, or transcends the realm, making it beyond the scope of logic or theory, or something humans cannot comprehend. For example, a physicist has a duty to state facts about their subject, physics, but must remain silent on whether physics is advancing toward absolute truth. This is because such a question requires cognition beyond the scope of both physics and the physicist. The same can be said of art. An artist has the duty to express through the act of art, but whether it advances in a direction that follows absolute artistry is not something within the realm of either art or the artist. Therefore, the superior art claimed by fine artists remains merely their personal value or an elitist opinion.

[1b] Available online.

[2b] Relatively easy read. (korean) Here, art is interpreted as an expression of unknown unknowns, compared to categories such as known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

[3b] Even if a new paradigm is created by completely breaking away from existing forms, like in the avant-garde, the act of breaking itself becomes another form of art.

[4b] This doesn’t imply that collective value judgments are more important than individual ones, nor does it suggest that examining the minds of animals or humans is more important than that of AI.

[5b] Full interview.

[6b] A major topic in modern epistemology.

[7b] SEP: Ambiguity of language.

[8b] Syllogism structure:

(y)(Fy) ⇒ (x)(Fx) ≡ ¬(y)(Fy) ∨ (x)(Fx)

(y)(y’)(Fy) ∧ (Fy’)

–

(x’)(Fx’)

The basic logic is simple, but the issue with fuzzy theory lies elsewhere. A fuzzy theory-based system observes results using base rules and then infers the rules from those results, but this method has limitations, and it cannot avoid the flaws of [3]. This type of meta-approach, however, is used in military psychological warfare that involves decision-making systems. A notable example is the Soviet army’s reflexive control, originating from Lefebvre’s The Soviet Concept of Influencing an Adversary’s Decision Making Process. Interestingly, it has a self-replicating structure very similar to that of modern artificial neural networks (especially RNNs).

[9b] Summary article.

[10b] A worthwhile read. Relevant literature on art theory includes Hochberg’s In the Mind’s Eye and Arnheim’s Art and Visual Perception.

[11b] In philosophy of mind, Daniel Dennett expands on the concept of the mind through analogy. Reference list for submissions.

---

c. On Obscenity

The boundary between art and obscenity depends heavily on socio-cultural norms and conventions. Generally, the distinction between artistic and obscene works is based on their intended purpose. Obscene materials are produced primarily to induce sexual arousal in viewers, whereas erotic art, which may contain elements of obscenity, is meant to enhance the appreciation experience [1c]. In this context, the relationship between art and obscenity becomes complex, and the concept of eroticism must be considered. Obscenity inherently requires that the viewer experience sexual feelings—either pleasure (arousal and satisfaction of sexual desire) or discomfort (shame or perceived vulgarity). However, these sexual responses depend entirely on the viewer’s sexual orientation (SO). Is discomfort not an intersubjective feeling? The line between normal (typical) and abnormal (atypical) boundaries in eroticism is difficult to determine. Even if typical behavior is regarded as what the majority finds “natural,” that idea of naturalness varies across cultures, making the boundaries blur. It is also challenging to determine whether non-heterosexuality, polygamy, adultery, sexual expression, objectification, or prostitution are ethically justified. Even if we attempt to categorize eroticism, it remains difficult to distinguish between it and paraphilia or to understand if they are mutually exclusive.

1. What is eroticism? Eroticism can be considered equivalent to SO, which can be divided into romantic (romantic) and sexual (sexual) forms [2c]. RSO refers to romantic attraction without SA and concerns romantic emotions toward a gender. SSO extends this attraction into the realm of sexual arousal.

2. How is eroticism determined for individuals? How do I know my SO? Most people do not think deeply about their sexuality, simply because there is no need. Questions about sexuality tend to arise when someone experiences confusion about their identity, such as sexual identity and SO. The general population rarely contemplates this unless it is for research purposes. Sexuality is so instinctual that, unless the environment encourages a re-evaluation of these instincts, there is little room for doubt [3c]. However, despite these instincts, methods for determining an individual’s SO have been established [4c]:

   a) The gender of actual sexual partners: What gender do you have or want to have sex with?

   b) The gender of fantasy-based partners: What gender are you psychologically attracted to, and do you have sexual fantasies about?

   c) The gender you identify as the subject of sexual attraction: How do you identify your own SO—heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.?

   d) The gender that elicits sexual arousal through visual perception: Which gender’s image causes physiological arousal?

   Reality-based romantic and sexual partners (a) and self-identified SO (c) are strongly influenced by social pressures and the surrounding environment. For example, a bisexual person might only date one gender in a society that suppresses homosexuality, or a heterosexual person might engage in same-sex relationships when opposite-sex relationships are inaccessible. Sexual fantasies (b) and sexual arousal (d), however, more accurately reflect one’s intrinsic SO. It is challenging to obtain an “honest” assessment from sexual fantasies because they can be influenced by witnessing sexual acts, or romantic attraction can arise from fantasies. These fantasies may manifest as defense mechanisms like homophobia or emerge in an elevated form, as in ancient Greek society. Ultimately, the most accurate indicator for determining exact SO is visual arousal (d) [5c].

3. Are art, obscenity, and eroticism related? Absolutely. For cross-gender reproduction to occur, sexual attraction is necessary. As human beings are biological organisms, the drive to reproduce is part of human nature. People fulfill their needs according to their SO, or they may make compromises to meet others’ needs. This dynamic is often tied to artistic dimensions, and Darwin’s theory of sexual selection explains aspects of it [6c].
4. Is normal eroticism typical eroticism? Even if we consider heterosexuality—which most people follow—to be typical, distinguishing between heterosexuality and pseudo-heterosexual paraphilia is not always clear. The limitations of visual arousal (d) are evident here: even if arousal is triggered by a specific gender, it may not be easy to distinguish whether that is due to genuine attraction or a fetish focused on a specific body part [7c]. Even if normal and typical eroticism are differentiated, those with atypical forms of eroticism will become increasingly visible over time. Reproduction is genetically advantageous, and sexual pleasure serves as a physiological reward. Humans have likely evolved to seek both immediate rewards and future benefits. However, humans do not always act according to theories or rules. They may sacrifice immediate rewards for future benefits or vice versa, and sometimes even take risks to satisfy their curiosity. As alternative sources of reward and benefit become available, sexual orientation is likely to diversify in unexpected ways as civilization and living standards advance.

If it is judged that a particular medium produces little or no sexual arousal in viewers, it cannot be considered obscene. For any artwork to evoke arousal, it must contain visual or auditory material directly related to sexuality. Discomfort may arise if the gender being sexualized does not align with the viewer’s SO. For instance, heterosexual men may feel aversion or disinterest when viewing gay porn that objectifies men, heterosexual women may react similarly to porn that objectifies women, and homosexual individuals might be disinterested in heterosexual porn. Personal sexual complexes can also cause discomfort. On the other hand, desire or attraction tends to be influenced by the viewer’s SO, allowing sexual content to be glorified as art while its obscenity may be concealed or highlighted. The artistry in aesthetics often reflects the artist’s SO [8c], but it can also be deliberately exploited in a negative way [9c]. Therefore, the obscenity of art depends primarily on the artist’s intent, as well as the general SO distribution of the audience and the artist’s own SO [10c].

[1c] Well-organized article.(korean) Censorship guidelines in mass media often use similar logic to justify regulation.

[2c] A more complex explanation is unnecessary here.

[3c] This is also an epistemological issue. Gender theory argues that biologically defined sex roles often originate from entrenched ideas that allow people to express their gender without reflecting on it.

[4c][5c] Though many studies exist, this field is still evolving. Key works include Mustanski, Chivers & Bailey’s A Critical Review of Recent Biological Research on Human Sexual Orientation, Rahman’s The Psychobiology of Human Sexual Orientation, and Chivers & Bailey’s A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal.

[6c] Darwinian Aesthetics: Sexual Selection and the Biology of Beauty. However, it does not adequately explain non-heterosexual orientations.

[7c] Consider a hypothetical case involving a man named C who identifies as heterosexual. He appears to be attracted to women but actually has a fetish for breasts and started dating a woman because of that. Additionally, he may become unknowingly aroused by men with gynecomastia or by breast-like objects. Is C a heterosexual or a fetishist?

[8c] Refer to Beckstead’s Can We Change Sexual Orientation? and Chivers’ Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexual Response to Sexual Activities versus Gender of Actors in Sexual Films.

[9c] Known as abject art.

[10c] The argument that the sensual portrayal of women in art throughout history—compared to art aimed at men—resulted from gender imbalances in dominant classes has some credibility. It has been less than a hundred years since heterosexual women and non-heterosexual individuals began appearing in society in a somewhat positive light and in significant numbers. This change is likely to continue until a fully gender-equal society is established.

---

HD: Curiosities about the Relationship between the Painting and the Painter - Analysis

To what extent can we predict information about the painter from their painting? This is a question that many artists may find intriguing. Here, a plausible analysis of HD is presented in a Q&A format.

Q. How much does my drawing resemble me?

A. Refer to (B) and (C). It resembles you as much as you don’t intend it to, and it does not resemble you as much as you intend it to. It may sound obvious, but when looking at a randomly selected drawing, the degree of resemblance cannot be definitively known—there is simply a tendency. People unconsciously draw what seems most natural and familiar to them, and what is most familiar to them is themselves. Therefore, unconscious self-projection may inevitably occur in the drawing style. Such self-projection is less pronounced in those with professional drawing techniques and more evident in amateurs. Of course, professionals may intentionally draw in a way that resembles themselves, and amateurs may consciously create a style unrelated to themselves. In such cases, looking for similarities between the painter and the painting is meaningless. It is more likely that what the painter admires or models after is reflected in their drawing style.

Q. How accurately can a drawing reveal the painter’s psychological state or personality?

A. With the right environment, it can be predicted to a near mind-reading level. Drawings are included in psychological assessments at hospitals for a reason—ordinary mental states can generally be analyzed quite well.

Q. Besides psychological state and personality, to what extent can other information about the painter be inferred from their drawing?

A. Refer to (C), [9b], and 3. Consider a person’s drawing, their writing, their facial expressions, and gestures. With enough samples, which of these best reveals that person’s mind? In fact, each has advantages and disadvantages for inferring psychology. Writing reveals disposition, values, and educational level quite precisely, but it can be deliberately manipulated by the writer. Gestures make it easier to capture the psychology at the moment when non-verbal expressions occur, but such information is temporary and easily distorted. Drawings combine the strengths of both writing and gestures, excelling at revealing personality and anxiety levels. However, they become meaningless in environments without controlled variables. To infer non-psychological information from drawings, these limitations must be overcome. Personally, I prefer comics, which merge drawings and writing. Even without gesture information, the predictability of a painter’s characteristics increases with both drawing and writing. Nationality, age, personality, interests, and sexual orientation are best inferred.

Q. Does being smarter mean being better at drawing?

A. It depends. Intelligence itself is an ambiguous concept, but here we can consider it as academic intelligence. Drawing well means depicting appropriate subjects in a novel manner using suitable techniques. Generally, regardless of the field, the artistic inspiration and aesthetic sense that are important in drawing are unrelated to intelligence. However, higher intellectual ability may mean relatively superior problem-solving and adaptability, which could allow someone to more quickly hone their drawing techniques. It means the time required to master skills may be shortened, but those without technical aptitude will find it difficult to achieve true mastery. Anyone can become proficient in sketching, perspective, and symmetry with enough practice. Other factors are also unrelated to intelligence. Naturally, if you don’t practice drawing, you won’t be good at it.