A great deal of work in analytic philosophy of art is related to defining what counts as art. So far, cognitive approaches to art have almost entirely ignored this literature. In this paper I discuss the role of intuition in analytic philosophy of art, to show how an empirical research program on art could take advantage of existing work in analytic philosophy. I suggest that the first step of this research program should be to understand how people intuitively categorize something (...) as art. Drawing on results from cognitive science and analytic philosophy, I show that the intuitive categorization of an artifact as art rests on the intentions attributed (frequently implicitly) to the creator of the artifact based both on its appearance and on background knowledge. I discuss how the issue of categorization is related to other empirical issues concerning our relationship to works of art, such as perception, appreciation, interpretation and evaluation. (shrink)

The alleged neural basis of empathic responses to artworks is only of marginal relevance for aesthetics and for cognitive theories of art.

The interaction between the recovery of the artist’s intentions and the perception of an artwork is a classic topic for philosophy and history of art. It also frequently, albeit sometimes implicitly, comes up in everyday thought and conversation about art and artworks. Since recent work in cognitive science can help us understand how we perceive and understand the intentions of others, this discipline could fruitfully participate in a multidisciplinary investigation of the role of intention recovery in art perception. The method (...) I propose is to look for cases where recovery of the artist’s intentions interacts with perception of a work of art, and this cannot be explain by a simple top-down influence of conscious propositional knowledge on perception. I will focus on drawing and show that recovery of the draftsman’s intentional actions is handled by a psychological process shaped by the motor system of the observer. (shrink)

The role of personal background knowledge--in particular knowledge about the context of production of an artwork--has been only marginally taken into account in cognitive approaches to art. Addressing this issue is crucial to enhancing these approaches' explanatory power and framing their collaboration with the humanities (Bullot and Reber, in press). This paper sketches a model of the experience of artworks based on the mechanisms of intention attribution, and shows how this model makes it possible to address the issue of personal (...) background knowledge empirically. I claim that the role of intention attribution in art experience has been incorrectly accounted in the literature because of an overly narrow definition of 'intention.' I suggest that the observer can recover not only the artist's abstract projects, but any kind of mental states that have played a causal role during the production of the work. In addition, I suggest that this recovery occurs in large part unconsciously and/or implicitly. I provide support for these claims by distinguishing three families of psychological mechanisms of intention attribution that are activated by artworks: one involved in the cognition of artifacts, one devoted to communication, and one involved in action perception. (shrink)

This paper investigates a the cognitive foundations of a pragmatic account of line drawings. It sets to highlight those features of line drawings that make them, as opposed to other types of visual representations, particularly conducive to communication. It is argued that representational and artifactual properties of drawings must be investigated together in order to understand the peculiarities of drawings as communicative tools.

The practice of drawing is an ideal study case for framing a cognitive approach to art. In this paper I enumerate six constraints that must be respected by any cognitive theory of drawing production. I evaluate the two major existing theories - Ruskin's theory of the innocent eye and Gombrich' theory of graphic schemes - and show the superiority of Gombrich' theory. I finally provide the first elements for a psychological development of the theory of graphic schemes.

Qu’a donc « voulu dire » l’artiste? Qu’a-t-il recherché? Cette question peut sembler dépassée ou naïve, comme si l’œuvre se suffisait à elle-même. Pour Alessandro Pignocchi, il est impossible de comprendre nos relations aux œuvres d’art sans s’interroger sur les intentions de l’artiste. Les avancées récentes en sciences cognitives suggèrent en effet que chaque aspect de notre expérience d’une œuvre est façonné par les intentions que nous attribuons, pour la plupart inconsciemment, à l’artiste. Nous percevons par exemple, à notre insu, (...) de nombreuses propriétés des œuvres d’art – les traits d’un dessin, certains aspects de la structure des films ou des phrases d’un roman – comme le fruit d’intentions et d’actions que nous aurions nous-mêmes pu produire. Réflexion pluridisciplinaire, cet ouvrage revisite des thèmes classiques de la philosophie de l’art – le concept d’œuvre, la place de l’auteur, du contexte, le rapport de l’œuvre au temps, le statut du jugement artistique – et élabore une série d’outils de pensée visant à enrichir nos relations aux œuvres d’art. Alessandro Pignocchi est docteur de l’EHESS en philosophie et en sciences cognitives, membre de l’Institut Jean-Nicod. Il est aussi illustrateur. (shrink)

The practice of drawing is an ideal study case for framing a cognitive approach to art. In this paper I enumerate six constraints that must be respected by any cognitive theory of drawing production. I evaluate the two major existing theories – Ruskin’s theory of the innocent eye and Gombrich’ theory of graphic schemes – and show the superiority of Gombrich’ theory. I finally provide the first elements for a psychological development of the theory of graphic schemes.

Over the last decades, disciplines such as cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology and the neurosciences have shown an increasing interest for art. It remains unclear what kind of relation these "young disciplines" should have with more traditional endeavors and, more generally, in which way they can enrich our understanding of art. In this paper, I lay down the foundations of a methodological framework which distinguishes between three basic topics: the investigation of the cognitive phenomena elicited by the experience of things that (...) we call 'artworks', the investigation of the psychological structures determining the intuitive categorization of something as art and the study of the intuitions and arguments used to build justifications about whether something is a work of art. Each of these topics can benefit from the cognitive approaches, provided that some specific methodological recommendations are respected. (shrink)