Greetings. I know this comment I had created, had been on lots of certain posts, but I need to further emphasize it:

When things are considered on how it is today, here is one era consideration: The 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s really form this one transitional era from the previous 20th Century world to the 21st Century World, with Early-mid 1991 to Spring-Fall 2017 being the specific transition. In this period, social aspects, technology, norms, and further were all being gradually sharpened. You had the World Wide Web 1.0 in 1991 to the rest of the 1990s, Messages on the various acts of Inclusion (including music, social norms, and health) gradually being discovered for the next 25-26 years in this period, things became both more restricted and free when it came to Growing Pains in this transition, and much further. It is really hard to explain, but before 1991, things still felt largely it was from the last, honestly "several?" decades with the "new" features, if happening, often or usually being only "embellishments."

Early-Mid 1991 to Mid-Late 1993 was the beginning of the era, while Mid-Late 2015 to Mid-Late 2017 was the ending.

Lots of the widely known tragedies and other deep events between 1991 to 2017, were not just "tragic," however, they shifted how things would be defined in the 21st century. Around Spring-Summer of 2017 and especially leading to Late 2017, the world gradually became more "established" in how things are today, but with gradual transitions (COVID 19 Pandemic, the recent inflation, 4K and LED Technology, and further). Today, there is heavy nostalgia for the 1990s like it is the 1960s, and the very early 2010s feels and looks like "recent history." However, even the 1990s also feel "of standard," even in today. 2025 and early 2026 had shown how this is to be. It is just difficult to explain all in this narrative.

Note: I know I said it in the comment, but May 2017 to October/November 2017 is the full closure of the 1991-2017 shift. Sometime in early May and gradually in the Summer, it became more clear. Note: I edited this on May 21 2026.

Next two edts on May 24 2026: or maybe sometime in the end of April 2017 and leading to October-November 2017 (or October-December 2017), being the complete closure. Also, the 1990s being treated like the 1960s, also is one end of a several-edged sword; the 1990s are "neo-classical" meaning they can be both relic and standard too.

To me; this year which is 2026, is already feeling quite different, and is becoming the "next phase" from the 2017-2024/2025 era. I believe 2026-2028 will be a deep shift, which will usher into the 2030s and subsequent era.

This post is not to be stubborn and for me to gain a "know it all" persona; but things are shifting to the deepest levels, and confusion is all over.

There are reasons, why today, even 2014 feels both 6 months old and 20 years old at the same time. And the reasons; why 2019 is essentially a 2020s year!!!!!

In this 2026-2028 era; expect for computers to now have sophisticated data which can help unlock and discover hidden factors, to help free several aspects.

For the rough edges of 10 years ago, to finally be straightened.

and, why age in lots of aspects, is treated as "merely a number."

and even more!!!!!

Note: this can also be seen in other posts. This is to help others to realize the "possible" revelations.

One other thing;

the 1991-2017, 2017-2025, and 2026-2028 shifts are also tied to even the history of occurrences that happened even periods before 1991.

Right now, it is a pivotal phase where lots of things can both be revealed and shifted too. The 2026-2028 period would be of the discovery of complexities and the expansions of what had been in place to lesser or non-existent aspects. The surroundings are indeed shifting.

June 2026 will be the complete beginning of the 2026-2028 shift, cleaning what the 2017-2025 shift began, and responding to what the 1991-2017 shift had set.​

Francis Alÿs The Ambassador 2001 © Francis Alÿs

In “The Art Question”, Nigel Warburton’s admirably lucid exploration traces the philosophical quest to define art through formalism, expressionism, Wittgensteinian family resemblance, and institutional theory. He concludes, quite reasonably, that art resists simple definition—that there is no single, all-encompassing answer to “What is art?”

But what if the very persistence of this question reveals something more fundamental than the failure of definition? What if our compulsion to ask “Is this art?” points to a basic perceptual mechanism that philosophy of art has yet to recognise?

The Perceptual Foundation Beneath Aesthetic Theory

While Warburton’s analysis thoroughly examines what we call art and how we justify those designations, it doesn’t address why we experience certain objects as possessing an ineffable quality that demands such categorisation in the first place. Whether confronting Bell’s “significant form”, Collingwood’s “emotional expression”, or Dickie’s institutional validation, we’re still left wondering: what creates that initial sense of extraordinary significance that makes us pause before a canvas, sculpture, or conceptual work and feel that something deeply ‘special’ is happening?

This is where hagioptasia theory may offer a useful missing piece. Hagioptasia (meaning ‘holy vision’) is a perceptual tendency through which certain places, people, objects, memories, or ideas can appear to be charged with extraordinary significance. The resulting experience feels as though the significance belongs to the thing itself rather than emerging from the interaction between observer and object (Johnson & Laidler, 2020).

Beyond the Institutional Frame

Institutional theory suggests that art becomes art through the sanction of the artworld—curators, critics, galleries, and academia. But this explanation, while sociologically accurate, sidesteps the psychological mystery: why do these institutions have the power to transform our perception in the first place?

Hagioptasia provides an explanation. Museums function as modern temples precisely because they can activate our innate tendency to perceive profound ‘specialness’ in contextually framed objects. The hushed reverence, the careful lighting, the authoritative labels—these aren’t merely social conventions but sophisticated exploitations of a deep perceptual bias. The institutional framework works because it triggers hagioptasia, not the other way around.

The Peacock Paradox Resolved

Warburton’s opening example of Francis Alÿs sending a live peacock to the Venice Biennale crystallises a familiar modern dilemma: we find ourselves asking “Is this art?” because we sense that something significant is meant to be happening, even when it is difficult to say precisely what justifies that sense.

Hagioptasia theory suggests that cases like this may be best understood at the level of experience rather than classification. The peacock may acquire its significance through a combination of factors — including institutional framing, cultural expectation, novelty, symbolism, and the perceptual qualities of the encounter itself. Whatever the precise mix of influences, what requires explanation is the shared experience of heightened significance that can arise in such contexts. Hagioptasia names this psychological process; the way certain situations come to feel unusually charged with meaning or “specialness”, regardless of how that meaning is ultimately interpreted or justified.

Why Definitions Fail—And Why That’s Illuminating

Warburton’s conclusion that art resists definition isn’t a failure of philosophical inquiry—it’s a profound insight into human psychology. Art may resist simple definition because aesthetic experience depends not only on properties of objects but also on psychological processes through which significance is perceived. Hagioptasia may be one such process.

This explains why aesthetic theories consistently break down when confronted with edge cases. Formalism may be incomplete if hagioptasia can also be triggered by contextual framing as well as formal properties. Expressionism stumbles because we can perceive profound significance in works that express nothing. Even institutional theory reaches its limits because the institutions themselves depend on our psychological susceptibility to perceive specialness.

The Democratic Implication

Perhaps most importantly, recognising hagioptasia democratises aesthetic experience in a way that resolves the tension between expert authority and personal response. When Warburton notes that art cannot be generalised, he’s pointing toward something even more radical: if aesthetic significance emerges from our individual perceptual biographies rather than objective properties, then each person’s experience of art is equally valid.

The factory worker who sees only industrial machinery in Mike Nelson’s sculptures rather than profound commentary on Britain’s industrial past isn’t missing something—their response reflects a different set of hagioptasic triggers, shaped by their lived experience.

A New Framework for Old Questions

Hagioptasia theory doesn’t diminish art—it explains its power. Understanding that our sense of deep aesthetic ‘specialness’ emerges from evolved perceptual mechanisms doesn’t make the experience less real or meaningful. Instead, it provides a framework for navigating aesthetic experience more skillfully, helping us to analyse how different forms of framing shape perceived significance.

The question “What is art?” may indeed resist simple answers—but perhaps that’s because we’ve been asking the wrong question. The deeper inquiry might be: “Why do we perceive such extraordinary specialness?” Once we understand that, the art question becomes not a philosophical puzzle to solve, but a human capacity to celebrate and cultivate wisely.

The Romans called it numen—the sense of divine presence in temples, leaders, and sacred places. We can now understand it as hagioptasia—the perceptual mechanism that transforms ordinary objects into the extraordinary through human attention. Art isn’t what we call certain objects, but is perhaps our most contrived cultural method for evoking that deep, ineffable sense of specialness.

Original article here: https://hagioptasia.wordpress.com/2025/07/10/the-missing-piece-in-nigel-warburtons-art-question-a-response/

References

Johnson, J. A., & Laidler, D. (2020). Measuring hagioptasia: A case study in theory-testing through Internet-based personality scale development. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109919.

Laidler, D. (2025). Hagioptasia: Convergent Evidence for a Unified Construct of Perceived Specialness. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17474804

Vessel, E. A., Starr, G. G., & Rubin, N. (2012). The brain on art: Intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 66.

Warburton, N. (2003). The Art Question. Routledge.

Zink, C. F., et al. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuroscience, 28(16), 4114–4120.

Welcome to Philosophy for Artists! A light and relaxing way to spend summer Sunday afternoons.

This is a reading-and-practice group exploring philosophy in relation to artistic work. Each session begins with a close reading of a short philosophical text drawn from aesthetics, phenomenology, and existential thought, followed by time to work in whatever medium you choose—drawing, writing, sound, movement, or other studio practice. That is, we will actually spend part of our time working creatively, in “parallel play”.

The aim is not to treat philosophy as commentary on art, but as something that can actively inform how we perceive, make, and situate ourselves as artists. At the same time, the sessions take seriously the reverse claim: that artistic practice can clarify, resist, or extend philosophical ideas in ways that argument alone cannot capture.

Sessions are structured as 2.5 hours: approximately one hour of shared reading and discussion, an hour and fifteen minutes of making, and a final fifteen-minute group check-out. The emphasis throughout is on sustained attention, material engagement, and the relationship between thinking and doing, rather than interpretation alone. All participants are invited to bring materials and work during the practice portion; no prior artistic training is assumed, only a willingness to make.

I would like this group to be as inclusive as possible. Yes, some folks may be professional artists but others may just be “creative-curious”. As an expressive artist myself, I’m a big believer that everyone is inherently creative and that art as a form of expression is not something that needs to be gate-kept. If you are curious about exploring your creativity, we can pop into a breakout room during session and I can give some prompts. Or you can DM me (Cece) ahead of time.

https://preview.redd.it/2e1vfyyy1x8h1.jpg?width=1356&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1afff2058673284485593cee0dddda83fdcfd10

To join the 1st meeting taking place on Sunday June 28 (EDT), please sign up in advance on the main event page here (link); the Zoom link will be provided to registrants.

Meetings take place weekly on Sundays. Look for future sessions in this series on our calendar (link).

All are welcome!

The reading for each session will be posted a week a head of time.

We will start with Rainer Maria Rilke’s “Letters to a Young Poet”, please read pp. 15-25 (Letters 1-3) for the 1st meeting on June 28.