Question

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00491-w

T H E O R E T I C A L A R T I C L E

On the Distinction between the Abstract Tacts Art and Craft: A Concept Analysis

Maasa Nishimuta1  · T. V. Joe Layng2

Accepted: 4 October 2021 © Association for Behavior Analysis International 2021

Abstract We may marvel at both the creativity and quality of work in a piece of pottery or a sculpture, or of a well-played basketball game or well-acted play. Although each may have similarities, and each may have instances of what might be called crea- tivity, one is often considered art, whereas the other a craft. This article, using concept analyses, will explore what may be guiding the abstract tact “art” and the abstract tact “craft.” The critical features of each as well as the varying features will be described, compared, and contrasted. The consequential contingencies governing the creation or performance of each, and the effect of the work on the audience are the basis of the concept analysis. In the process it will be demonstrated how a consequential contingency analysis may contribute to understanding art, craft, their creation, and definition.

Keywords Art · Craft · Concept analysis · Abstract tact · Consequential contingencies

Defining “art” has proven difficult and has been the topic of philosophical debates for centuries. As expressed by Adajian (2018), writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The definition of art is controversial in contemporary phi- losophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.” According to Adajian, who reviewed the various theories of art, many, such as Kant, believed that purpose played a primary role in the creation and definition of art. Others suggest that there is no consist- ent definition of art, that instead the different instances of art share family resemblances (after Wittgenstein, 1953), rather than a set of definable shared properties, because art takes so many forms. Neither is there agreement about what governs

the classification of a work as poor art versus not being art at all. There is no apparent consensus among philosophers and others as to how art is defined. Yet, something occasions saying “art” in the presence of certain stimuli. Further, the creation of these occasions may have features that distinguish artistic activities, that is “doing art,” from other activities.

Is perhaps the definition to be found in aesthetics? A recent series of commentaries appearing in a 2018 special issue in The Psychological Record occasioned by a lead article by Francis Mechner (2018) explored what could be the possible basis for “aesthetic” responses in humans. The various authors noted that such responses can occur across a range of stimuli and events, from a great work of art to a beautiful sunset to mathematical equations. For example, Hineline (2018, p. 323), writing in response to Mechner, proposes aesthetic responses as applying to “a broad range of domains, including behavioral arrangements and the prod- ucts of workmanship as well as explicitly artistic endeavors.”

Thus, although related to how one might respond to a work of art, the aesthetic response itself does not thereby define art. Indeed, strolling through a gallery one may hear, “I find that art utterly distasteful.” If the aesthetic response does not define art, this raises the question of what does, and what that definition may suggest about the creative process that produces art.

We will examine how a concept analysis (see Layng, 2019) based on a consequential contingency analysis may contribute

This article was part of ABAI 2019 presentation. We thank Joanne Robbins, Paul Thomas Andronis, Francis Mechner, and Sean Will for their thoughtful feedback and support during the ABAI paper presentation and preparation for this article.

* Maasa Nishimuta maasanishimuta@gmail.com

* T. V. Joe Layng layng@comcast.net

1 Constructional Approach to Animal Welfare and Training, Palm Bay, USA

2 Generategy, LLC, Seattle, WA, USA

/ Published online: 1 December 2021

The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

to our understanding and definition of art, perhaps in ways philosophers and art critics have thus far failed to provide. We will do this by comparing “doing art” to a close-in nonexam- ple, “doing craft,” both of which may evoke strong aesthetic or appreciative responses. We will explore what occasions and distinguishes the abstract tacts “art” and “craft” from the van- tage point of a consequential contingency analysis. We exam- ine what may be guiding the responses producing art and the responses producing craft during their creation and the role such guidance plays in the definition of each. Stated differ- ently, we will define art and craft in terms of a consequen- tial contingency analysis of their creation. These differences in contingencies will form the basis of the concept analysis methods (after Tiemann & Markle, 1990) used to distinguish between the abstract tact “art” and subtract tact “craft.”

The Origins of a Contingency Analysis of Art

In 1969, Skinner gave a talk at the Guggenheim Museum, “On the Future of Art: Creating the Creative Artist.” He discussed why artists made art and why audiences looked at it and emphasized the important role of consequences on the behaviors of both the artist and the audience.

Why, indeed, do artists paint pictures, and why do peo- ple look at them? Another way to put that “why” is to use the colloquial “what for.” What do artists paint pictures for? What do people look at pictures for? The word “for” points forward into the future. It points to the consequences of action. The things that we do a thing for are the things which follow, and it is these consequences of behavior which have been shown recently to be terribly important in giving an account of what a man does. (Skinner, 1969, p. 2)

Skinner (1953) also observed that literature, art, and entertainment may become contrived reinforcers. Whether the public buys books, tickets to performances, or works of art depends upon whether those books, plays, concerts, or pictures, occasion and maintain such purchases. However, purchase of art does not define it as such. As Skinner noted, “frequently the artist confines himself to an exploration of what is reinforcing to himself” (p. 75). Skinner suggested an approach of looking at consequences specific to the creation of art to explain artists’ and audiences’ behaviors.

A Concept Analysis Based on the Consequential Contingencies Guiding the Abstract Tact, “Art”

By adopting Skinner’s approach of looking at consequences of the behavior as the basis for a formal concept analysis (Layng, 2019; Tiemann & Markle, 1990), we may be able

to further understand the features that occasion the abstract tact “art.”

As Robbins et al., (1995, p. 1) wrote:

Skinner made the distinction between a tact controlled by a generally invariant stimulus, (e.g., saying "Mona Lisa" in the presence of the collection of properties that comprise that painting or in the presence of a print of that painting), and a tact controlled by vary- ing stimuli, (e.g., saying "Impressionist" in the pres- ence of a new example of Impressionist art (Tiemann & Markle, 1990). Skinner (1957) called the former a simple tact; he called the latter an extended tact. One form of extended tact is the abstract tact, exemplified by the "Impressionist" example given above. Abstract tacts are those tacts that are under control of prop- erties or features of a stimulus rather than the entire stimulus itself, that is, the brush strokes and subject matter which define Impressionism rather than the individual painting itself. While many abstract tacts may be controlled by a single property of a stimulus, others may be controlled by a "subcollection" of prop- erties, all of which, however, must be present. Abstract extension requires that a speaker be able to distinguish between paintings that are examples of Impressionism and those that are not, even where they share some Impressionistic properties. This final requirement dis- tinguishes abstract extension from generic extension, which does not have the latter requirement. (Skinner, 1957)

In an abstract tact or behavioral concept analysis, attrib- utes or properties of the stimuli that comprise examples of the class are assigned to two types of features: critical attributes and variable attributes (Layng, 2019; Tiemann & Markle, 1990). Critical attributes are the must have fea- tures (Layng, 2019) that are required for class membership, absence of any one of which forms a nonexample. Vari- able attributes are can have features (Layng, 2019) that vary within the class, whose variations provide a wide range of examples. Concept analysis asks what attributes are guiding people to classify examples and nonexamples of the class. That is, what are the must have features? For example, how do people classify chairs from nonchairs such as a couch or a stool? The concept analysis reveals which attributes of chair are critical for people to classify a piece of furniture as a chair (Layng, 2019). Our task in this article is to provide an analysis that includes all the various art forms, painting, sculpture, theater, dance, and so on, as distinguished from all forms of craft, in an attempt to identify some of the vari- ables responsible for the creation of each (see, for example, Fig. 3).

When observing a work of art, we may be amazed by the work itself. Looking at a painting in a museum and finding

586 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

it beautiful, like the sunflower oil painting by Van Gogh in Fig. 1, we may describe how well the creation of the paint- ing is executed, such as the arrangement of the flowers, the brush strokes, the color combinations, and so on. Skinner (1969, p. 3) stated that the words “beautiful” or “amazing” we use are synonyms for the technical word “reinforcing.” That is, when Skinner says an audience, including the artist, finds a work reinforcing, he is not referring to some inter- nal satisfaction, or an aesthetic appreciation (after Mechner, 2018) though that may be reported, he is instead describing how the arrangement of the components of the work main- tain our looking, purchases, and so on, and for the artist, continued engagement in the work.

But what about the artist who creates the work? What are the consequences that maintain the creation of a work of art? Skinner (1953) and Layng (1971) suggest that as artists create works, they also find the evolving composi- tion, the arrangement of the stimuli they are producing, to be reinforcing, which maintains the creation of works of art. Skinner (1969) notes that the artist is not simply putting paints on a canvas but is doing so in a way that the arrangement of the stimuli is reinforcing for the artistic effort. As one stimulus is produced, it will occasion the production of yet other stimuli that now in combination with the previous one will maintain the artist’s behavior or result in a change or restart. The arrangement of the stimuli becomes a combination of different elements. For example, the arrangement of stimuli can be a number of brush strokes with particular color differences or intensi- ties, or sizes in the painting. As long as one set of stimuli that the artist creates in a medium produces an occasion for further creation, it reinforces that behavior and creates the conditions for further alteration of those stimuli. However, if a set of stimuli the artist creates does not occasion further creative manipulation of the medium, the artist may erase, change, or throw away the whole work of art, and start it

over again. The artist continues to arrange the stimuli until no further changes provide additional occasions for going on, with the final reinforcement value of the work residing in its “completion.” This may be made potent by prospec- tive public display or sale of the work. As Skinner (1969, p. 6) stated, the “[Artist] puts paint on a canvas and is or is not reinforced by the result,... he can let the picture stand, or he can change it. And that is the major nature of his activity,” manipulating the paint, or stimuli, on a canvas.

Others have made similar observations. In his article, “A Behaviourist Theory of Art,” philosopher James K. Feibleman (1963) wrote:

Beauty is the quality which emerges from the per- fect relations of parts in a whole, it is the quality of internal relations. The artistic method consists in apprehending in a material object the quality of such relations. Beauty is in readily accessible form when the qualitative correlate of the relation of consistency in a material object dominates the appearances of that object. Where the quality of internal relations is featured in a material object (as it is in a work of art), it symbolizes a unity in which every separate part is represented as a necessary part of the whole. A work of art, then, is a material object made for the quality of its internal relations. (p. 8; emphasis added)

Skinner (1969) and Layng (1971) suggest that these “internal relations” come from the arrangement of the stimuli during creation. How the artist arranges the stimuli in the medium depends on the artist’s history of reinforce- ment and their current contingencies. The artist’s con- tinuous manipulation of the medium inherently provides occasions for further arrangement, which maintains their behavior. That is, the artist arranges the stimuli comprising the work such that the arrangement itself maintains and occasions the artist’s behavior. Thus, the critical attributes of the abstract tact, “art,” are (1) the creation of a work (2) maintained solely by the arrangement of stimuli within that work. These define the work as art and the creator as an artist.

The outcome created by arranging stimuli and the subse- quent behavior it occasions are what maintains the artist's behavior and distinguishes it from other acts of creation. It is this arrangement of the stimuli and its effects on the artist’s behavior, that defines art. As Skinner (1972, p. 398) wrote:

A poem seldom makes its appearance in a completed form. Bits and pieces occur to the poet, who rejects or allows them to stand, and who puts them together to compose a poem. But they come from his past his- tory, verbal and otherwise, and he has had to learn how to put them together.Fig. 1 Sunflower painting by Vincent Van Gogh (1887) at The Metro-

politan Museum of Art (Public domain, CC0)

587The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Potentiation of the Arranged Stimuli as Reinforcers and Emotive Expression

Many people know the Water Lilies paintings by Claude Monet, one of which is shown in Fig. 2, and many people find them to be reinforcing, that is, they look at them for a long time and are willing to pay an admission fee to see them. Let’s examine what Monet may have done to create the paintings. In order to draw the Water Lilies series, he created a garden with water lilies so that he could observe them in reality and produce and arrange stimuli on canvas to capture what he saw. He produced and arranged the stimuli: such as the lilies themselves, the water, the garden, the combination of colors, and the brush strokes, which reinforced his behav- iors during the creation of the paintings.

What makes a particular arrangement reinforcing lies in the personal and cultural history of the artist, as well as current environmental events, such as a loss, a sunset, a love, and so on. The potentiating variables (Goldiamond & Thompson, 1967/2004) that make the arrangements rein- forcing may at times be recognized in the arrangement. The sadness in Picasso’s The Old Guitarist is often attributed to the suicide of a friend. How closely an arrangement matches a particular school of art, or instructions of a teacher, or likeness of a model all may potentiate the emerging arrange- ments as reinforcers. Seeing the result of those arrangements may lead observers to believe that the artist is attempting to express an inner vision or emotion, and that it is this expres- sion that defines the work as art. Plato (380 BCE), as early as the fourth centry bce asserted four qualities of artistic composition as divinely inspired and emerging from within the artist. This view in various forms has been maintained to

this day as what philosopher Karl Popper (2002) called the subjectivist theory of art. The approach taken here, however, proposes that the reinforcing and any possible emotive fea- tures of art arise not from within the artist, as feelings to be expressed, but from the act of its creation. This is not alto- gether different from Popper’s (2002) objectivist alternative:

According to my objectivist theory (which does not deny self-expression but stresses its utter triviality) the really interesting function of the composer's emotions is not that they are to be expressed, but that they may be used to test the success or the fittingness or the impact of the (objective) work: the composer may use himself as a kind of test body, and he may modify and rewrite his composition (as Beethoven often did) when he is dissatisfied by his own reaction to it; or he may even discard it altogether. (Whether or not the compo- sition is primarily emotional, he will in this way make use of his own reactions—his own "good taste": it is another application of the method of trial and error.) (Kindle edition)

He goes on to write: “According to this objectivist theory it is the work which is mainly responsible for the emotions of the musician rather than the other way round.”

Likewise, contingencies, perhaps described by certain emotions, may be responsible for initiating the art in the first place. Such contingencies may occasion description of art as reflective of the artist’s emotional state, but it is per- haps better understood as a reflection of their consequential contingencies of which their emotions are a part (cf. Layng, 2017). We contend, that once initiated, it is the developing arrangement of stimuli as a work is being created that main- tains the artist’s behavior and perhaps occasions collateral emotions or emotional behavior (after Goldiamond, 1979; Layng, 2017, 2020).

The Many Forms of Art

Next, let us explore the variable attributes of artistic crea- tion. Art is produced in many forms. It can be painting, poetry, stage play, photography, pottery, sculpture, sing- ing, songwriting, clothing, and so on. This variation in the respective media gives us a wide variety of examples of art, but those do not enter into its definition as art––rather these are variable attributes. Other variable attributes include the subject, the complexity of the work, time taken to complete or perform, its permanence, and so on. The price paid for a work of art, if sold, may also vary from next to nothing to millions of dollars, but the price does not define a work as art; rather, it is another variable attribute; consider the original sale prices, if any, of Van Gogh’s paintings.Fig. 2 Water lilies painting by Claude Monet (1906) at The Art Insti-

tute of Chicago (Public domain, CC0)

588 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Popularity as a Variable Attribute

We maintain that how the audience responds and inter- acts with art does not define a work as art, so this is yet another variable attribute. Not unlike the artist, in order for the audience to call it a work of art, the arrangement of the stimuli in the art must likewise bring the audience’s behavior under the control of the arrangement of the stim- uli (Layng, 1971). They may consider it art, but not art that serves as a reinforcer. They may recognize that the arrangement of the stimuli was reinforcing to the artist but fails to reinforce their own continued engagement with it. Stated otherwise, they may not find it aesthetically pleas- ing. They may consider it poorly done art. For others, a work may not be considered art at all. For example, an individual viewing three different works of art may linger for one, indicating that one reinforces viewing whereas the others do not. Another person lingers at different one of the three ignoring the other two. Therefore, there can be opposing opinions of the same work. Their evaluation does not enter into the act of creation unless the reinforc- ing effect of the arrangement for the artist is potentiated by audience approval while the creative act is taking place. Hence there are painters, poets, and such who never show their work, or whose work is never acknowledged until after their death. Thus, the art is defined through its crea- tion, not by its preservation. What the audience reports, either art or not art, its popularity, does not determine whether a work is art or not art, it instead determines its universality (Layng, 1971). Thus, popularity is a variable attribute of art.

Popularity and money may be beneficial for the artist, but the artist’s reinforcement in creating art is neither the universality nor the money, but the arrangement of the stimuli themselves that keep them creating the art. Artists may be commissioned, and may not finish a work if not paid, but that is simply a monetary consequence super- imposed upon those arising from the work itself. Young children “doing art” are unlikely to find their art hung in a museum, it may not be popular, however, we contend that they are doing art if their behavior is reinforced by the arrangement of stimuli during their creation.

Craft as a Nonexample of Art

Are there works where the arrangement of the stimuli is reinforcing, and as “aesthetically pleasing,” yet would not be classified as art? When we call some works crafts rather than art, we are appreciating the arrangement, but some- thing is different. We and craftspersons are interacting dif- ferently with the work from the way we interact with art.

With a craft, reinforcers maintaining the creation of the work differ somewhat from those maintaining creation of a work of art. There is an added consequence, function or utility. We may, for example, use the work as a container to put something in, or to put something on. We use a cup into which we pour coffee, use a table upon which we put a book, wear clothes to prevent us from getting cold or to get attention from friends, use a car and an airplane for transportation. We will use works of craft for a functional purpose other than simply enjoying the work itself.

Yet, the term “craft” conveys more than simply function. Putting together a prefabricated cabinet creates utility, but it is not considered craft. The craftsperson not only creates function, but also provides that function in the context of an arrangement of the stimuli found to be reinforcing. Hine- line (2005) eloquently described how the creation of a tool may be jointly guided by the reinforcing properties of the arrangement of stimuli and its functional use. Both the func- tion and the arrangement of stimuli maintain the craftsper- son’s behavior. Thus, the critical attributes of the abstract tact “craft” are (1) the creation of a work (2) maintained by the arrangement of the stimuli within that work, (3) which has utility, that is, serves a useful function, at the time of its completion. Figure 3 summarizes the critical and variable attributes of art and craft.

A vase, such as in Fig. 4, can be fashionable and beauti- ful, the arrangement of the stimuli may be reinforcing, but if the reinforcers maintaining the craftsperson’s behavior is to create something beautiful in which to put flowers, its function, it is a craft. The beauty or the creativeness does not determine whether the work is art or craft, rather what reinforces the behaviors of the creator in its creation deter- mines art or craft. Though closely related, art and craft are different. Feibleman (1963, p. 6) speculated that the creation of art has its foundation in craft.

Perhaps art arose as a secondary development of physi- cal technology. Men who made for themselves crude tools, such as chipped stone arrowheads and clay pots, may have seen the comparison between those well done and those better done. The delight in the differ- ence may have exceeded the utility of either. Hence there may have arisen the notion of things excellent for their own sake, that is to say for the sake of the excellence rather than for the sake of the thing, and the product was the first work of art: superfluous beauty probably first produced and afterwards recognized as a by-product of craft excellence.

This plausible paleobehavioral speculation suggests how craft became art and later how art and craft eventually diverged based on the arrangement of stimuli and the artistic behavior occasioned during creation.

589The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Similar to art, craft may have many variable attributes. Craft can vary in form or medium, subject, the complex- ity of the work, time taken to complete or perform, price, permanence, two perspectives of the craftsperson and the user, and its universality.

Performance Art and Performance Craft: A Comparison

A basketball game in Fig.  5 and a dance performance in Fig.  6 highlight the difference in critical attributes between art and craft that lack permanence. In both, we are amazed by how the players or dancers interact: their movements may awe us. But when over, nothing remains of either. Yet even though we find the arrangement of the stimuli of both to be reinforcing, one is craft, and the other is art. In a basketball game, the players interact with each other to win a game. Their grace and skill may delight us; they not only score but do so in such a way as to keep us highly engaged. Their interaction with one

Fig. 3 Summary of the critical and variable attributes of art and craft (The format is adapted from Tiemann & Markle, 1990)

Fig. 4 Flower vase (Photo by Wenyang on Unsplash)

Fig. 5 Basketball game between the U.S. Air Force Academy and University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Wikimedia, Public domain)

590 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

another is not simply to win the game. “Flair” is added to their play, a no-look behind-the-back pass is made when a simpler forward pass would suffice, the performance provides reinforcers for the players, and likely the audi- ence, beyond simply scoring points, but the critical rein- forcer (after Goldiamond, 1976) is the scoring of points. Because basketball has both reinforcing effects during the composition of the game and has a functional utility, scoring points and winning the game, it is a craft. For the audience, when the game is over, one is perhaps left with a tendency to return to the game after either a win or a loss. However, continued losses may see a marked decline in attendance, demonstrating the consequences maintaining viewing is not simply the performance of the athletes. For a dance performance, it is simply the arrangement of the stimuli that maintains the composer and dancer’s behavior, thus, it is an art. And, for the audience, perhaps there will be a tendency to attend more dance performances.

The Distinction between Audience Tacts and Artistic Works

Earlier, we discussed two perspectives for art and craft, the artist or craftsperson and the audience. Those per- spectives are variable attributes; thus, how audiences report or interact with the works does not define whether the works are art or craft. There are times when what reinforces audience behavior matches what reinforces the artist and the craftsperson’s behavior. However, there are also times where there is a mismatch between them. The reinforcers maintaining the audience’s or user’s behav- iors can be dynamic. They can change over time. Also, a person, such as a museum worker who explains the work, can inf luence how an audience might “see” a work of

art, thus altering the reinforcing effect of the arrange- ment of stimuli in the work. Let’s look at examples of the two perspectives, and the match and mismatch of the reinforcers.

A Persian rug, a carpet woven by hand using various materials like wools and silks, is a great example to show the mismatch of the reinforcers maintaining the behavior of the artist and the audience. Persian rugs are originally created as art to display as tapestries on the wall, as seen in

Fig. 6 A dance performance (Public Domain, CC0) Fig. 7 Persian rug hung on the wall (With a permission by Rug Knots)

Fig. 8 Persian rug used as furniture (Photo by Ryan Christodoulou on Unsplash)

591The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Fig. 7. As Fallahi (2017) said, “the rug often conveys the weaver’s character or mood, much in the same way an artist portrays their mood or views in a painting.” However, today, we see many people put a Persian tapestry on the floor and use it as a rug, as in Fig. 8. When the tapestry changes its use from an object whose arrangement of stimuli maintains the observer’s behavior to an object that serves as a walking surface, it changes from art to craft. The rug now has util- ity from the observer’s point of view. However, the way the audience classifies and uses it does not mean that the rug is no longer art from the point of view of the artist. The rug maker made it as art.

On the other hand, a craft can shift to be classified as art from the audience’s perspective. In the past, ancient Chinese clothes were worn as regular clothes. Clothes worn by the imperial family, like the dragon robe shown in Fig. 9, might have had another purpose that suggested their class or status. That is, they were created as a craft; their utility was an important consequence shaping their creation. Today, those clothes may be displayed in a museum for people to enjoy observing the way it was sewn, the historical patterns, the combinations of the colors, and so on, as in Fig. 10. As time has passed, for

some audiences, the clothes shifted from craft to art; that is, their utility as clothing became inconsequential, leav- ing only the arrangement of stimuli to maintain audience engagement. This shift, however, is in the classification by the audience. The tailor, however, was making wear- able clothes, a craft. At times the distinction may not be so obvious. Consider this: an ancient Grecian urn, originally crafted to hold olive oil, becomes so fragile with the passage of time that its utility as an oil vessel is gone, yet it maintains its original arrangement of stimuli. It is eventually displayed in an art museum, even perhaps occasioning poetry to be written about it. Most important, though, with the passage of enough time how can we be certain the craftsman/artist was actually guided by the urn’s functionality?

Conclusion

In summar y, we maintain that the cr itical attr ibutes revealed by a concept analysis of the contingencies of reinforcement responsible for the creation of a work of art versus that of the close-in nonexample, craft, sup- port Skinner, Layng, Feibleman, and Popper’s conten- tion that (1) the definition of art is to be found in its creation. (2) It is the reinforcing effects produced by

Fig. 9 Portrait of the Kangxi Emperor in court dress (Wikimedia, CC0 1.0)

Fig. 10 Dragon Robe displayed in Taipin Kingdom History Museum (Picture taken by a photographer 維基小霸王) (CC BY-SA 4.0)

592 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

the evolving ar rangement of stimuli on the behavior of its creator that defines a work as art and (3) creates any emotional or aesthetic experience. And further, (4) it is what guides the abstract tact “ar t.” And finally, (5) when utility or use also provides reinforcers for the creator and audience, it is no longer “art,” but its close relative “craft,” even if perhaps more aestheti- cally pleasing. A concept analysis that focuses on what occasions the coordinate abstract tacts “art” or “craft” based on the consequential contingencies governing a work’s creation allows us to move beyond the ambigu- ous definitions to an explicit definition based upon the conditions of its use. As concluded by Mechner (2018, p. 316).

Many concepts and constructs, especially the fuzzy ones, start to disintegrate when you shine a bright light on them. That is how science advances. Just as the fuzzy concept of fire has given way, in scientific discourse, to concepts like ignition, combustion, fuel, and oxidation, so must fuzzy concepts like aesthetics and beauty be expected eventually to give way to ones that are more useful in a scientific analysis. The goal should be to bring aesthetic and synergetic phenom- ena into mainstream biological and behavioral science where they belong.

We hope our concept analyses of the abstract tacts art and craft is a step in this direction.

Author’s contributions Not applicable.

Availability of data and material Data sharing not applicable as no datasets were generated or analyzed.

Code availability Not applicable.

Declarations

Research involving human participants and/or animals Not applicable.

Informed consent Not applicable.

Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

Adajian, T. (2018). "The definition of art." In The Stanford encyclo- pedia of philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.). Stanford University Press. Retrieved August 9, 2021, fromhttps:// plato. stanf ord. edu/ entri es/ art- defin ition/

Fallahi, P. (2017). "A brief history of Persian rug in Iran." Retrieved August 9, 2021, from https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/iran/ articles/a-brief-history-of-persian-rugs-in-iran/

Feibleman, J. K. (1963). A behaviourist theory of art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 3(1), 3–14.

Goldiamond, I. (1976). Protection of human subjects and patients: A social contingency analysis of distinctions between research and practice, and its implications. Behaviorism, 4(1), 1–41.

Goldiamond, I. (1979). Emotions and emotional behavior: A conse- quential analysis and treatment. (Audiotape). Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy. BMA Audio Cassettes Publisher.

Goldiamond, I., & Thompson, D. (1967/2004). The blue books: Goldi- amond & Thompson’s The functional analysis of behavior. P. T. Andronis (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behav- ioral Studies.

Hineline, P. (2005). The aesthetic of behavioral arrangements. The Behavior Analyst, 28, 15–28.

Hineline, P. (2018). Challenge of the ineffable: Concerning Mechner’s “a behavioral and biological analysis of aesthetics.” The Psycho- logical Record, 68, 323–324.

Layng, T. V. J. (1971). A theoretical analysis of the relationship among the importance and function of a work of art, the art critic, and aesthetic theory. [Unpublished manuscript].

Layng, T. V. J. (2017). Private emotions as contingency descriptors: Emotions, emotional behavior, and their evolution. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 168–179.

Layng, T. V. J. (2019). Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Impli- cations for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(2), 345–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40614- 018- 00188-6

Layng, T. V. J. (2020). Emotions in the time of a pandemic: Beyond cognition and behavior. Operants, 2, 9–13.

Mechner, F. (2018). A behavioral and biological analysis of aesthet- ics: Implications for research and applications. The Psychological Record, 68, 287–321.

Plato. (380 BCE). “Ion (Benjamin Jowett. Trans.)” The Internet Classic Archives. Retrieved February 28, 2021, from http://classics.mit. edu/Plato/ion.html

Popper, K. (2002). Unended quest: An intellectual autobiography. Lon- don, UK: Routledge.

Robbins, J. K., Layng, T. V. J., & Karp, H. J. (1995). Ambiguity and the abstract tact: A signal detection analysis. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 12, 1–11.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. NY: Free Press. Skinner, B. F. (1969). On the future of art: Creating the creative art-

ist. Retrieved August 9, 2021, from https:// www. gugge nheim. org/ audio/ track/ creat ing- the- creat ive- artist- by-b- f- skinn er- 1969? fbclid= IwAR2 x9OFC VGK4c IuxdG fnyqA VZTB- cwZoO yGW6M C70-m_ SPWbY VBXpm nAZV0

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Skinner, B. F. (1972). A lecture on “having” a poem. Cumulative record. NY: Meredith Corporation.

Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional con- tent: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Seattle, WA: Morn- ingside Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigation. (G. E. M. Ans- combe, trans.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Discussion Questions 1. Describe the difference between critical features in art and craft.

2. List variable features of art and craft. 3. How does the act of creation help us understand art and

craft?

593The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

4. What variables influence and maintain the act of creation in art?

5. What variables influence and maintain the act of creation in craft?

6. Provide an example and non-example of art. 7. Can one item be both art and craft?

8. How would creation by nature, such as a beautiful flower fall into our analysis?

9. Describe the role the audience plays in defining art. 10. Provide an example of a work that shifted from craft to art

or art to craft from the perspective of the audience.

594 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Psychological Record is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.