A linguistic model of art history

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Chomky's theory of generative grammar largely guides modern linguistics. The theory, of course, posits that the principles of language are not learned, but are part of our bio-endowment. Prior to the emergence of generative grammar in the 1950s, however, linguistics focused primarily upon structural description of already produced linguistic output. The goal, in a very general sense, was to categorize and taxonomically order the structural patterns of the world's languages. The systematic study of art today, as represented by the discipline of Art History, has almost identical methods and goals as those of historical linguistics - sorting and taxonomically ordering the extant output of world artistic behavior in terms of structural similarities and differences or styles of art. The question I want to pose here is this: Is the shift from inductive categorizing of the external structure of linguistic output to the deductive modeling of the mind's competence to produce such output also applicable to the study of art? The answer I think is yes, and hinges in part on the similarity of art and language. While art and language probably don't operate under the same set of principles, there may be enough similarity between the two that the analogy is worth pursuing as a preliminary approximation of how the mind creates art. Toward that end, this paper re-conceptualizes the notion of artistic style, exploring the potential for a 'generative art grammar'.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)73-90
Number of pages18
JournalPoetics
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

art history
Linguistics
art
linguistics
grammar
language
Hinges
Sorting
Art History
Art
Language

Keywords

  • Art
  • Art style
  • Cognitive models
  • Generative grammar

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

A linguistic model of art history. / Bergesen, Albert J.

In: Poetics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2000, p. 73-90.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bergesen, Albert J. / A linguistic model of art history. In: Poetics. 2000 ; Vol. 28, No. 1. pp. 73-90.
@article{73186622b56c4a35aefd099c3449ac8d,
title = "A linguistic model of art history",
abstract = "Chomky's theory of generative grammar largely guides modern linguistics. The theory, of course, posits that the principles of language are not learned, but are part of our bio-endowment. Prior to the emergence of generative grammar in the 1950s, however, linguistics focused primarily upon structural description of already produced linguistic output. The goal, in a very general sense, was to categorize and taxonomically order the structural patterns of the world's languages. The systematic study of art today, as represented by the discipline of Art History, has almost identical methods and goals as those of historical linguistics - sorting and taxonomically ordering the extant output of world artistic behavior in terms of structural similarities and differences or styles of art. The question I want to pose here is this: Is the shift from inductive categorizing of the external structure of linguistic output to the deductive modeling of the mind's competence to produce such output also applicable to the study of art? The answer I think is yes, and hinges in part on the similarity of art and language. While art and language probably don't operate under the same set of principles, there may be enough similarity between the two that the analogy is worth pursuing as a preliminary approximation of how the mind creates art. Toward that end, this paper re-conceptualizes the notion of artistic style, exploring the potential for a 'generative art grammar'.",
keywords = "Art, Art style, Cognitive models, Generative grammar",
author = "Bergesen, {Albert J}",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00012-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "73--90",
journal = "Poetics",
issn = "0304-422X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A linguistic model of art history

AU - Bergesen, Albert J

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Chomky's theory of generative grammar largely guides modern linguistics. The theory, of course, posits that the principles of language are not learned, but are part of our bio-endowment. Prior to the emergence of generative grammar in the 1950s, however, linguistics focused primarily upon structural description of already produced linguistic output. The goal, in a very general sense, was to categorize and taxonomically order the structural patterns of the world's languages. The systematic study of art today, as represented by the discipline of Art History, has almost identical methods and goals as those of historical linguistics - sorting and taxonomically ordering the extant output of world artistic behavior in terms of structural similarities and differences or styles of art. The question I want to pose here is this: Is the shift from inductive categorizing of the external structure of linguistic output to the deductive modeling of the mind's competence to produce such output also applicable to the study of art? The answer I think is yes, and hinges in part on the similarity of art and language. While art and language probably don't operate under the same set of principles, there may be enough similarity between the two that the analogy is worth pursuing as a preliminary approximation of how the mind creates art. Toward that end, this paper re-conceptualizes the notion of artistic style, exploring the potential for a 'generative art grammar'.

AB - Chomky's theory of generative grammar largely guides modern linguistics. The theory, of course, posits that the principles of language are not learned, but are part of our bio-endowment. Prior to the emergence of generative grammar in the 1950s, however, linguistics focused primarily upon structural description of already produced linguistic output. The goal, in a very general sense, was to categorize and taxonomically order the structural patterns of the world's languages. The systematic study of art today, as represented by the discipline of Art History, has almost identical methods and goals as those of historical linguistics - sorting and taxonomically ordering the extant output of world artistic behavior in terms of structural similarities and differences or styles of art. The question I want to pose here is this: Is the shift from inductive categorizing of the external structure of linguistic output to the deductive modeling of the mind's competence to produce such output also applicable to the study of art? The answer I think is yes, and hinges in part on the similarity of art and language. While art and language probably don't operate under the same set of principles, there may be enough similarity between the two that the analogy is worth pursuing as a preliminary approximation of how the mind creates art. Toward that end, this paper re-conceptualizes the notion of artistic style, exploring the potential for a 'generative art grammar'.

KW - Art

KW - Art style

KW - Cognitive models

KW - Generative grammar

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4344697707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4344697707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00012-7

DO - 10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00012-7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:4344697707

VL - 28

SP - 73

EP - 90

JO - Poetics

JF - Poetics

SN - 0304-422X

IS - 1

ER -