The Perception of Art as a Higher Mental Function
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of higher mental functions applied to the perception of artworks. Considering art as a system of means for mastering of emotions and feelings, the authorshows that this interpsychic system of means for mastering the feelings and emotions through the pro-cessing of aesthetic experience is a conscious, mediated by speech and arbitrary dynamic system of artistic images perception and the processing of aesthetic experience. Perception of artworks becomes arbitrary, if a person realizes the cultural norm of relation to the arts, representing the ability and desire of the viewer to see in the artwork of thoughts and feelings appropriate to the author. The formation of art perception, like any other higher mental functions takes place in accordance with genetic law of cultural development according to which “Every function in the cultural development of the child appears on stage twice” (Vygotsky, 1983, p. 145). The author shows that the perception of art as a higher mental function is formed on the entire life through the perception of works of art and the assimilation of aesthetic experience. The approach to the analysis of perception of works of art proposed by author can find application in di˙erent social practices, from art pedagogy to art therapy; it allows to select the period of development of this function in childhood and adolescence as requiring the greatest attention by teachers and parents. The approach is applicable also in a psychological counseling and art therapy for adolescents and adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it