# Cognitive functions and Art - how it relates



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Different types and their functions call for different views upon art. Feel free to add up and correct my descriptions roud:

*Cognive functions and Art

*​
*Extraverted sensing* in it's nature is the most classical and artistic function. Extroverted sensing is essentially everything there is about the simple pleasure of painting, drawing, the joy of constructing something on the paper that represents the real or the unreal world. Stimulating a fantasy of others by creating something that acts as a portal to the world that the artist intends to depict on the paper.

*Introverted sensing *is about creating esthetically beautiful art. Introverted sensing art is very pure and clear. Everything is correctly as it should be, everything looks fine, proper and pleasing to the eye. The ultimate goal to strive for is that the art should have therapeutic effect.

*Extraverted intuition *is considering that the main focus of good art is a brilliant idea. Art should be the ultimate expression of thoughts, imaginations and ideas. Extroverted intuition conveys the idea of art, using the cleverest forms, shapes, colours and combinations possible, and in attempt to carve into people's sleepy minds and to make them to pay attention to it.

*Introverted intuition* views art as a functional part of society. Art should play an active role in the society to convince and shape the reality of the public. Art is fundamentally the means of shocking people, to destroy their concept of reality and replace it with whatever the artist wants to convey. Unlike the extroverted intuition, the introverted intuition is not satisfied with one striking idea or masterpiece. Introverted intuition believes that art is not only about the exhibition, but how, when and where it is exhibited. Introverted intuition art is 400 cans of soup in stacks. The labyrinths of hallways coloured in stripes of yellow and black. The painting that acts as an optical illusion that only appears when you look from the certain angle etc.

*Extraverted thinking *adds to the kind of will to work for the producing of art, the confidence that in amongst the process of working, the art is made on it's own merit. Extraverted thinking affects the art by believing that everything can be effectively applied and transformed into a piece of art, that art is all-consuming and needs the best of the best for the purpose that it is created for (art gallery exhibition, art school critique etc.)

*Introverted thinking* is the precise evaluation, the critical analysing of it. Introverted thinking art is extremely relevant, goes along with the tides of time, and strikes with the ingenuinity of simplicity.

*Extraverted feeling *is never the active part that is obvious in the art, but it is sort of captured in it. Extraverted feeling is something that others try to capture and trap inside their creation and convey, extraverted feeling is what often appears as the quiet result of the art. The feverous passion of establishing an artistic composition with a couple of people from the street who are supposed to paint themselves in blue and roll around on the large paper that covers the whole floor. Extraverted feeling is the process and performance that gets captured within the art.

*Introverted feeling *is the inner motivation that fuels the creation for the art. Introverted feeling orders the theme, emotion and topic for which the other functions find the shape, colour and the form. Introverted feeling is the intense need to express the innermost happiness, or nightmares, so that the others can finally see what lies inside the artist, so that others can understand him and feel interest in what is it exactly that makes him want to express himself in this particular way.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Introverted sensing is right on for me. I may collect pictures simply because they look good and thus evoke a particular kind of feeling in me. If it doesn't feel good, it gets rejected.


----------



## danicx (Dec 5, 2009)

As an Ne-Ti person my art tends to be lacking in feeling and passion and impact. That makes me sound like a terrible artist ... but for me it's about capturing an essence, some precise quality of the subject I'm trying to portray. It has to be beautiful, or ugly, in a way that conveys its personality. I've got Fe and Si in the mix too and I'm pretty sure those are very active in my art, especially Si, because I have to concentrate and reach inside and I find it very challenging and draining.

But that's referring to visual art. With music it's like a 100% Ne experience, like I get to turn off the other functions and just indulge in the pure Ne. That's why I'm a musician and not a visual artist, although my talent is naturally spread over both media.

Cool post man, I'm always intrigued by the strikingly contrasting ways people come up with their art.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Merihim said:


> Introverted sensing is right on for me. I may collect pictures simply because they look good and thus evoke a particular kind of feeling in me. If it doesn't feel good, it gets rejected.


Seems about right. Thanks for the feedback! roud:

Every introverted sensor I've known of is mainly appreciating the aesthetic beauty of the art. It comes to huge conflict with introverted intuition art, which does not appreciate any aesthetic aspect of the art at all, only the "shock value" or originality of it.



oneoutside said:


> As an Ne-Ti person my art tends to be lacking in feeling and passion and impact. That makes me sound like a terrible artist ... but for me it's about capturing an essence, some precise quality of the subject I'm trying to portray. It has to be beautiful, or ugly, in a way that conveys its personality. I've got Fe and Si in the mix too and I'm pretty sure those are very active in my art, especially Si, because I have to concentrate and reach inside and I find it very challenging and draining.
> 
> But that's referring to visual art. With music it's like a 100% Ne experience, like I get to turn off the other functions and just indulge in the pure Ne. That's why I'm a musician and not a visual artist, although my talent is naturally spread over both media.
> 
> Cool post man, I'm always intrigued by the strikingly contrasting ways people come up with their art.


It's cool you're actually into the arts yourself. It seems pretty similar, in a sense that I am also much more striking towards capturing the essence of whatever I try to convey into the arts, and it does look much easier in music than in visual arts. However, through my life has revolved around drawing, so the best option is practicing, until some cool drawings happen :tongue:

Thanks for the feedback roud:


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I'll be nice to you. 

Honestly, people try very hard--*too hard*--to make anything and everything apply to cognition and Jung's cognitive functions. The way you flip your hair or what colors or shapes you choose in a painting have nothing to do with cognition. As someone who's picky about what information is put out to others who are trying to learn what personality typing is all about, I would personally have to throw this in the garbage. Very creative though.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Ace Face said:


> I'll be nice to you.
> 
> Honestly, people try very hard--*too hard*--to make anything and everything apply to cognition and Jung's cognitive functions. The way you flip your hair or what colors or shapes you choose in a painting have nothing to do with cognition. As someone who's picky about what information is put out to others who are trying to learn what personality typing is all about, I would personally have to throw this in the garbage. Very creative though.


Some of the things can be very well related to cognitive functions. Cognitive functions are essentially the factors which determine your motivation and communication style. They're both closely linked and expressed in art.

I have personally never seen an introverted sensor artist to prefer impressionistic-styled bright and strong colours, for introverted sensors are much more drawn to clear and pure drawings etc. There are distict differences that can certainly be discussed.


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> I have personally never seen an introverted sensor artist to prefer impressionistic-styled bright and strong colours, for introverted sensors are much more drawn to clear and pure drawings etc. There are distict differences that can certainly be discussed.


You can't really generalize what introverted sensors experience when they view art because this defeats the purpose of introversion, which is to experience the world through a subjective lens. I think you are focusing too much on the end result (what your concrete experiences tell you to be true) and not actually referencing the definition of Si, or providing a step by step description for how you reached your conclusions. I have no idea where some of your thoughts came from, and it seems like you might be more intent on a poetic rendering of how the functions play into art than you are in clearly communicating a set of ideas. The extent to which you can characterize what can be found in art as definitive of a specific function is the extent to which you can move beyond the definition of a function, which isn't very far because then you have to take personal and environmental factors into account. In other words, you need to understand what the individual was thinking and how they justified the creation of art.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Gromlin said:


> You can't really generalize what introverted sensors experience when they view art because this defeats the purpose of introversion, which is to experience the world through a subjective lens. I think you are focusing too much on the end result (what your concrete experiences tell you to be true) and not actually referencing the definition of Si, or providing a step by step description for how you reached your conclusions. I have no idea where some of your thoughts came from, and it seems like you might be more intent on a poetic rendering of how the functions play into art than you are in clearly communicating a set of ideas. The extent to which you can characterize what can be found in art as definitive of a specific function is the extent to which you can move beyond the definition of a function, which isn't very far because then you have to take personal and environmental factors into account. In other words, you need to understand what the individual was thinking and how they justified the creation of art.


I agree with this as a whole, though with that said, I find that there are common threads in how Ne-Si and Ni-Se respectively, (unsure about Te-Fi and Fe-Ti) appreciate art. Ni-Se, especially from an Ni perspective, seems to love to play with perspective and this seems to draw the Se-Ni type in. As a few examples:


























You can even see this in Ni-Se users' avatars and signatures. So there is definitely a distinct pattern though I cannot quite point out why this is. Si-Ne patterns tend to look very different but I'm worse at identifying it, mostly because it doesn't captivate me.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

I relate pretty well with the Fi and the Se part. I am most energized at making art at the time when I have strong emotion, and I often feel the need to make some shit when I am at that stage. On a regular basis, my usual neutral emotional state, I am less motivated, but I still enjoy drawing and painting because of the simple pleasure of doing it. Creating something beautiful and nice really give me a sense of success and excitement. I think Se is a really important quality for an artist.

I think the emphasis on technical perfection holds true for Ti in general. I have an ISTP artist friend who often strives to be perfect on the technical aspect of her art in her own sense. I don't mean anything like classical realism or photo-realism because she is never either one. I am sort of a perfectionist but sometimes I am okay with it not technically perfect if it looks nice or interesting enough, but a lot of time I can still be bugged by little parts that look wrong to me.

As for the Ni and Ne part, I kind of relate to both. I agree with them and they are really cool but not my primary motivation and reason for art making. I am an illustrator and I really enjoy visualizing ideas and stories, and success at such gives me a sense of achievement. My deep self also has a vague sense of mission and responsibility to do something good to society with my art, to create positive impact among people, but totally cool with it if I can't because these things feel quite remote and I often comes back to just what's really there in front of me at the moment.

I doubt if the Ni and the Ne part exclude each other. I am saying because Ni and Ne as functions are suppose to exclude each other within a person. I wonder why you say "Unlike the extroverted intuition, the introverted intuition is not satisfied with one striking idea or masterpiece." Isn't Ni a function that looks for one ultimate answer?

I don't quite get the Te and Fe part.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> *Introverted sensing *is about creating esthetically beautiful art. Introverted sensing art is very pure and clear. Everything is correctly as it should be, everything looks fine, proper and pleasing to the eye. The ultimate goal to strive for is that the art should have therapeutic effect.


Well, besides the last part that's not too far off for me. :tongue:

Wait, I'm not a Si-dom.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> I have personally never seen an introverted sensor artist to prefer impressionistic-styled bright and strong colours, for introverted sensors are much more drawn to clear and pure drawings etc. There are distict differences that can certainly be discussed.


I don't understand how "impressionistic-styled bright and strong colors" excludes "clear and pure drawings," and what do you mean by these things? Am I taking things too literally?

And the color of Impressionist paintings are never as bright and strong as some Expressionist and Fauvist painitngs. Impressionist paintings often feel earthy, soft, subtle and sentimental to me rather than bright, strong and bold.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I have never personally met an N(F)P who had an interest in art in and of itself. A conversation with an INFP:



> Me: Is your relationship with art similar to your relationship with poetry?
> 
> Him: Meaning I have a difficult time appreciating it without context?
> 
> ...


I think that basically sums up the Ne approach to art. 

...and seems to confirm what I had suspected. For Ne, either it resonates and objective conceptual meaning (as weighed by F) or it is just fluff. I have seen this ubiquitously with Ne types. Their engagement with aesthetic is that of the Si, but deprioritized. 

NFP types, and I think NTP as well, are not aesthetic in the least... both deprioritizing it, and approaching it with Si.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

arkigos said:


> NFP types, and I think NTP as well, are not aesthetic in the least... both deprioritizing it, and approaching it with Si.


But I know an INFP painter, unless he types himself wrong. He is also very interested in philosophy and Aesthetics.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

uncertain said:


> But I know an INFP painter, unless he types himself wrong. He is also very interested in philosophy and Aesthetics.


I cannot speak for your friend. These are just my observations, which I think resonate with what I understand of Ne. That's all. One would expect Ne to only consider aesthetics in it's capacity as a vehicle to objective conceptual meaning... and I have observed that in the notable but still limited set of NPs I have known, that such is indeed the case. I'd be looking for something much like the conversation in my last post to justify typing an artist INFP.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

arkigos said:


> One would expect Ne to only consider aesthetics in it's capacity as *a vehicle to objective conceptual meaning.*


Well that's enough. There's tons of art like that and tons of artist who create art to express ideas and messages. Art does not equal to aesthetics, especially in the contemporary art world.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I have never personally met an N(F)P who had an interest in art in and of itself. ...
> 
> NFP types, and I think NTP as well, are not aesthetic in the least... both deprioritizing it, and approaching it with Si.


The MBTI Manual includes a study of 114 professional fine artists. Here were the most common types:

INFP 25
INFJ 19
ENFP 16
ENFJ 14
INTP 12

104 out of 114 were N's, and there was only one ISFP.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Different types and their functions call for different views upon art. Feel free to add up and correct my descriptions roud:
> ...
> *Extraverted sensing* in it's nature is the most classical and artistic function. Extroverted sensing is essentially everything there is about the simple pleasure of painting, drawing, the joy of constructing something on the paper that represents the real or the unreal world. Stimulating a fantasy of others by creating something that acts as a portal to the world that the artist intends to depict on the paper.


The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 5,114 ESTPs and 4,321 ESFPs.

Here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" (= scores of 60-100) for the ESTPs:

ESTPs
*Farming, Fishing, and Forestry* [100]
— Rancher, farmer, agricultural inspector, fisher
*Protective Services* [89]
— Firefighter, correctional officer, security guard, police officer
*Building and Grounds Maintenance* [79]
— Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor
*Construction and Extraction* [78]
— Carpenter, plumber, electrician, stonemason
*Transportation and Materials Moving* [76]
— Pilot, air traffic controller, driver, freight handler
*Installation, Maintenance, and Repair* [71]
— Office machine repair, mechanic, line installer, electronics repair
*Military Specific* [70]
— Air crew officer, command & control, radar operator, infantry member
*Sales and Advertising* [67]
— Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
*Production and Manufacturing* [66]
— Machinist, cabinetmaker, inspector, power plant operator

And here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" for the ESFPs:

ESFPs
*Health Care Support* [100]
—Nurse's aide, veterinary assistant, pharmacy aide, physical therapy aide
*Food Preparation and Service* [99]
—Chef, food service manager, bartender, host/hostess
*Personal Care and Service* [91]
—Lodging manager, personal trainer, hairdresser, child care provider
*Office and Administrative Support* [70]
—Bank teller, receptionist, clerical services, legal secretary
*Sales and Advertising* [62]
—Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
*Building and Grounds Maintenance* [60]
—Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor

In 18th place (out of 22) for the ESFPs (with a job satisfaction score of 28 out of 100) and 20th place (out of 22) for the ESTPs (with a job satisfaction score of 33) was the category that includes arts, design, entertainment and media:

*Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media*
— Artist, coach, musician, reporter

So I'd be a little hesitant to call Se (assuming you're matching that to ES_Ps) the "most classical and artistic function."


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> The MBTI Manual includes a study of 114 professional fine artists. Here were the most common types:
> 
> INFP 25
> INFJ 19
> ...


Are those the same studies that say that there are more ENTPs than ESTPs and more ENFPs than ESFPs?

Brilliant!

More than TWICE as many ENFP as ESTP. That, my friend, is comedy gold.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

reckful said:


> The MBTI Manual includes a study of 114 professional fine artists. Here were the most common types:
> 
> INFP 25
> INFJ 19
> ...


I actually incline to think that most _fine_ artists today are NF because the contemporary fine art world has gotten very abstract and philosophical. Like if you go to the Museum of Modern Art...






This is probably too stereotypical, but I can tell you that many folks in _fine _art programs are not too far away from it. Traditional crafty realistic art get stigmatized among this kind of atmosphere.

People like this was much more common in the 60s and 70s and probably the 80s, things get better these recent days though. But I guess if you go to NYC it's still quite relevant.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Are those the same studies that say that there are more ENTPs than ESTPs and more ENFPs than ESFPs?
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> More than TWICE as many ENFP as ESTP. That, my friend, is comedy gold.


Um, no. That was _one_ study, and it had nothing to say about type frequencies in the general population.

Was your question a serious question, or were you just mining for "comedy gold"?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I actually incline to think that most _fine_ artists today are NF because the contemporary fine art world has gotten very abstract and philosophical. Like if you go to the Museum of Modern Art...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I went through the museum of modern art with an ENFP and we were so bored... for the reasons I gave. What did any of it mean? We couldn't tell, and it was kinda interesting, but without context, without meaning? It was just nice shapes. Oh well. Let's chat about 20 different angles on feminism and look at the pretty shapes. An INFJ might have loved it because they love to guess at meaning... try to pull patterns out, but Ne is apparently lazy. Ti tries to extract logic 'mental masturbation' as Scelerat calls it. Fi wallows deep into valuations... Si gets trapped in sensory impressions they've built up... it's all subjective, and not objective at all... and Ni and symbolism seem to have a similar relationship. Se loves dynamics in aesthetic, Ni likes to pull subjective patterns out. It's the recipe for art.

Ne/Si does neither of those things, by their very definition. I have also observed it.

I think that you'd need Se-Ni/Ni-Se for most of that art, again for reasons I've already mentioned. 

@_reckful_ - the studies are pretty consistent, and also inconsistent, on the point. They vary too much.. and when they don't vary, they show wild discrepancies that they should not show. 

*ONE *ISFP? Are you joking? 12 INTPs, and 1 ISFP artist.. and you are seriously posting that?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> @_reckful_ - the studies are pretty consistent, and also inconsistent, on the point. They vary too much.. and when they don't vary, they show wild discrepancies that they should not show.


Are you actually aware of any other "studies ... on the point," or are you just pretending you are? If it's the former, please point me to them so I can evaluate their "wild discrepancies" for myself.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Are you actually aware of any other "studies ... on the point," or are you just pretending you are? If it's the former, please point me to them so I can evaluate their "wild discrepancies" for myself.


Of course I am. All CAPT studies. I've read them all. Show me one, for example, that doesn't show notably fewer, say, ISTPs, than ENFPs. Most will show the error... a few might not. Thus, they are both erratic, and when not, wrong.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Of course I am. All CAPT studies. I've read them all. Show me one, for example, that doesn't show notably fewer, say, ISTPs, than ENFPs. Most will show the error... a few might not. Thus, they are both erratic, and when not, wrong.


I thought you were talking about studies of artists.

The fine artist study I referred to wasn't conducted by "CAPT" or any other official MBTI organization, and I fail to see what CAPT stats about type frequencies in the general population have to do with my post.

But, going along with you on the change of subject...

It's a mystery to me what you can possibly mean when you refer to "CAPT studies" and say you've "read them all." To the extent that there's an "official" set of estimates of MBTI type frequencies, they're the ones you can find on this page and this supplemental page (based on the same data). As explained at the first link, the statistics are based on "a variety of MBTI results from 1972 through 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI)."

As I understand it, most of the MBTI results in those data banks don't come from published studies, and many of the studies were not conducted by CAPT. What are these "CAPT studies" you're referring to when you say you've "read them all" and they show "wild discrepancies"?

Also: You say it's an "error" that these stats show fewer ISTPs than ENFPs. If you think it's clear there are more ISTPs than ENFPs, what's your source for that?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I actually incline to think that most _fine_ artists today are NF because the contemporary fine art world has gotten very abstract and philosophical. Like if you go to the Museum of Modern Art...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know one artist who is extremely talented and she's an SF. Anyone can get into the fine arts for reasons unknown. 

And I'm inclined to agree with @arkigos that if we are talking about finding symbolic meaning in say art, then one would likely need to prefer Ni since that's what Ni essentially does. It's an orientation towards the symbolic life, intuiting the archetype as symbols. Though I read this craptastic article on TV Tropes today about symbolism which essentially was the tl;dr version of that either symbols exist as concrete objects referenced by the external world e.g. the Christian cross representing Christianity, or it's just humbug use of symbols with no real meaning or thought behind it. As if symbols can only be linked to the concrete world somehow. 

Anyway, that's one of the reasons why I got so hooked into anthropology after reading Clifford Geertz' monography because he's interested in finding the archetype through symbolism. White represents purity, cocks represent masculinity and so on. Geertz is likely an INFJ.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I know one artist who is extremely talented and she's an SF. Anyone can get into the fine arts for reasons unknown.
> 
> And I'm inclined to agree with @_arkigos_ that if we are talking about finding symbolic meaning in say art, then one would likely need to prefer Ni since that's what Ni essentially does. It's an orientation towards the symbolic life, intuiting the archetype as symbols. Though I read this craptastic article on TV Tropes today about symbolism which essentially was the tl;dr version of that either symbols exist as concrete objects referenced by the external world e.g. the Christian cross representing Christianity, or it's just humbug use of symbols with no real meaning or thought behind it. As if symbols can only be linked to the concrete world somehow.
> 
> Anyway, that's one of the reasons why I got so hooked into anthropology after reading Clifford Geertz' monography because he's interested in finding the archetype through symbolism. White represents purity, cocks represent masculinity and so on. Geertz is likely an INFJ.


I am not saying that everyone is NF, but a lot of them are. I don't like it when some people try too hard to give every piece of art, or everything, a symbolic meaning.

Why does white has to represent purity and cocks masculinity while it is just white and cock. What if white is just white and cock just cock but by over-symbolizing things you actually misinterpret whatever part of reality you are trying to interpret? And I am just tired of that kind of stuff.

Like, sometimes I showed my father what I had drawn or painted, and he would often ask me what my art mean, and I said, no there's not a meaning, and he would say there must be something and I was just not telling him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I am not saying that everyone is NF, but a lot of them are. I don't like it when some people try too hard to give every piece of art, or everything, a symbolic meaning.
> 
> Why does white has to represent purity and cocks masculinity while it is just white and cock. What if white is just white and cock just cock but by over-symbolizing things you actually misinterpret whatever part of reality you are trying to interpret? And I am just tired of that kind of stuff.


Not saying everything has to be. But if you are going to analyze a situation you will have to look at what something is in order to draw conclusions from that and just saying it's a fucking man standing on a boat isn't really going to make anyone jizz. That's what they can see too. 

And I honestly don't think a lot of them are. I think most of them are mistypes as is common when it comes to the N letter.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Not saying everything has to be. But if you are going to analyze a situation you will have to look at what something is in order to draw conclusions from that and just saying it's a fucking man standing on a boat isn't really going to make anyone jizz. That's what they can see too.


What if it's really just a fucking man standing on a boat? If you over-interpret it's not going to help either.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> I thought you were talking about studies of artists.
> 
> The fine artist study I referred to wasn't conducted by "CAPT" or any other official MBTI organization, and I fail to see what CAPT stats about type frequencies in the general population have to do with my post.
> 
> ...


Would you mind showing me the source for the artist study, I'd like to see what methodologies went into it. What questions were asked. 

I assumed it was related to CAPT, but, oh well.. the point remains that those studies are anything but authoritative. 

Do you think there are more ENFPs than ISTPs? We both know there aren't, and it is madness to ask for some study to prove it. These studies can be and are hugely flawed... give them to me and I'll show you how. Saying 'show me a study' is ridiculous. I could have some professor do a study and what would it mean? Who is he? He has an unrelated certificate on the wall and methodologies and materials that we don't know about and suddenly it's the word of god? 

No, no, no, no... we have to use our minds. Those studies might be meaningful, but only by THINKING, questioning, considering, can we have any hope of knowing. Otherwise, we'll be left with stats that say 1 in 10 people you meet are ENFP, and ISFPs aren't artists. It's ridiculous and we both know it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Would you mind showing me the source for the artist study, I'd like to see what methodologies went into it. What questions were asked.
> 
> I assumed it was related to CAPT, but, oh well.. the point remains that those studies are anything but authoritative.


"What methodologies went into it" and "What questions were asked"? Are you freaking kidding me? As I understand it, there's no "methodology" involved in a study that correlates MBTI type with something as unambiguous as somebody's occupation other than administering the official MBTI to the relevant professionals — professional fine artists in the study under discussion. The Manual identifies the study as follows:



MBTI Manual said:


> Source of data: Simon, R.S., Jungian Types and Creativity of Professional Fine Artists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 1979. Used with permission. Data collected by Robert S. Simon from professional fine artists in San Diego, California.


You say "those studies are anything but authoritative," but I didn't suggest the study was "authoritative" on anything, or that we should extrapolate from that small sample and conclude that 36% of _all fine artists_ are NFPs. You had posted that you "have never personally met an N(F)P who had an interest in art in and of itself"; and that "NFP types, and I think NTP as well, are not aesthetic in the least." And, since the only study I'm familiar with involving fine artists and MBTI reported results that are _dramatically inconsistent_ with your assertions, I thought it was worth noting.



arkigos said:


> Do you think there are more ENFPs than ISTPs? We both know there aren't, and it is madness to ask for some study to prove it. These studies can be and are hugely flawed... give them to me and I'll show you how. Saying 'show me a study' is ridiculous. I could have some professor do a study and what would it mean? Who is he? He has an unrelated certificate on the wall and methodologies and materials that we don't know about and suddenly it's the word of god?
> 
> No, no, no, no... we have to use our minds. Those studies might be meaningful, but only by THINKING, questioning, considering, can we have any hope of knowing. Otherwise, we'll be left with stats that say 1 in 10 people you meet are ENFP, and ISFPs aren't artists. It's ridiculous and we both know it.


You must be joking. It's "madness" for anyone to think the official MBTI folks — who I assume have more relevant data to refer to than anyone else — are correct in estimating that there are more ENFPs than ISTPs? Why is that "madness"?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I think it's _impossible_ that there could be more ISTPs than ENFPs. But I certainly don't have any better sources to point to with the kind of dramatically different statistics that would lead me to conclude that the official MBTI folks are "in error" (as you claim) and it would be "madness" to think otherwise.

"We both know it"? Sorry, but I don't "know it" and it sounds to me like you're just blowing smoke. I ask you again: Do you have any respectable source for your confident assertion that there are more ISTPs than ENFPs?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> "What methodologies went into it" and "What questions were asked"? Are you freaking kidding me? As I understand it, there's no "methodology" involved in a study that correlates MBTI type with something as unambiguous as somebody's occupation other than administering the official MBTI to the relevant professionals — professional fine artists in the study under discussion. The Manual identifies the study as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My observations could indeed be flawed.... but this:



> _Source of data: Simon, R.S. Jungian Types and Creativity of Professional Fine Artists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 1979. Used with permission. Data collected by Robert S. Simon from professional fine artists in San Diego, California._


Is a fancy way of saying "some dude in the 70s". Which means it is about as meaningless as my anecdote... but we cannot assess anything about it nor even gauge our opinion of the person involved. Or the criteria involved. He could have said "Are you, as an artist, creative?" and marked them down for N. Seriously. To get the results he did, he must have.

I was speaking poorly when I said 'not aesthetic in the least' but hopefully the remainder of my words helped overcome that with context. I should have said that NFPs are not particularly drawn to aesthetic for its own sake, as I stated elsewhere.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Is a fancy way of saying "some dude in the 70s". Which means it is about as meaningless as my anecdote... but we cannot assess anything about it nor even gauge our opinion of the person involved. Or the criteria involved. He could have said "Are you, as an artist, creative?" and marked them down for N. Seriously. To get the results he did, he must have.


Um, no. I think we can safely assume that his typings were based on the official MBTI or the study wouldn't have been cited in the MBTI Manual. As for whether such a cited study of 114 professional fine artists is "about as meaningless as [your] anecdote," I guess that's something every reader of this thread can decide for themselves.

As a (hopefully) final note on the more general CAPT stats, it's worth noting that the CAPT isn't claiming that those estimated percentages are definitive and, in fact, acknowledge several possible skews. As they explain here:



CAPT said:


> Each of the samples available for study likely has some selection bias. Persons with preferences for Introversion and Intuition may be over-represented in the CAPT databank, since many of the MBTI answer sheets submitted for scoring come from educational institutions, where these preferences are over-represented. The SRI VALS study likely has a bias toward more affluent groups, given that the data are used for marketing surveys. The CPP, Inc. studies may include slightly more people with college degrees compared to the U.S. population. The VALS and CPP, Inc. studies may be biased toward persons who might be more inclined to agree over the telephone to complete an MBTI instrument, who subsequently do so, and, finally, actually return the answer sheets. It is not clear how these behaviors may be related to type. To provide a wider range of data for the types that may not be accurately represented in the above samples, data gathered by Myers of high school students (both college preparatory and noncollege preparatory) and high school dropouts were also included.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

DAMN!! Just lost 2 and half hours of writing because I accidently pressed backspace. I attempt to revise this post again in a shorter way 



ephemereality said:


> ...You can even see this in Ni-Se users' avatars and signatures. So there is definitely a distinct pattern though I cannot quite point out why this is. Si-Ne patterns tend to look very different but I'm worse at identifying it, mostly because it doesn't captivate me.


Good point! There is definitely some sort of differences I have noticed myself. I found some deviantart examples that kind of picture how I see these differences in Ni-Se and Ne-Si patterns of art.

Ni-Se pattern


* *















Ne-Si pattern


* *

















uncertain said:


> ...I doubt if the Ni and the Ne part exclude each other. I am saying because Ni and Ne as functions are suppose to exclude each other within a person. I wonder why you say "Unlike the extroverted intuition, the introverted intuition is not satisfied with one striking idea or masterpiece." Isn't Ni a function that looks for one ultimate answer?
> 
> I don't quite get the Te and Fe part.


Again, very good post here. 

What I meant by this is that the Ni strives towards creating *definitional freedom*, while Ne strives towards creating *contextual freedom*. Introverted intuition style differs quite a lot from extroverted intuition style. 

One Ni example is the french artist named *Yves Klein *(google about it), a man with the famous "manifest of the blue", where he declared that the colour blue involves a very large array of symbols and meanings with it. To demonstrate it, he made his famous entirely blue pieces of art. He painted public spaces over in blue. That was his protest to the concept, the narrow definition that blue is just a colour. For him, blue was much, much more than just that.

Ne example would be something different, like *Andy Warhol,* who purposefully used easily definable objects and concepts in different contexts, to capture the essence of whatever he wanted to convey.

That is where it differs. Ni takes the concepts as they are, but alters their meanings, while Ne takes the meanings as they are, but alters the concepts. Both of them seek to alter the human perception about the subject, but Ni artist would rather want to convince people how you can add infinite number of perspectives and purposes to the simple objects, subjects and concepts, while Ne artist would rather want to convince people how the perspective or purpose of something can stay the same, even when there are different, unusual and original ways to represent that something.

Ni artist would, for example, make an exhibition where chairs are used to compose a sofa, a cupboard, a little house etc. but Ne artist would make an exhibition where different things are engineered to represent the functionality of a chair, such as a chair made out of Red Bull cans, called "the flying chair", the chair made out of electric cables, called "the death sentence" etc.

Te and Fe are related in the art process. 

*Te-Fi artist* is more internally passionate about the work process, finding it hard to create hype, so the Te-Fi artist hopes that others are motivated internally as well. When the work is done, the artist represents the artwork as the ultimate expression of talent, his ideals and hard work, thus personificating the art piece.

*Fe-Ti artist* is much more passionate about the process itself, which is very helpful in instilling interest in others to work alongside with him. When work is done, the artist creates a hype around the artwork, by telling how it was born, from which conditions, with the help of whom etc. but refers to artwork itself simply as the measure of the successful process of making art.




uncertain said:


> I don't understand how "impressionistic-styled bright and strong colors" excludes "clear and pure drawings," and what do you mean by these things? Am I taking things too literally?
> 
> And the color of Impressionist paintings are never as bright and strong as some Expressionist and Fauvist painitngs. Impressionist paintings often feel earthy, soft, subtle and sentimental to me rather than bright, strong and bold.


That is a poor definition, I'm sorry. I posted the pictures above to explain what I meant by this.



arkigos said:


> NFP types, and I think NTP as well, are not aesthetic in the least... both deprioritizing it, and approaching it with Si.


That is kind of true, actually. My explanation is that the xNxP's lack the extroverted sensing, the function which is strongly linked with aesthetic appreciation and vision.



reckful said:


> The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 5,114 ESTPs and 4,321 ESFPs....So I'd be a little hesitant to call Se (assuming you're matching that to ES_Ps) the "most classical and artistic function."


I can't argue with statistics. I have just personally noted that extroverted sensors who are involved with arts have something very artistic about them. It's some sort of x-factor. when you see an xSxP artist for the first time, you can guess it very quickly that they are artists. Also, extroverted sensors do enjoy everything related to working with colours, compositions and all other kinds of stuff that is related to traditional art. Maybe some nice person lurking in this thread could perhaps care to elaborate on this thought? roud:


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> ...the chair made out of electric cables, called "the death sentence" etc.


I understand now. The examples are really helpful. No wonder why I feel so frustrated and uncreative when I want to draw/paint something conceptual because I always try to do smart Ne stuff like the electric cable chair and always fail to come up with ideas, or it's really hard for me.

A couple years ago I saw a poster on the street in which milk was being poured into a tooth-shape glass, and I thought that was really smart and so cool and I hoped I could just do something like that. I never think about the Ni way, and I absolutely don't know how.

Do you think this is Ne?










> Te and Fe are related in the art process.
> 
> *Te-Fi artist* is more internally passionate about the work process, finding it hard to create hype, so the Te-Fi artist hopes that others are motivated internally as well. When the work is done, the artist represents the artwork as the ultimate expression of talent, his ideals and hard work, thus personificating the art piece.
> 
> *Fe-Ti artist* is much more passionate about the process itself, which is very helpful in instilling interest in others to work alongside with him. When work is done, the artist creates a hype around the artwork, by telling how it was born, from which conditions, with the help of whom etc. but refers to artwork itself simply as the measure of the successful process of making art.


I think I am much more of the Te-Fi. Can you give examples for the Fe-Ti and/or Te-Fi?

I can't really think of anything like the Fe-Ti here. Does one has to actually go to an artist reception to listen to the stories behind the art, or to read about the stories, in order to know that it's a Fe type of art?

I guess most people don't understand how long it can take to make a piece of art. I think I am a bit better at telling the time and effort an artist put in a piece of art by looking at it, but that's it, and it is because I am an artist myself, not so much because the art itself gives out some hype. Usually I can't feel anything unless I read something about the art




> That is kind of true, actually. My explanation is that the xNxP's lack the extroverted sensing, the function which is strongly linked with aesthetic appreciation and vision.


Wait, NPs have Si and that should help, right?


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Ne-Si art is like atmospheric confetti. It's what-you-see-is-what-you-get, lacking any symbolism or deeper meaning in itself. Instead, it will generate a multitude of associations and ponderings in the viewer, as they continue to find new details. Surface impressions and concepts are combined and transformed on the spot, and creation is a very spontaneous process.

Examples:

Early Bloom - ImagineFX 72 by imaginism on deviantART

http://users.skynet.be/fb791474/images-pages/landschap met spookolifanten.jpg

These images don't "mean" anything. They aren't symbolical or "deep" in any reasonable way. This is what Ne does. It combines and associates from surface impressions, laying the puzzle in new ways. Ne-Si wants to create an interesting and thought provoking surface, without adding any meaning of its own. It's "objective" in a way - It doesn't require interpretation in order to make sense.

Both these I would presume are done by NTPs.




















---------------------------

Ni-Se art, on the other hand, is symbolic. It expresses a singular idea of the artist, and everything in the image is a symbol expressing that same idea in a new way. Ni-Se expresses purpose and meaning through the use of symbols. For the image to be understandable, it must be seen within the framework of an idea.

Examples:

Both these are made by INJs.

Guilty by yuumei on deviantART

http://www.cvltnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/GIGER25.jpg

If we don't assume all that happens in the painting is a symbolic representation of an idea, it doesn't make any sort of sense at all. Her hair is an oil slick. Her wings consist of a wounded sea bird. Her lower body is a shark tangled in nets. The turtle in the plastic bag expresses the same thing yet again. Everything is a symbol for the idea the artist is trying to convey.










And this one by Giger is called "Birth Machine". Again, the image doesn't even make sense without thinking of it within the framework of an idea. It's representational, because this is what Ni-Se does. It's easy to tell the difference.










---------------------------
@arkigos , both me (ENTJ) and my girlfriend (INTP) are creative professionals, and to me it seems absurd that you suggest Ne-Si would have no interest in art. Especially with those stats backing it up. Sure, statistical surveys can be imprecise, but on the other hand your anecdotes are probably even more so.

As dominant thinkers, for both me and my girlfriend, creating art is a method for developing technical skill, and looking at art is an appreciation of the technical skill of others. _What_ is depicted isn't as important as _how well_ it is depicted.

Someone who's a dominant intuitive would probably be more focused on the idea, and put less weight on the application of skill. A dominant sensor or feeler would have yet other things they look for and appreciate in art.

I think mostly everyone will have an interest in art in one way or another, regardless of function order. But intuitives are overrepresented when it comes to creating art, pretty much in every survey I've seen so far. I have no reason to doubt that, because it makes a lot of sense that a preference for intuition would correlate with a creative urge. If you can imagine environments previously unthought of, or if symbolism comes very natural to you, it would make sense to express this in some way for others to see?

What differs between types is what makes you appreciate art and what kind of art you appreciate, as well as how and why you create art.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> @_arkigos_ , both me (ENTJ) and my girlfriend (INTP) are creative professionals, and to me it seems absurd that you suggest Ne-Si would have no interest in art. Especially with those stats backing it up. Sure, statistical surveys can be imprecise, but on the other hand your anecdotes are probably even more so.
> 
> As dominant thinkers, for both me and my girlfriend, creating art is a method for developing technical skill, and looking at art is an appreciation of the technical skill of others. _What_ is depicted isn't as important as _how well_ it is depicted.
> 
> ...


I think, then, that I spoke poorly because that is not what I meant. I said that Ne is not typically interested in aesthetic in and of itself and thus not art in and of itself. It is only engaging as a vehicle to some objective meaning.... though, granted, often an impromptu / ad-hoc one. Sure NP can be artists, but I am defining how Ne fits into that.

Like Ni, Ne is interested in most anything primarily for what it symbolizes... and Ne prefers that symbolism to have broad and objective context. 

When I see those Ne pictures you mentioned... I liked them because of what they could represent... what world they could open up for me. I didn't care about the colors, or how well it was done, or if it looked nice at all. Shapes, colors, beauty, all of that in and of itself is deprioritized to instead consider what might be beyond all that. What is that creature? What world does it inhabit? It seems intelligent, what is its nature? I feel like I could interact with it, come to understand it. 

The 'art' aspect of the art is not important. Subjective symbolism that I would have to inject into the art does not feel resonant... I want it to have context and objective meaning. Lacking that, it is not compelling in and of itself. 

The Ni art was not compelling because it invited me to read deep into the symbolism without context or objective meaning and that feels.... well.... it feels subjective. Subjective things can't be meaningful, because you just made up what they meant. Or read into it. Not objective, not compelling.

Does that make sense? I am not saying that Ne doesn't do art... but that it doesn't do aesthetic for it's own sake. 

Consider my INFP friends explanation of why he likes the art of George Catlin. That sums it up. 

If an NP type does do art in a way other than this, one might consider other functions other than Ne as being involved in that process more directly.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

arkigos said:


> I think, then, that I spoke poorly because that is not what I meant. I said that Ne is not typically interested in aesthetic in and of itself and thus not art in and of itself. It is only engaging as a vehicle to some objective meaning.... though, granted, often an impromptu / ad-hoc one. Sure NP can be artists, but I am defining how Ne fits into that.


The definition of art can be debated endlessly. Some people, like me, think that good art is art that is skillfully created. Other people say good art is art that challenges culture. Yet others say good art is something that captures their imagination. I think trying to define art as purely appreciating the aesthetic value of something is begging to have a very long discussion on semantics.



> Like Ni, Ne is interested in most anything primarily for what it symbolizes... and Ne prefers that symbolism to have broad and objective context.
> 
> When I see those Ne pictures you mentioned... I liked them because of what they could represent... what world they could open up for me. I didn't care about the colors, or how well it was done, or if it looked nice at all. Shapes, colors, beauty, all of that in and of itself is deprioritized to instead consider what might be beyond all that. What is that creature? What world does it inhabit? It seems intelligent, what is its nature? I feel like I could interact with it, come to understand it.


This is pretty much how I explained Ne's way of appreciating and creating art. When one looks at that creature with the flowering horns, one may interpret and ponder what kind of animal it is. One uses the painting as a window into a hypothetical world. This is the kind of stuff Ne feeds on. A Ne painting is like a smorgasbord of things one can look at to spawn even more ideas and connections.



> The 'art' aspect of the art is not important. Subjective symbolism that I would have to inject into the art does not feel resonant... I want it to have context and objective meaning. Lacking that, it is not compelling in and of itself.
> 
> The Ni art was not compelling because it invited me to read deep into the symbolism without context or objective meaning and that feels.... well.... it feels subjective. Subjective things can't be meaningful, because you just made up what they meant. Or read into it. Not objective, not compelling.


This is the difference between Ni-Se and Ne-Si. I appreciate both kinds, but I am more captivated by art I have to interpret, because that resonates with me. I can ask myself, when looking at the Giger painting I attached, how it makes sense to me, and how I would interpret it, using my own symbol structures.

Often, in these cases, the meaning is not clear, and the same thing can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. I can make sense of it using the analogy of life-is-a-gunshot, which makes sense to me personally, with the barrel of a gun representing the birth canal, and the flight of the bullet ending in impact, representative of death. The analogy of human-as-ammunition makes us disposable and identical. Mass produced single-shot beings living high speed lives, ending suddenly when we meet our targets.

If one has different symbol structures, one could interpret the painting completely differently. For example, one could interpret the gun as a penis and an ejaculation as a gun firing, and under this interpretation insemination is an act of violence, because pregnancy can be interpreted as a state of illness/woundedness - a kind of damage that is inflicted by a weaponized pee-pee.

Or I can view it a symbol for the military industrial complex, using people as disposable ammunition in its wars.

I could go on forever. What's important is as a Ni user, I don't really care what the artist was trying to say. I just need the symbols in order to make my own interpretation.



> Does that make sense? I am not saying that Ne doesn't do art... but that it doesn't do aesthetic for it's own sake.


It makes sense, but I think you are using the word "art" in a somewhat limiting way.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

arkigos said:


> When I see those Ne pictures you mentioned... I liked them because of what they could represent... what world they could open up for me. I didn't care about the colors, or how well it was done, or if it looked nice at all. Shapes, colors, beauty, all of that in and of itself is deprioritized to instead consider what might be beyond all that. What is that creature? What world does it inhabit? It seems intelligent, what is its nature? I feel like I could interact with it, come to understand it.


I wish I could share your enthusiasm! I find the first one extremely boring, never saw why people liked the whole "fantasy creature"/ "fairy" kind of artwork. The second one has a little more to it, imo. 



arkigos said:


> The 'art' aspect of the art is not important. Subjective symbolism that I would have to inject into the art does not feel resonant... I want it to have context and objective meaning. Lacking that, it is not compelling in and of itself.
> 
> The Ni art was not compelling because it invited me to read deep into the symbolism without context or objective meaning and that feels.... well.... *it feels subjective*. Subjective things can't be meaningful, because you just made up what they meant. Or read into it. Not objective, not compelling.


To me art of any kind or form is by definition subjective. What is "objective" art? I can interpret any kind of art in many ways, but one theme will always prevail (like the playfulness of the Ne-style pictures above).

Btw, I would have thought "Fi" for the mermaid pic, if not for both. Ni is much more elusive.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Miya said:


> I wish I could share your enthusiasm! I find the first one extremely boring, never saw why people liked the whole "fantasy creature"/ "fairy" kind of artwork. The second one has a little more to it, imo.


Personally, I appreciate that kind of art if it's original and actually requires some imagination. Pictures of culturally established "fantasies" like dragons, unicorns and fairies hold no interest for me, but stuff that's actually original and imaginative can easily capture my interest, even if it does not require the Ni style interpretations.

To me, interpreting art feels a bit pretentious and silly, and I feel totally off while I am doing it, as if I was some "deep" and artsy kind of guy, being all dark and cutting myself or shit like that. But I can't help it either. Interpreting is automatic for me.



> Btw, I would have thought "Fi" for the mermaid pic, if not for both. Ni is much more elusive.


I think the "elusiveness" of Ni is vastly overstated. I think people assume a lot of things about Ni because all descriptors are unnecessarily fuzzy and contradictory, and nobody can agree on a singular definition. It's the same with Si, but the other way around. Everyone makes Si very simple, and Ni very complex. I think the Pi functions are extremely badly understood, because they are so internal and non-expressive.

The conclusion I've come to is that Ni is simply _the act of interpreting stuff subjectively by treating things as symbols representing abstract concepts_, like in my examples above. All Ni users I've met does this, and none of the Ne users do it, so it seems to be a determining factor.

Other trends I've noticed while art browsing are the following:

• Fi users express their emotions in art.

Fi>Te + Se>Ni (SFP): Focus is on people, especially faces, and aim is to convey emotional states through use of symbolism.

Example: Trapped by School by DestinyBlue on deviantART

• Ti users are careful that their art makes sense in an objective manner. Unlike Fi users because using art as a tool for their own emotional expression is virtually unthinkable.

Ti>Fe + Ne>Si (NTP): Focus on creating a realistic representation of something completely made up. Unlike NTJ art because they prefer to not express a personal, emotional view on the subject matter.

Example: Winding Down by Abiogenisis on deviantART

• Ni users express abstract concepts through the use of symbols. The higher Ni is in the function order, the more multifaceted and open to interpretation the art will be. Lower level of Ni expression gives rise to more obvious symbolism, as in my SFP example above.

Te>Fi + Ni>Se (NTJ): Expressing their perspective on abstract concepts through the use of symbols. Quite like the SFP style, but less personal and human, and more open to interpretation. Unlike Ti users because art is a tool to express a personal view.

Example: SOCIETY by Gloom82 on deviantART

• High Si users draw realistic motifs in semi-realist styles, but make it idealized. The "mood" of the picture is highly prioritized. Unlike Ni use because it is devoid of symbolism.

Si>Ne (SJ): Impersonal and nostalgic style.
Example: Dan Scurtu - Landscape with pinetrees at sunset by DanScurtu on deviantART


Haven't put my finger on STPs and NFPs, and I could be more specific with the SJs, but I haven't gotten there yet.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Miya said:


> To me art of any kind or form is by definition subjective. What is "objective" art? I can interpret any kind of art in many ways, but one theme will always prevail (like the playfulness of the Ne-style pictures above).


Could be argued that the objective aspect of art is the level of technical skill with which it was created. For example, does the perspective make sense, is the composition any good? From this point of view, photorealism is "perfect" and what I did with finger paint as a two years old sucks.

I think this is a viable way to measure certain aspects of "art", if we're to continue using that fuzzy concept.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

I know this is highly subjective, but _this _is the kind of art that seems to appeal to my Ni:


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Or this:


































Also, photographs by Aurelie Curie and architecture of Tadao Ando, among others...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> I think mostly everyone will have an interest in art in one way or another, regardless of function order. But intuitives are overrepresented when it comes to creating art, pretty much in every survey I've seen so far. I have no reason to doubt that, because it makes a lot of sense that a preference for intuition would correlate with a creative urge. If you can imagine environments previously unthought of, or if symbolism comes very natural to you, it would make sense to express this in some way for others to see?


I agree with your observations until about here, because they also disagree with my own. For one thing, imagination is not the same as intuition and creativity is not the same as intuition either. Remember that Jung thought the type that is the most likely to be an artist is actually the Si dom in order to give shape to their sensory imaginary that is otherwise too abstract for them. Where are the Si doms represented? Nowhere, yet Jung claimed these were the artists of psychological types! Don't you think that's a little strange? 

I don't think intuition has anything to do with an interest with art. That would be too influenced by various external influences.



NiDBiLD said:


> If one has different symbol structures, one could interpret the painting completely differently. For example, one could interpret the gun as a penis and an ejaculation as a gun firing, and under this interpretation insemination is an act of violence, because pregnancy can be interpreted as a state of illness/woundedness - a kind of damage that is inflicted by a weaponized pee-pee.


So essentially you are saying it's representing rape? There's some commentary about Giger often representing women and sex in odd manners, suggesting he might have some neurosis surrounding this particular phenomenon but I haven't looked too much into it, personally.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

arkigos said:


> I have never personally met an N(F)P who had an interest in art in and of itself. A conversation with an INFP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does this mean I iz mistype?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Too bad I don't do much visual art aside GFX but truly original art I just don't have the vision for.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I agree with your observations until about here, because they also disagree with my own. For one thing, imagination is not the same as intuition and creativity is not the same as intuition either.


Could you please explain what you mean by this? For me it seems self evident that creativity, intuition and imagination are closely related. Would be interesting to get a different view.



> Remember that Jung thought the type that is the most likely to be an artist is actually the Si dom in order to give shape to their sensory imaginary that is otherwise too abstract for them. Where are the Si doms represented? Nowhere, yet Jung claimed these were the artists of psychological types! Don't you think that's a little strange?


I think Jung was wrong about this, just as I think he was wrong about the direction of the third function. I don't think Si is very abstract, although I can see why Jung as a Ni dominant would interpret it that way. It is difficult to get a correct grip on the opposite of your dominant, because it seems so alien.



> I don't think intuition has anything to do with an interest with art. That would be too influenced by various external influences.


I don't think intuitives are more likely to say they are interested in art. Especially not established fine art. I think that is the area of SJ types - Upholding the status of culturally established symbols and such. Without SJs who value what's established in the form of cultural norms, The Mona Lisa would have been written off as a mediocre work with a faulty perspective and two horizon lines, instead of being called one of the greatest works of all time. And if you look closely at the paintings in the roof of the sistine chapel, they actually are not that great either. 20 minutes of browsing deviantart, tops, and you'll find a piece that's more skillfully executed. We owe it to the SJ art community that these things are still considered "masterpieces".

I do however think most people who actually create art are intuitives. Most probably, introverts are also overrepresented in this category.



> So essentially you are saying it's representing rape? There's some commentary about Giger often representing women and sex in odd manners, suggesting he might have some neurosis surrounding this particular phenomenon but I haven't looked too much into it, personally.


I'm only saying it _can _be interpreted in this way, along with a multitude of other possible interpretations. I won't even make an attempt at guessing at Gigers intentions. What I can read into it is good enough for me. The symbolism fits "rape". It also fits "war" and "life" as conceptual wrappers.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I have never personally met an N(F)P who had an interest in art in and of itself. A conversation with an INFP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A) Keep looking. 

B) It's because people who imagine visual things you type as Sensors. For example typing an ENFP (though arguably an INxx) as an ESTJ. 

C) Just because someone is not good at interpreting art does not necessarily mean that they are less likely to be artistic themselves.

D)


> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, *the artistic intuition which selects and presents its images by means of feeling judgment*, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> Could you please explain what you mean by this? For me it seems self evident that creativity, intuition and imagination are closely related. Would be interesting to get a different view.


What I mean by this is that when Jung defined intuition as imaginary, he didn't mean actual concrete images of fantasy, daydreaming or the like, but he meant experiencing the archetype images or symbols. I would consider myself quite lacking in terms of imagination in how it is commonly understood in the ability to think of new ideas, having flights of fantasy and the like. I don't do any of this. Yet I know I'm an Ni dom because my primary mode of thinking is interested in experiencing and understanding symbolic archetype content from my own subjective point of view. 

My artistic visions aren't even visions for most of the part because I am not a visionary person either. I don't think "grand". My art is primarily either a) an outlet of my own emotions of what I'm currently experiencing in the moment or b) some recreation of an experience I've had in the past based on how it felt like back then. So all in all quite Fi-driven personally. 



> I think Jung was wrong about this, just as I think he was wrong about the direction of the third function. I don't think Si is very abstract, although I can see why Jung as a Ni dominant would interpret it that way. It is difficult to get a correct grip on the opposite of your dominant, because it seems so alien.


I do think he was wrong about the orientation of the auxiliary-tertiary, but I do not think he was wrong about Si doms having an innate need or interest to express their sensations through the arts. Pi are both as abstract if you will, just like introversion is as a whole. Introversion will by default make something more abstract in experience, because it adds subjective value to it, which also means adding personal depth of experience, meaning it thus becomes more abstract. This becomes obvious if we compare say, Fe and Fi. Fe isn't abstract in terms of depth. The only abstract thing about Fe derives upon universal ideals outside of themselves like faith or passion or love. Fi types don't care about holding onto such more obvious and concrete notions of value because it is after all, more personalized and thus also more abstract. It cannot be singularly narrowed down to collective experience. And by this I am not trying to claim that Fe types cannot be complex people. Just that their cognition by de facto will lack a certain depth to it being extroverted. 



> I don't think intuitives are more likely to say they are interested in art. Especially not established fine art. I think that is the area of SJ types - Upholding the status of culturally established symbols and such.


Not sure I agree with that personally. One could equally argue it from an xNFJ perspective if applying socionics logic of aristocracy-democracy, which is what you are essentially describing. In fact, I think what you are describing is closer to socionics beta aristocracy than delta, though both may likely latch onto the importance of traditional art for different reasons and purposes. 



> Without SJs who value what's established in the form of cultural norms, The Mona Lisa would have been written off as a mediocre work with a faulty perspective and two horizon lines, instead of being called one of the greatest works of all time. And if you look closely at the paintings in the roof of the sistine chapel, they actually are not that great either. 20 minutes of browsing deviantart, tops, and you'll find a piece that's more skillfully executed. We owe it to the SJ art community that these things are still considered "masterpieces".


Are you absolutely certain this is the "SJ" community's "fault"? Because I fail to see it. I don't adhere to these kinds of stereotype descriptions of what an SJ type is like. I don't think SJ must always be about tradition. xSFJs don't care about tradition in such a sense for example, and an NJ could equally care about tradition for whatever reason they have, Fe or Fi motivated then. Si is only the ability to experience a personal impression of the sensory. 



> I do however think most people who actually create art are intuitives. Most probably, introverts are also overrepresented in this category.


Introverts in the colloquial sense perhaps, but cognitive, not so so sure. And I still disagree with your opinion and aside a study whose test results I don't trust, you got nothing to go on to support your case. I think a majority of the people who scored N on that test are mistypes, personally. They may perhaps fit the stereotype definition of N as imaginary etc, but the Jungian definition? Not necessarily. 



> I'm only saying it _can _be interpreted in this way, along with a multitude of other possible interpretations. I won't even make an attempt at guessing at Gigers intentions. What I can read into it is good enough for me. The symbolism fits "rape". It also fits "war" and "life" as conceptual wrappers.


I know. I was just playing along with the idea.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

NiDBiLD said:


> Ne-Si art is like atmospheric confetti. It's what-you-see-is-what-you-get, lacking any symbolism or deeper meaning in itself. Instead, it will generate a multitude of associations and ponderings in the viewer, as they continue to find new details. Surface impressions and concepts are combined and transformed on the spot, and creation is a very spontaneous process.
> 
> 
> These images don't "mean" anything. They aren't symbolical or "deep" in any reasonable way. This is what Ne does. It combines and associates from surface impressions, laying the puzzle in new ways. Ne-Si wants to create an interesting and thought provoking surface, without adding any meaning of its own. It's "objective" in a way - It doesn't require interpretation in order to make sense...


I'd like to give you 10 thanks or more. Exactly one of the answers I was expecting to find in this thread! roud:



uncertain said:


> I understand now. The examples are really helpful. No wonder why I feel so frustrated and uncreative when I want to draw/paint something conceptual because I always try to do smart Ne stuff like the electric cable chair and always fail to come up with ideas, or it's really hard for me.
> 
> A couple years ago I saw a poster on the street in which milk was being poured into a tooth-shape glass, and I thought that was really smart and so cool and I hoped I could just do something like that. I never think about the Ni way, and I absolutely don't know how.
> 
> ...


Don't fuss yourself over it too much. ISFP's can be very capable of creating visual concept art, for example. 

One example from my homeland (making career in USA, though) is the singer Kerli Kõiv, who is a classical ISFP example. When you google her by name Kerli, or use that name on youtube, you can find her music videos and pictures and all sorts of stuff. I also know that she at least partly makes the dresses herself, and combines the accessories and so forth. 










I needed to mention this because you don't have to be intuitive to be original and conceptual.

Maybe what is more difficult if you lack stronger Ne is inventing or imagining conceptual worlds that go beyond visual arts or music, because Se is not stimulated by imagining conceptual worlds, but rather by making conceptual worlds a reality in some way.

I can't really understand what is on that picture... is it supposed to be a sculpture?




> I think I am much more of the Te-Fi. Can you give examples for the Fe-Ti and/or Te-Fi?


That makes sense. ISFP belongs to Te-Fi dichotomy.

*Te-Fi* combination is *result-oriented*. Main focus is on *effective action*. The motivation always comes from within, internally, which means that Te-Fi people are unable to encourage an environment of external motivation for people to work on something. For motivation, Te-Fi people use another approaches, such as handing out general compliments, promises, showing respect for the person, or becoming commanding, impatient and offensive. Te-Fi people believe that being too specific is not polite, or rude, so that's why they can say general things to sad people, such as "don't be sad, there's plenty of fish in the sea! Everything's alright, it's not the end of the world!" etc. or "Good job working on that piece of art! You are a great artist!". Since Te-Fi people believe that motivation is internal, they also believe that general compliments or being generally coercive affects the mood of the other, and thus, better mood = more motivated. 

Also, Te-Fi people's internal motivation means that they have some sort of Fi morals that dictate which working conditions, or goals they are willing/want to work under, or for, and they compare it to the work they are doing, have done, have to do, in order to measure internal motivation.

For example, Te-Fi artists may work in abandoned building that looks depressing, but for them, it symbolises a place where the art is made, so it increases their motivation when they are allowed to keep working in there.

In case someone is unaware, Te-Fi combination involves ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ, ESFP, ENFP, ISFP, INFP

*Fe-Ti* combination is *process-oriented*. Main focus is on *correct procedures*. People with Fe-ti combination are not keen on working for long periods of time when there is a distinct lack of external motivation in the environment. First thing is that Fe-ti people can be motivated when they see other people working alongside. Secondly, when there is an environment that positively reinforces work motivation - Fe-ti scientist is probably very relentlessly demanding to have proper aparature installed in the laboratory, all in correct serial numbers and measures. Fe-Ti people can on some occasions work alone better than Te-Fi people, that is when Fe-Ti people are rushing towards an external goal, so they don't really need time to gather internal motivation. Fe-Ti people like to be specific in motivating others, like saying "Very good job on that drawing, I like this bit and this bit, but there's one bit where you should erase and try again...etc.".

Also, Fe-Ti people's external motivation means that when Fe-Ti people are working towards something, they are working *for something*. For the family, for the country, for the state, for the religion, for the common good of mankind, for the community, for the children, for the loved ones, for their own future, for proving themselves to others etc. Each occasion sets for different work attitudes, there are no internal morals that dictate an acceptable quota for "getting inspired". For example, Fe-Ti student in a boring class studies poorly on purpose, and in interesting class that student studies with excitement, compared to Te-Fi student who might protest against boring classes and not pay any attention or show up at all. 

Another one: Te-Fi student can force themselves to study the boring subject against their will, but always there is some sort of protest involved, such as loudly complaining, being sarcastic, sad or openly passive-aggressive. Fe-Ti student can force themselves to study the boring subject against their will when there are external motivators in the game, such as parents buying a new car for graduation when at least three of the grades are A's on the school's diploma. External motivation can even be working for obtaining a skill that they might need in the future. When there is no external motivation for a longer time, Fe-Ti student might find ways to openly protest against taking that subject, involving others, or just pranking the teacher or any other openly relentless manner. 

Internal motivation in Te-Fi people is much more complicated, because *internal motivation is a mix of different irrational motivators.*

In case someone is unaware, Fe-Ti combination involves: ESTP, ENTP, ISTP, INTP, ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ



> I can't really think of anything like the Fe-Ti here. Does one has to actually go to an artist reception to listen to the stories behind the art, or to read about the stories, in order to know that it's a Fe type of art?


Well, that's how art galleries mostly work. People have their own eyes and they can see the paintings themselves, the least that the artist or hosts can do is tell the backstories, artist's biography, the idea behind this exhibition etc. Depending on dichotomy, the communication style is chosen, either towards personificating the artwork (Te-Fi), or hyping up everything that led to the creation of the artwork (Te-Fi).



> Wait, NPs have Si and that should help, right?


Si is irrational, it is personal stuff, mostly related to "how physical input from the environment affects me, and how should I organize the environment in order to make the environment more convenient/organized/pleasant for me and others?" but Si is actually quite oblivious to aesthetic properties, because the only function of colours for introverted sensors is to make candies look more tasty than they actually are.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> A) Keep looking.
> 
> B) It's because people who imagine visual things you type as Sensors. For example typing an ENFP (though arguably an INxx) as an ESTJ.
> 
> ...


A) You can be sure I will.

B) Those that prioritize it, yes. I am rather in keeping with the definition of sensor vs intuitive when I do so. The sensory aspect of any cognition is, definitionally, sensory. 

C) I did not mean that. I more meant prioritization and willingness. An Ne COULD interpret subjective art, but appear unmotivated to do so, due to the subjective nature of it. It's simply an observation... one that I could relinquish with another compelling perspective. They could, for example, 'riff' off of what they see and imagine an objective meaning to it. They might even think that this was the intended meaning. How is that different from Ni? Lots of things... not the least of which is how willing they are to part with it, or 'redo' it to try out another angle. However, I think they'd very much want there to be an objective meaning there... even if that means it needs to be spelled out.

As far as mistyping ENFPs as ESTJs, I'll tell you that to learn one must be willing to turn their perceptions on their head. I do that by inducting new perspectives, new hypotheses.... new frameworks. Humoring them, chasing them about. 

It is not a reflection of what I claim to know but of what I know I don't know. If I were to sit on my perceptions of ENFP, I'd have called her an ENFP. However, someone made an interesting point and I decided to play it out. I find that things have a way of self-correcting in those situations. I can blather on about someone being an ESTJ, and in the end learn to expand my perceptions of ESTJ and of ENFP, or narrow them or whatever. Can you be absolutely sure that she isn't? Even when I showed an ESTJ poet operating on the same level of prose? It's interesting to consider, though I'd understand if your cognition wasn't so inclined to play around with paradigm.



mushr00m said:


> Does this mean I iz mistype?


Oh boy, I couldn't begin to say. Just offering my observations, which are about as correct as interviewing some people I strongly type as Ne could make them - and some Se and Ni types and myself, of course. Take them with a grain of salt. However, I think that this is true in essence, yes. From what I have read from you, I would not assume INFP, though, no. Could be wrong.


@_KraChZiMan_ - Kerli is such a good example of imaginative visuals =/= Ne typing. I am glad you brought that example up. I am curious, and I am sorry if I missed you having done it... but what is your relationship with aesthetic? I'll pose the question as I did to my friend in that little quoted example I gave.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Remember that Jung thought the type that is the most likely to be an artist is actually the Si dom in order to give shape to their sensory imaginary that is otherwise too abstract for them. Where are the Si doms represented? Nowhere, yet Jung claimed these were the artists of psychological types! Don't you think that's a little strange?
> 
> I don't think intuition has anything to do with an interest with art. That would be too influenced by various external influences.


Well... no, actually.

What Jung said about Si-doms was that their "conception of reality" was so "illusory" and "irrational" that their best hope for giving the rest of the world a decent glimpse of it was through art — but Jung also said that Si-dom artists were "the exception," with the result that the typical Si-dom "resigns himself to his isolation."

By contrast, Jung said "the artist might be regarded as the normal representative" of the Ni-dom.

In typing Nietzsche, Jung said that he "must surely be reckoned an intuitive with leanings toward introversion. As evidence of the former we have his pre-eminently intuitive-artistic manner of production."

In his definition of Fantasy, Jung noted that "_Active_ fantasies are the product of _intuition_" and also that "active fantasy is the chief mark of the artistic mentality."

Jung also associated art and feeling. In his description of a Te-dom, he said that "all those activities that are dependent on feeling will become repressed in such a type — for instance, *aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense*, cultivation of friends, etc." And in his discussion of the auxiliary function, Jung explained: "Besides the ... primary function there is [an] ... auxiliary function, ... [and the] resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, ... *artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values*, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on." So you might say Jung, to some extent, associated NFs with art.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

KraChZiMan said:


> *Introverted thinking* is the precise evaluation, the critical analysing of it. Introverted thinking art is extremely relevant, *goes along with the tides of time*, and strikes with the ingenuinity of simplicity.


How do you mean this? The art is contemporary and well-placed among concurrent artists' work? Or it displays a whole scene or concept independent of procedural flow?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> How do you mean this? The art is contemporary and well-placed among concurrent artists' work? Or it displays a whole scene or concept independent of procedural flow?


Perhaps the first one. Precise to capture anything that is relevant in the contemporary world. I was opposing this to Fi, which does not value being relevant to contemporary world, but rather artificially inventing relevant themes.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

KraChZiMan said:


> Perhaps the first one. Precise to capture anything that is relevant in the contemporary world. I was opposing this to Fi, which does not value being relevant to contemporary world, but rather artificially inventing relevant themes.


I'm curious why you think that is the case?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

NiDBiLD said:


> Ne-Si art is like atmospheric confetti. It's what-you-see-is-what-you-get, lacking any symbolism or deeper meaning in itself. Instead, it will generate a multitude of associations and ponderings in the viewer, as they continue to find new details. Surface impressions and concepts are combined and transformed on the spot, and creation is a very spontaneous process.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> ...


I feel like I prefer the Ne art over the Ni art? 
I like the Ni art as well, but it does lay it on a bit thick... It doesn't really leave room for imagination, so once you get the metaphor you're done... (whereas, say, the cute fantasy creature invites a story and personality to be developed about it..... Indeed, as I look at it, my brain automatically starts to do that. Give it a personality, move it off the branch. With the mermaid, she's so obviously not an actual entity it's harder to relate to her beyond that which she is. At least with birth machine I got to imagine a bit some sort of tech-y world (yes I'm aware it's actually a uterus I just don't find that inherently interesting edit: I see the Ni users came up with alternate symbolisms... Meh. Once pointed out I see those as well I just don't find symbolism inherently interesting? ) ... But it wasn't nearly as engaging to imagine as the creature... (in part, perhaps, because I resented the heavy handed symbolism?) )


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

NiDBiLD said:


> • Fi users express their emotions in art.
> 
> Fi>Te + Se>Ni (SFP): Focus is on people, especially faces, and aim is to convey emotional states through use of symbolism.
> 
> ...



Don't agree with the unthinkableness of using art to express emotion.... I have absolutely done that. **Although that's not the art I tend to share with the world**, it's definitely something art can do for me, express a feeling in an image. 

In general tend to identify with the Si, Ne descriptions here. I do assess art by how much I enjoy the experience of looking at it and the exploratory thought it stimulates. 



KraChZiMan said:


> I'd like to give you 10 thanks or more. Exactly one of the answers I was expecting to find in this thread! roud:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really really liked the description of Ti vs Fi criticism here.


By the way overall kudos on the thread. A really interesting look at fundamental differences between the perceiving functions... I definitely see a dichotomy on what each pair considers "good" art.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> I feel like I prefer the Ne art over the Ni art?
> I like the Ni art as well, but it does lay it on a bit thick... It doesn't really leave room for imagination, so once you get the metaphor you're done... (whereas, say, the cute fantasy creature invites a story and personality to be developed about it..... Indeed, as I look at it, my brain automatically starts to do that. Give it a personality, move it off the branch. With the mermaid, she's so obviously not an actual entity it's harder to relate to her beyond that which she is. At least with birth machine I got to imagine a bit some sort of tech-y world (yes I'm aware it's actually a uterus I just don't find that inherently interesting) ... But it wasn't nearly as engaging to imagine as the creature... (in part, perhaps, because I resented the heavy handed symbolism?) )


Yeah, I think you summed it up perfectly. This is pretty much right on with the response I got showing these to an ENFP:

Birth Machine: *looks at it confused for a second* Fetus paratroopers in a gun? Okie doke.

Mermaid: *intense analyzing look* That bird is drowning. *after another moment* She's gotta save that bird. *keeps looking* I can't think of anything else. Save the environment, I get it. Which is funny because she is having a mystical moment with a dead or drowning bird on her back. 

Worldscape: *semi appreciative nodding* Cool. Interesting looking world. 

Creature: *Lights up like a kid at Christmas* Hello, friend! What are you? *then turns to me* that is the coolest picture I've ever seen. Look at all those little things around him.... he seems to have eaten one, but they are apparently cool with that. Look at the little guy on his shoulder. He's just hanging out, ain't he? *stares at it for a second and smiles* What ..is .. it? *snaps out of it* His wings! Oh shit! He's got to get the hell out of there! Run, buddy! Jeffrey ain't coming' back! Oh my God, go! Oh, if this were real... I'd follow it around for days. Just look at it! I think it's intelligent. I don't know if that is good or bad. Those flowers, it's symbiotic. It's a spider web. Oh, how clever. I love this. *giggles* Oh, wow..... *sigh* 

Like @ephemereality posted in another thread, it is very much like this:

* *


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Quick list of reactions to this pic

First overall basically impression is I like the colors, they feel happy. 
First thing I really notice is the eyes. Kinda kind, ish, but also sorta hooded and maybe just lazy? They have a lot of personality. 
Then I notice the colors again, this time I consciously (in "words") notice and approve of the use of contrasting red and green
I notice the little creatures. They are cute and I want to touch them. They seem to be gathering around the big creature and I wonder why. Does he have some sort of draw that pulls them? Do they like him? The way their heads are turned attentively it seems like they're listening to him in a way. 
Then I notice the antlers are branches. That's interesting. 
His fur looks so soft. I'm surprised the artist succeeded in making that particular shade of green look appealing. 
I keep sort of distractedly noticing the technique of how the artist did shadows but I'm more interested in the new details I continue to notice like the wings in the mouth which I only saw after reading arkigos's comment. 



Annnnd yeah.


Edit: and only now do I see that the little ones are eating from the antler flowers. And it's like an ooooooh moment. 
So that's what makes me enjoy the picture, is lots of little details to explore and the sense of a story being built up in my head of what is happening.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> • High Si users draw realistic motifs in semi-realist styles, but make it idealized. The "mood" of the picture is highly prioritized. Unlike Ni use because it is devoid of symbolism.
> 
> Si>Ne (SJ): Impersonal and nostalgic style.
> Example: Dan Scurtu - Landscape with pinetrees at sunset by DanScurtu on deviantART


The Si description is kinda correct. I do look for the mood in a picture before anything else, and let me tell you that example picture is way too 'heavy' for my tastes, I don't like it at all. I like things light with childish innocence and a sprinkle of Ne.

Like these:

* *


































A picture needs to 'live' and have me wonder.

As a kid, I just flipped books to see for interesting pictures that made me wonder. I would try to figure out what the deal was. I would stare for hours at pictures like these. It was fun. Those monster books? OMFG Dead set fascination. It even explained the pictures which just made me even more curious! It drove me nuts LOL

Just thought I'd contribute to your research


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Merihim said:


> The Si description is kinda correct. I do look for the mood in a picture before anything else, and let me tell you that example picture is way too 'heavy' for my tastes, I don't like it at all. I like things light with childish innocence and a sprinkle of Ne.
> 
> Like these:
> 
> ...


i really like those pictures, especially the last two.....


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Se -Stimulating when viewed - or not.
Si - Contributes to personal sense of well being
Ne - coooool, Brainfood, for something else, not yet known, how many galleries are we going to?
Ni - Brainfood for what it is, or how it enlightens about something else
Fi - Good, and relevant, relatable - or maybe not
Te - If I buy this - what does it say about me? (poster is guessing on this one)
Ti - Curiosity - does this trigger conversation -or just is?
Fe - Does this match my living room? and can I get it in time for . . . .


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I have never personally met an N(F)P who had an interest in art in and of itself. A conversation with an INFP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


INFP artist - Egon Schiele - I don't know this (no factual basis) but it fits in theory - It's not pretty, Its super expressive. It's not wild variety but uniquely fits what he wants to say in an almost outrageous way, but not disconnected from it's humanness.

I do graphic design - well sort-of... not full blast everything... just certain stuff that fit with a specific business model.
Design has universal principals of composition etc. And visuals can DO things to get a message out.
All my life though, guys I've dated seem dissapointed that I can't seem to fabricate a bunch of gushy drama about art, like maybe they expect me to.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> Ne-Si art is like atmospheric confetti. It's what-you-see-is-what-you-get, lacking any symbolism or deeper meaning in itself. Instead, it will generate a multitude of associations and ponderings in the viewer, as they continue to find new details. Surface impressions and concepts are combined and transformed on the spot, and creation is a very spontaneous process.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> ...


I actually love all of those pieces. Not sure I could pick a favorite. They're all interesting to look at. Don't know what that says about me cognitive functions, but I think I could stare at all of those, especially the first and third, for quite a long time. I'm an INTP. Symbolic art thrills me too I guess.

Edit: I think my love of analyzing art for symbols is a really Ti thing. My Ti seeks to understand all the concepts going on. I analyze movies and music videos for symbols a lot of time for fun too. My Ne is definitely more interested in the general patterns and ideas and the way everything comes together in a picture i.e. the shapes and the way lights comes into play. I quite like abstract art. Art that has a story or evokes memories or reminds me of books etc., I really love too. Anything quirky, witty, or gives me feelings of deja vu, I usually love. Some of that is Si coming into play as well. My personal favorite ways of doing my own art is to work with lines and shapes and form them into pictures. I adore calligraphy for that reason. When I'm doing photography I also looks for the way objects around me make patterns. Or I look for surreal affects. I love doing stuff with shadows for instance.


----------



## MindArtisan (Jan 8, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> Different types and their functions call for different views upon art. Feel free to add up and correct my descriptions roud:


Just came across this thread - very interesting! I must agree with some posts though that some of these function descriptions sound more like a poetic interpretation of the function description than the actual analysis. Not that I didn't enjoy reading them! I appreciate poetry. However, I thought I'd give you my take on these, but only those that I actually possess.



> *Introverted intuition* views art as a functional part of society. Art should play an active role in the society to convince and shape the reality of the public. Art is fundamentally the means of shocking people, to destroy their concept of reality and replace it with whatever the artist wants to convey. Unlike the extroverted intuition, the introverted intuition is not satisfied with one striking idea or masterpiece. Introverted intuition believes that art is not only about the exhibition, but how, when and where it is exhibited. Introverted intuition art is 400 cans of soup in stacks. The labyrinths of hallways coloured in stripes of yellow and black. The painting that acts as an optical illusion that only appears when you look from the certain angle etc.


This is my primary function, and I'm afraid I cannot see myself in this description at all. :-( I dislike politicised art and 400 cans of soup is definitely not my thing. I find the sort of art you describe here to be pretentious and not in the least artistic. Sorry!

I would rather choose something different, namely surrealist like, say, Dali or Magritte, or hazy impressionist like Cezanne or Pissaro. Not distorted like Picasso - the lack of harmony pushes me away. 



> *Extraverted thinking *adds to the kind of will to work for the producing of art, the confidence that in amongst the process of working, the art is made on it's own merit. Extraverted thinking affects the art by believing that everything can be effectively applied and transformed into a piece of art, that art is all-consuming and needs the best of the best for the purpose that it is created for (art gallery exhibition, art school critique etc.)


This is my second function. I'm not sure this is what Te does, in art or outside of it. I think it attracts me to exact and regular, so I love Bach with his algebra in the scores. Can't stand "chaotic" music - Mahler lovers forgive me - but very much appreciate some types of jazz, well, the ones with hidden structures...  



> *Introverted feeling *is the inner motivation that fuels the creation for the art. Introverted feeling orders the theme, emotion and topic for which the other functions find the shape, colour and the form. Introverted feeling is the intense need to express the innermost happiness, or nightmares, so that the others can finally see what lies inside the artist, so that others can understand him and feel interest in what is it exactly that makes him want to express himself in this particular way.


Ah, yes - this I can relate to! Except for the very last bit: I want to express what lies within me so that _I_ could understand it, not someone else! Art creates a feedback loop - I express my emotions in a painting - I look at the painting - I get new emotions. Think of Giger - he didn't paint for the audience, it was an outlet for his nightmares. With me, it's not just nightmares that I paint/play/write, but any strong and confusing feeling.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 5,114 ESTPs and 4,321 ESFPs.
> 
> Here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" (= scores of 60-100) for the ESTPs:
> 
> ...


You really love that shitty study. You're never going to let that go.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> You really love that shitty study. You're never going to let that go.


It's not a single "study," monemi. It's occupational data correlations with MBTI type from a sample involving _more than 92,000 people_ in the CAPT database. As MBTI data samples go, that's _huge_. If you know of any better source of data involving MBTI type and occupational choices, I'd love to hear about it.

In the meantime, when you refer to the data I posted as "shitty," are you meaning to imply there's something "shitty" about the _quality_ of the data, or are you just saying you don't like the results?

If it's the former, can you elaborate? If it's the latter, are you suggesting I should refrain from posting information from the best source of MBTI/occupational correlations I know about ("let that go") just because you wish the data was different?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> It's not a single "study," monemi. It's occupational data correlations with MBTI type from a sample involving _more than 92,000 people_ in the CAPT database. As MBTI data samples go, that's _huge_. If you know of any better source of data involving MBTI type and occupational choices, I'd love to hear about it.
> 
> In the meantime, when you refer to the data I posted as "shitty," are you meaning to imply there's something "shitty" about the _quality_ of the data, or are you just saying you don't like the results?
> 
> If it's the former, can you elaborate? If it's the latter, are you suggesting I should refrain from posting information from the best source of MBTI/occupational correlations I know about ("let that go") just because you wish the data was different?


Poorly conducted and designed studies. Foo Foo About: The Myers Briggs Type Indicator – MBTI | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance

I've seen you post the same parts repeatedly and present them as well known facts when they are anything but fact. Reword or drop it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> Poorly conducted and designed studies. Foo Foo About: The Myers Briggs Type Indicator – MBTI | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance
> 
> I've seen you post the same parts repeatedly and present them as well known facts when they are anything but fact. Reword or drop it.


Wow. Impressive. A blogger citing Pittenger.

First of all, the debunking you've pointed us to is basically a debunking of the MBTI _in toto_. So... if we're going to follow Mr. Wallace's advice, we shouldn't be participating in forum threads about MBTI preferences and the arts or MBTI preferences and anything else. That webpage no more undercuts any post I've ever made about the MBTI than it undercuts any post you've ever made about the MBTI.

But second, if you want to read my takedown of that pathetic Pittenger "debunking" of the MBTI Mr. Wallace cites, you can find it here and here.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> Wow. Impressive. A blogger citing Pittenger.
> 
> First of all, the debunking you've pointed us to is basically a debunking of the MBTI _in toto_. So... if we're going to follow Mr. Wallace's advice, we shouldn't be participating in forum threads about MBTI preferences and the arts or MBTI preferences and anything else. That webpage no more undercuts any post I've ever made about the MBTI than it undercuts any post you've ever made about the MBTI.
> 
> But second, if you want to read my takedown of that pathetic Pittenger "debunking" of the MBTI Mr. Wallace cites, you can find it here and here.


Again, you state as known fact that these are the careers for these types based on studies that the APA hasn't accepted because to date we have poorly designed and conducted studies. You can't just choose to ignore it because you don't like it. 

A Critique of The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

This is still hotly debated and you're presenting it as FACT. You're dismissing types as entering career types based on studies that aren't currently accepted. It's one thing to discuss MBTI. It's another to give the impression that SP's aren't creative and don't have jobs in that sector. We're not talking the difference between studies on breastmilk vs formula where there isn't any room for debate which is better. We're talking about something that isn't proven.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> Again, you state as known fact that these are the careers for these types based on studies that the APA hasn't accepted because to date we have poorly designed and conducted studies. You can't just choose to ignore it because you don't like it.
> 
> A Critique of The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
> 
> This is still hotly debated and you're presenting it as FACT. You're dismissing types as entering career types based on studies that aren't currently accepted. It's one thing to discuss MBTI. It's another to give the impression that SP's aren't creative and don't have jobs in that sector. We're not talking the difference between studies on breastmilk vs formula where there isn't any room for debate which is better. We're talking about something that isn't proven.


For the second time: The alleged problems with the MBTI in those articles you've cited are problems that suggest that nobody should be having discussions about correlations between MBTI types and art (or MBTI types and anything else), because the whole typology is suspect.

If someone's going to participate in a discussion about MBTI correlations — like the one in this thread — then, pretty much by definition, that participant is someone who, explicitly or implicitly, is taking the position that, whatever problems there may be with the MBTI, there's _enough there that's real_ that it's worth talking about.

And, assuming you're going to take the position that the MBTI has enough validity/reliability to be worth talking about — which is certainly my position — and assuming you want to talk about how one or more of the MBTI preferences correlates with some aspect of personality or behavior (e.g., artistic interests and styles), why would anyone want to ignore the correlations from a 92,000-person sample of people who were tested with the official MBTI?

I don't know what you mean by "known fact," but I never said the data from that sample was perfect, nor would I. But it's the largest and most respectable source I know of when it comes to correlations between MBTI type and occupational interests.

And I certainly never said that there were any occupational categories where ES_Ps "don't have jobs." As I understand it, _every type_ is found, to some degree, in virtually every occupational category. MBTI/occupation correlations, like most MBTI correlations, are about _tendencies and probabilities_. The OP suggested that Se was "the most classical and artistic function" — a common internet forum meme, thanks largely (I believe) to Keirsey — and that prompted me to note that, according to the statistics I'm familiar with, the "Se-doms" (ES_Ps) are among the types _least likely_ to pursue artistic careers.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> For the second time: The alleged problems with the MBTI in those articles you've cited are problems that suggest that nobody should be having discussions about correlations between MBTI types and art (or MBTI types and anything else), because the whole typology is suspect.
> 
> If someone's going to participate in a discussion about MBTI correlations — like the one in this thread — then, pretty much by definition, that participant is someone who, explicitly or implicitly, is taking the position that, whatever problems there may be with the MBTI, there's _enough there that's real_ that it's worth talking about.


No, I don't agree with that logic. MBTI hasn't been proven or disproved. It's an interesting theory that needs a lot of work before we can point to a type and declare which one is more artistic.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)




----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

If anyone's interested this is the type of art I do. I guess it does seem very Ne versus Ni. Not the greatest art in the world but I guess it shows what I focus on- patterns and lines.










Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

I found this and I thought this would be of interest for you guys @NiDBiLD @arkigos @reckful @uncertain 

uncertain 



> NFJs, therefore, interprets the emotions of art through Fe before internalising it and looking for a larger meaning through Ni.
> I said that Fe was very “apparent” in it’s emotional goal, and that is still true. NFJs, for how complicated their minds might be, can still connect very deeply with art that has a very simple message. But, in the FJs, any objective evaluation of an NFJ’s chosen art is meaningless; the art in question is chosen because it resonates with the NFJ’s world.
> It doesn’t create a world, but displays the current one through the “right” lense. Certainly aspects of it like love or war are displayed differently, but the severity and certainty of each message remains the same.
> 
> ...


So, let me take on this, as an ISFP. When I want to create a painting, I think it's necessary to have an idea. But I find it difficult to generate ideas. So I always paint stuff based on my emotions, stuff that have left an impression on me (quotes, songs, photos, etc) and I call this process "incubation". It's like I have some sort of artistic womb and my creation is being fed as I gather that.. After that, suddenly I feel the urge to paint, and if I leave it for later I will not get the result I wanted. I must paint now. One example was, after my first school presentation in which we did a choreography (I think I was 15 back then).. The sight of all the people cheering for us because we had won, the claps, the lights, everything was so vivid. When we went backstage I was lucky enough I had some pencil and a paper in my bag with my clothes, so I started drawing and as soon as I got home I started painting. To me, art needs to have a meaning, it could mean anything, but what makes it art is the meaning/value you as an observer give it. Otherwise, it has no value and it's just a piece of painted paper. But when you give it a meaning, even if it's different than the idea of the painter, then it comes alive, it moves.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't get the idea of Ni art as art that has one very clear, very literal symbolic meaning. I do not get it at all. Ni is subjective. I don't mean to say that Ni art doesn't have quite a bit of symbolism--sure, it does--but I found that global warming mermaid, for example, very off-putting. Yeah, yeah, destroying the ocean blah blah. When I can hear the author's intention screaming at me so clearly, I find it really hard to enjoy a piece of art at all.

My intention when I write--and I think this is because of my Ni--is to communicate the subconcious, or at least my subconcious. I want to use words to say things that can't be said in words. So I'll sometimes use words more for how they feel than for their literal meaning, stacking words on top of each other so they cascade to form a sense of what the thing _is_. 

I've noticed in myself and singers I suspect are INJ (Florence + the Machine, Leonard Cohen, Jesca Hoop) a kind of baroque symbolic messiness. I think it's because Ni has an idea or thought to communicate, and _anything_ could be a symbol of that idea. Everything is connected. My first drafts can be crazy expansive because every object or word becomes a symbol for the underlying something I'm searching for the words for.

So it winds up very layered and thick, smokey, and the piece gets buried under an avalanche of words. Sometimes they don't add up to make literal/grammatical sense, but they still communicate.

Here's a good example of the type of art I'm trying to explain--when I first heard this song, I thought it was strikingly like my style. Unfortunately a live version, so it doesn't have quite the same feeling of being oppressive and heavy, but gives a good idea of lyrics.


* *











And then there's the Fe drama.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

spiderfrommars said:


> I don't get the idea of Ni art as art that has one very clear, very literal symbolic meaning. I do not get it at all. Ni is subjective. I don't mean to say that Ni art doesn't have quite a bit of symbolism--sure, it does--but I found that global warming mermaid, for example, very off-putting. Yeah, yeah, destroying the ocean blah blah. When I can hear the author's intention screaming at me so clearly, I find it really hard to enjoy a piece of art at all.
> 
> My intention when I write--and I think this is because of my Ni--is to communicate the subconcious, or at least my subconcious. I want to use words to say things that can't be said in words. So I'll sometimes use words more for how they feel than for their literal meaning, stacking words on top of each other so they cascade to form a sense of what the thing _is_.
> 
> ...


Well, accordingly to celebritytypes.com (which is pretty reliable and I trust) Florence is INFP. That page says something really interesting about artists: you can't type them according to their lyrics. For example, David Bowie could be seen as some sort of intuitive, but he's actually a sensor, the same thing with Frank Ocean, and that is because MBTI can't be determined by traces like lyrics alone, or body gestures alone, etc. I used to make the same mistakes and I used to wonder what the hell was Enya doing as an ISFP.

To give you an example of how could Ni manifest in art, according to I understand of Ni (as a convergent way of intuition) then take as example Lady Gaga's latest single, APPLAUSE. As a sensor, these could-be-deemed Se lyrics are plain and simple: it's about the moment in which the audience manifests admiration for the artist. However, Ni takes them beyond: she makes the song a discourse about LOVE. That's why I (subjectively) guess she impersonated Aphrodite in the video; it is said that Aphrodite symbolized love, that she was different from the other goddesses (or popstars) in that she didn't fit into the virgin goddesses mold because she had a husbands and many affairs, but she also didn't fit into the vulnerable goddess mold because never depended on a man; in this way,* her consciousness is both focused--directed, goal-oriented and diffuse--receptive, taking in the relationship between things.* What I see in this video is, how popstars become gods in front of an audience, and how we venerate them in the form of the APPLAUSE.. and just like Greek gods, they can't live without us. Aphrodite fits perfectly into this song, because no other goddess loved attention and fun more than her, but more than that, no other goddess represented that *engagement* with the *other*; Aphrodite carries a mirror and she's always seeing herself, and here is born that saying that if you don't love yourself you won't be able to love others.. Another belief Gaga as an artist strongly holds. To her, there's an engagement between her fans and her, and when she comes to the stage, she becomes Aphrodite, and all the love we send to her, she is sending it back to us through the performance. If you watch the APPLAUSE video, almost at the end when she sings "make it real loud!" I imagine Aphrodite squealing in delight because her devotees are enjoying her graces. She also uses other stuff like the Greek temperaments (the when she's dressed as Pierrot and makes the many faces and the basis of theatre), Persephone (she appears with a cornucopia with a leg shape that represents her hip surgery and her time recovering + her comeback with APPLAUSE, just like when Persephone returned after 6 months from Hades to meet her mother and springtime), the Swan Song (the myth of the song a swan sings before dying.. Gaga said the album would be like a "phoenix" coming back from ashes), the Magician (or the Joker.. she looked a lot like Heath Ledger there and it would tie to the intensity of a performance), Pierrot (the meme of the artist archetype), Marilyn Monroe, etc themes in the video that correlate to what the discourse of APPLAUSE is.









I've mentioned highly Fi and Se stuff here, but you see how nothing would have made sense if Ni wasn't here: Ni converges, unifies stuff that wouldn't seem related at first glance together. And on another note, that's why I absolutely LOVE her. I live her videos and I live her performances, even through a screen.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I think I have a very extroverted sensing approach to art interestingly, I don't relate to the Ni description. I do relate very much to the Se description I love the pure act of creation, and whenever I create something I very much engage my Se, and bounce my energy back and forth between myself and whatever it is that I'm creating, designing, decorating, etc....


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Oh yeah, here's an idea of an art by me...

View attachment 95465


But if you saw a lot of my work... I don't have a typical style... I experiment with all kinds of styles and every medium, both 2D and 3D as well as Adobe Illustrator, GIMP and other forms of graphic art, so I would consider that a very Se approach, very hands on and experimental, learning while doing....


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Different types and their functions call for different views upon art. Feel free to add up and correct my descriptions roud:
> 
> *Cognive functions and Art
> 
> ...


I partly disagree with Ni and Fe.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

dulcinea said:


> Oh yeah, here's an idea of an art by me...
> 
> View attachment 95465
> 
> ...


I rarely finish any art. I mostly just doodle. Especially as a teenager when I couldn't talk back at an authority figure. I'd sketch the teacher with a pained face looking back at the pineapple stuck up his arse. Or the science teacher who no one listened to, I sketched her as tumbleweed. I had a manager who was freaking evil. I nicknamed him Satan and enjoyed drawing pictures of him going at it with the brown noser in the office. I even added colour to those sketches. When I've experienced death by powerpoint (INTP speaker), I drew pictures of him murdering a clock, gears and washers and nuts flying out as the clock screamed unintelligibly. 

I like looking at old ruins and trying to draw what they used to look like with all the people that used to live back when it was in use. I'd wonder about who they really were. 

As I get older, I draw less. But I think I'm decent. 















My main problem is my lack of patience and I lose interest before I can get to colour.


----------

