# Art and the Cognitive Functions



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

I have a question for any artists or those who could have any insight to the topic. Recently I have been making connections between Personality Types and how they express themselves in their artistic pursuits. And no, I don't mean a person drawing something that looks pretty or a colorful bowl of fruit, but the art that has a concept behind it, where the artist had insight and inspiration. Art is about how a person interprets the world and expresses ideas that have some significance to them in some way. I attend an Art Class and I noticed from the thoughts of others than could be relevant to the cognitive functions. 

In my class people have very different ideas and it's meaning. One person was intrigued by the concept of a circle and what it contains within - connecting this with other life forms, what this means in different cultures, how this differed in each era of time, the religious significance, how this is representative of life as a whole. They also saw how our knowledge in general begins with a simple idea, then builds up through time and becomes more complex. I saw this as a highly abstract perception, and it seemed like the person was an introverted intuitive. 

In contrast another person was inspired by the environment, which is a common influence of artists. They wanted to capture the experience of being in that surrounding, and were very drawn to creating their own impression. I associated this with Sensation, but strangely I am not sure which.

An Si artist reminds me of Vincent Van Gogh - (or any of the Impressionist artists) - with one of his quotes being _"I often think that the night is more alive and more richly colored than the day"._ (Actually, he could be an example of a very unhealthy Si artist). His paintings are a distorted perception of reality, perhaps portraying his own experience, mood, and what the subject matter evokes. The sky was not actually bright blue, or the entire landscape for that matter - which is why it seems like it could be due to an introverted perception. He painted objects such as a chair, a road, his bedroom, because although it is not a particularly special object, it was important to the artist himself. 

Therefore I theorize that art is often connected to Introverted Perception. I think it is very interesting the concepts people are drawn to. I am using Art as a "framework" to understand the Pi functions; I'm not implying that Art itself is a cognitive function, but rather how the artist manifests their own creativity and how this could be relative to perception. 
Any thoughts?


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

I'm an artist and I've been thinking about this recently, too. I learnt two drawing styles, 'perceptual drawing', which I feel is very Se heavy, drawing based on what you see in real life.

I also learnt cartooning which was more symbolic, where two dots and a line can easily represent a face. I associate this with Ni.

As for the other functions, I don't know 

But someone wrote this awesome article with examples to boot, and it looks like a great place to start!

Myers-Briggs types as artists


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Wisteria said:


> I have a question for any artists or those who could have any insight to the topic. Recently I have been making connections between Personality Types and how they express themselves in their artistic pursuits. And no, I don't mean a person drawing something that looks pretty or a colorful bowl of fruit, but the art that has a concept behind it, where the artist had insight and inspiration. Art is about how a person interprets the world and expresses ideas that have some significance to them in some way. I attend an Art Class and I noticed from the thoughts of others than could be relevant to the cognitive functions.
> 
> In my class people have very different ideas and it's meaning. One person was intrigued by the concept of a circle and what it contains within - connecting this with other life forms, what this means in different cultures, how this differed in each era of time, the religious significance, how this is representative of life as a whole. They also saw how our knowledge in general begins with a simple idea, then builds up through time and becomes more complex. I saw this as a highly abstract perception, and it seemed like the person was an introverted intuitive.
> 
> ...


I tend to do realistic art, hetching and cross hetching, illistration style drawings, and cartoons. Generally I try to make things very clear about what I am making, but when I cant make it more realistic it tends to come across as cartoony. I tend to like anime since its closer to realistic drawing but does not have enough of the features like shading to make it look real. I tend to enjoy pen and cross hetching as I hate stippling but you can quickly draw stuff and do decent shading to make a more realistic looking photo. I despise stimpling. The reason I started drawing as a child was to communicate when I could not speak. I also always had issues speaking so I generally tend to communicate in other ways. I prefer writing and texting to actually speaking as well and my speech impediment and high pitched voice sometimes make my speaking just sound terrible and childish.

I also am very bad at making disproportional art styles which Western culture is know for. I dont really like that type of cartoon animation in general though. I also cant draw a picture box by box, as when I draw I dont draw anything in pieces. I have the image in my head and I copy it to paper. So I usually trying to cop exactly what I see.

I also draw the same way I draw, so stuff like comics is impossible for me.

I could probobly do animation if I had the correct software, a realistic drawing of George Washington, and a novel but if you ask me to draw a comic its very stressful. The Comic thing is because I dont see things in pieces, I draw everything together. Which makes writing easier since you write exactly what is happening at the same time, comics you have to go by steps.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

goodthankyou said:


> But someone wrote this awesome article with examples to boot, and it looks like a great place to start!
> 
> Myers-Briggs types as artists


I've seen this article a while back and I liked it. I think the realistic detail they describe about SJ is more related to Se. It's MBTI based, therefore they don't recognize Si as an abstract function in SJs. 

If I were to assign a famous artist to each perceiving function;

Si - Van Gogh
Ni - Frida Kahlo
Se - Degas
Ne - Picasso


----------



## 9reat (Mar 29, 2016)

I wrote a while ago about cognitive functions and drawing. Se is likely observational drawing, for example.

You have to remember that the functions are only orientations. The way a person expresses themselves through drawing varies drastically based off of their personal experiences, learning, training, etc. There is a lot of difference between how a beginner artist and an advanced artist will draw or paint. Artistic principles are not limited to any personality type and when one takes them up, they will 'color' that person's work or process. A person may want to make a certain kind of work, and they may even be good at it, even though it may theoretically not match up with their usual cognitive orientation.

Regarding the circle thing, that seems more Ne to me, explosion of ideas. But what do I know  Ni is better at forming judgements later on in a work, rather than earlier. They should quickly form a conception of whatever it is they're drawing, or tone the canvas, so that they can see the big picture. They can draw lightly in this regard and still have the ability to change things later. As in regards to flashes of insight, they should draw out any ideas they get and see if it works after it is essentially worked out. In regards to training and learning principles, intuitive types will probably benefit from role-playing or trying to get into the head of a strong, skilled drawing teacher after they have a firm understanding of the principles they are all about.

There's also the problem with different forms of functions that people can have, and that just really gets complicated. What's the difference between the expression of dom, sec, and tert Si in artwork? You get the point.

The growth of an artist has a very large impact on their artwork, creativity, and ideas. For practically any artist, past experience in the work will give an artist a "easy, fun" way to draw, rather than stressing on newer "hard" ideas. Easy, fun stuff could be related to cognitive functions, but an artist will not get better from spending their time there. There is the concept, outside of personality models, that you "avoid what you are bad at, or what is draining mentally, or what you need the most." At least in terms of the professional art industry, there will be things that every learning artist will need to face in order to become the efficient, balanced, creative artist that will meet client demands. So, the order in which people will learn things, their willingness to put themselves through certain training can be related to cognitive functions.

So of this, if cognitive orientation will keep an artist away from certain things for some time, what if they finally get the conviction to face those things? Like the wishy-washy abstract artist who finally decides to study anatomy. Well, it seems obvious to me that their ideas and artwork can potentially transform into something that is not 'usual' of their personality type. So I think the more mature an artist is, especially for professional artists, the harder it is to see the mark of their personality type on their work. While for fine artists, where it is easier to stay in your comfort zone, personality type likely has a much larger influence on their creativity and ideas.

Art is not all about self-expression. It is also about expressing something that they _think_ is valuable to others, or their preferences as to how they want to affect others with their work. Communication is not only saying what is important to you, but is communicating what you want others to hear. We all have ideas that we never tell anyone about, even if we think they are significant. One's degree of agreeableness can also affect the ideas that one will show with their art. As you can see, there are just so many things you can attach to what makes ideas/creativity/inspiration. Cognitive functions may have something to do with it, but if anything it is just one tiny piece to an intricate puzzle.


----------



## Anonymous Disaster (Mar 15, 2016)

In my opinion the most surrealist function in art is Ni, for example Salvador Dali is a great example of that.
Ne is playful, colorful, but yet crazy, plays with boundaries of what we perceive as art. Modern and abstract art is a great example of how Ne tests the limits of artistic expression.
Si very sensual, detailistic and appreciates beauty more than any other function, very precise as well, but might be subjective in its perception.
I think Vincent van Gogh was Se valuer, impressionism is all about capturing the current sensation of a situation and with quick movements of the brush the artist makes sure the feeling won't disappear before the painting is done. It's very Se in my opinion, perhaps Se+Fi to be more concrete.
Frida also seems more Si than Ni.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Si - Van Gogh
> Ni - Frida Kahlo
> Se - Degas
> Ne - Picasso


Here's how I see it, and is meant in no way to discredit your take.

Si - Monet
Ni - Dali (like Ni on steroids)
Se - Gauguin
Ne - Chagall


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

My thoughts haven't changed tbh:

Se-Caravaggio and Rembrandt
Si-van Gogh, Picasso
Ne-Dali
Ni-Pollock


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Actually, I'm not sure if Monet would be Si. Si would be more like Mary Cassatt, Norman Rockwell, or Thomas Kinkade. It's an "idealized" subjective version of reality, but is still within the realm of reality, as opposed to Dali (Ni) whose works are otherworldly. Same with Edvard Munch, who I also think is an Ni-dom.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Hmm.

I'm an artist and not the -I have no job and like to doodle Animu- kind of "Artist" I make ceramic pots and sell them at the Bonsai club nearby.
I've always been the creative type but I often wonder if I am only doing it because it's the most tolerable option with my disabilities. Otherwise I'd be living in the real world doing important things.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with another artist yesterday:

Me: Damn, that didn't work.
Her: Well have you learned your lesson this time?
Me: ha, no. I don't learn. 
Her: What like...some kinda idiot?
Me: Yeah. I look like an artist but I'm just a dumb jock in a useless body.
Her: Oh, yeah I can see that.
Me: Right?

Outwardly it probably seemed very silly but I was being quite honest if not a little over the top. I'm a little more intelligent than a dumb jock.

I'm an "E" and while I would be offended at the idea that Extroverts can't be creative I don't feel like it really suits me.


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

Alright so I don't know if you guys have heard of Scott McCloud, author of 'Understanding Comics', 'Making Comics', and 'Reinventing Comics'. He has a lot of interesting insights on art and the comic medium in his books, and something he mentioned in 'Making Comics' about the 'four art tribes' can be related to Jung's intuition, sensation, feeling and thinking.

So here are the four art tribes (quoted from page 232 of 'Making Comics'):



> The Classicists (sensation): Excellence, hard work, mastery of craft, the quest for enduring beauty
> The Animists (intuition): putting content first, creating life through art, trusting one's intuition
> The Formalists (thinking): understanding of, experimentation with, and loyalty to the comics form
> The Iconoclasts (feeling): Honesty, vitality, authenticity and unpretentious, putting life first


Ok so I wish I can put up some example artwork, Scott has some AWESOME examples in his book, but if you just google around for Scott McCloud and 'four art tribes', you might find something here and there.

Ok so I don't know how to relate this to the cognitive functions. It gets a bit complicated for me when you introvert and extrovert the functions ... I am more familiar with my own functions, so I match them up as such:

The Classicists (Se)
The Animists (Ni)
The Formalists (Ti)
The Iconoclasts (Fi)

As for the other functions, Si, Ne, Te and Fe ... I'm not so sure. I really have no idea what Si and Ne are all about, honestly! Si-users are a mystery to me! ... so no, I wouldn't for the life of me be able to tell the difference between Si and Se art, but I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between S and N art.

What if we broke them down first into S N T and F, and then we can work on the extroverted or introverted directions from there?

Here it is:

S: Feng Zhu, Artgerm, Disney, Miyazaki
N: Sinfest, SMBC, Pixar
T: XKCD, Scott McCloud
F: The Oatmeal, Bruno the Bandit, Ren and Stimpy, Spongebob, Looneytunes

Ok so my examples are mainly webcomics and stuff cos I like that sort of thing 

Anyway my Fi husband said something interesting today. He's an Fi-dom artist himself, and he said that he thinks Fi artists will make art for themselves, and Fe artists will make art for others, which sort of relates back to what @9reat said. (ps: Where have you been?)



> Art is not all about self-expression. It is also about expressing something that they think is valuable to others, or their preferences as to how they want to affect others with their work. Communication is not only saying what is important to you, but is communicating what you want others to hear.



Alright. So now onto the introverted and extroverted direction of the functions.

According to my understanding, the introverted judging functions are very individualistic functions, as in:

Ti: individualistic thinking
Fi: individualistic feeling


And the extroverted judging functions are very 'collective'- oriented, such as:

Te: the collective system
Fe: collective etiquette

We can begin to categorize artists according to how individualistic or collective they are, depending on their style of art. If anyone's interested, I can PM you a link to a paper I wrote on 'Individualism and Collectivism in Disney and Anime Drawing Styles,' with Disney being individualistic, and Anime being collective. I also explain in detail why I think so.


__________________________________

And now for something else!


Let's bring up the *PICTURE PLANE*.

Here is Scott McCloud's 'Picture Plane'.

Something worth looking at! My take on it is as the triangle moves from left to right, it goes from *Se* to *Ni*!

I don't know what function you would put at the top of the triangle, but if anyone has any insights, let me know!


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

> Regarding the circle thing, that seems more Ne to me, explosion of ideas. But what do I know  Ni is better at forming judgements later on in a work, rather than earlier.


 @9reat
It was difficult identifying the functions for the Circle Concept. The explanation seemed more like subjective intuition to me, because they were moving away from the idea of basic circle shape and thinking about what it contains "within", which didn't seem like an Ne (objective) association. It's hard to explain this person's project, because it was highly complex. Perhaps it seems Ne because of the way I perceived the information and explained it in my OP. Could have been both Ne then Ni, as strange as that sounds.



> I think Vincent van Gogh was Se valuer, impressionism is all about capturing the current sensation of a situation and with quick movements of the brush the artist makes sure the feeling won't disappear before the painting is done. It's very Se in my opinion, perhaps Se+Fi to be more concrete.


 @Anonymous Disaster 










His surroundings did not look like this. I think Si is relative to sensation too based on Jung's description, although in mbti cognitive functions the definition is more psychological (e.g Routine, Memory). His impressions were highly subjective and abstracted in my opinion. Based on his quotes, the artist seemed detached from the outer world itself, only seeing through his subjective worldview. 

On the topic of MBTI Si, Van Gogh didn't actually paint Starry Night during night, but throughout the day based on his memory and perception.

Frida could actually be Si, I agree with that. She took her culture and Mexican environment into the concept of her paintings, which maybe seems more like sensory impressions. I was looking for Dali as my example Ni, but I couldn't mind on the artists name- so I used Frida Kahlo as an example instead.


----------



## 9reat (Mar 29, 2016)

> (ps: Where have you been?)


 @goodthankyou
I've lost a lot of my earlier interest in personality models. Personality is of course, a real thing, but self-identifying with one's personality is very difficult. If it weren't, the percentage of mistypes wouldn't be so high, and people wouldn't take so long to realize mistypes. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-of-chinese-wisdom-1459520703 
One's self-identity can change the way they think and behave. There is a lot more to say about choosing to act outside of your own norm, and to not focus on your strengths(what if you are wrong about your strengths?). The brain is highly malleable, everyone's prefrontal cortex will stop functioning optimally if they watch too much porn, for example. Do something enough and the related brain regions will strengthen(or weaken, from neglect). The brain changes, the idea that functions don't strengthen or weaken is likely wrong. Yes, that's not the point of the orientations or MBTI, but still the same, it makes sense from a neuroscience perspective for your brain to change based off how you use it(i.e. you become better at what you do the most). For example, taxi drivers will develop the part of the brain related to navigation.

I'm almost positive INFJ isn't my type; I'm not even sure whether I'm a sensor or an intuitive, actually. So I've been avoiding posting on the forum with a type that I'm unsure of. I guess I could just change my type to unknown for now.

Either way, university stuff, real life got in the way. I'm not in a situation where I want to spend all my time wrapping my mind around the personality models. I think in some way the cognitive processes exist, however I'm quite skeptical of type dynamics and the function stacks. Neuroscience overall does a much better job of explaining how thinking is accomplished. It's pretty easy to correlate intuition, ideas, and creativity to Ni or Ne. But that correlation is very incorrect. Any personality type has flashes of insight, subconscious thinking/drifting thought, etc. Incubation of ideas will inevitably lead to flashes of insight, you don't need to be Ni/Ne dom, sec, tert, or inferior to have those things happen frequently to you. So at least right now, I am pretty skeptical of whether my dominant function is intuitive. Just a mistake I made that lead me to believe I'm an intuitive-dom.


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

I've been wondering about whether or not I'm really an artist. I am good at creating something that looks nice and realistic, but I am not very inspired and I do tend to get caught up in the details. 

I noticed how ISFPs in my art class always were free to create whatever they had on their mind, and channel their desire to create something beautiful so well, while it takes me forever to come up with something beautiful to draw that isn't just exactly what I observe.

Like that article said, I create for the end result. Its like a "project" for me to do art. I can enjoy it and find it gratifying, but I work on it in a very methodical serious manner. I can be kind of rigidly bent over my work, its a difficult feat rather than something "thereputic". 

The one type of art I might be made for is where the goal is to create an aesthetically pleasing thing, or an illustration for like a childeren's book, though I've never actually done that. I'm not actually very imaginative either.


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

9reat said:


> @goodthankyou
> I've lost a lot of my earlier interest in personality models.


Aw, ok. Sad to see you go. Do pop in from time to time to see what we're up to 
@Maye

Do you have your work up online somewhere? I've always been curious about the kind of art that Si-dom might produce ...


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

goodthankyou said:


> Aw, ok. Sad to see you go. Do pop in from time to time to see what we're up to
> 
> @Maye
> 
> Do you have your work up online somewhere? I've always been curious about the kind of art that Si-dom might produce ...


No, I don't have it anywhere online. I could try and post a pic here though.


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

These are some sketches I did recently. I kind of like drawing people. 

Here's an example of an art project I did in school a couple years ago.








I wonder if this tells you anything about si art  

I guess that part of the thing that bothers me about doing art is that unless I am very into it, I see it as an outcome I need to reach so I don't enjoy myself. Unless I'm very into the concept I'm creating, which tends to be rare for me.


----------



## 9reat (Mar 29, 2016)

Maye said:


> View attachment 509578
> View attachment 509586
> 
> 
> ...


You're using Te too much in your art and in seeing yourself as an artist. You need to balance Si-Te with Fi. Fi deals with values/importance. Study art history; read the books "The Art Spirit" by Robert Henri, and "Alla Prima" by Richard Schmid. There are more out there to read, of course.

Si makes drawing from imagination difficult because you are always aware that your drawings aren't 'right,' and you are afraid to draw things you don't really understand how to draw. Become an even better artist and you will see that most drawings created by (except the most skilled artists) aren't 'right,' and it will bother you. You need to seek to understand the visual world better, to become less afraid of it and to be able to draw things you want to draw with vigor.

Si gives you a lot of potential to enjoy drawing, but you need to have drawn for a lot longer and gotten to a higher level. The more experience Si has with something, the more they enjoy and relate to it. The feeling of drawing can itself become reassuring and comfortable. You need to be more self-aware, more in the moment. Think of zen and meditation. Feel every pencil stroke and every brushstroke. Look at your drawing/image after every important stroke. Take in as much as you can.

To draw from the mind, you need to draw from memories of understanding how things work and are put together, not visual memories or likenesses. Likenesses will never be exact. But if you draw from understanding, you won't need to be so hard on yourself with any inaccuracies, because the fundamental structural/anatomical understanding is there. So, study anatomy.

Si can become very creative. But you need to become a fundamentally strong artist, and be able to draw many different things in many different ways. Look at a lot of art. Maybe get a pixiv account, look at a lot of old masters' work. When you're finally able to recall on many past experiences, your own and others, you will have a lot to work with and the goal of Te at this point should be arranging this library of experiences in unique, effective, creative ways.

Regarding self-identity, it's okay to not feel like your peers. I don't either. I'm a more methodical, understanding-seeking artist than others. My own lack of understanding of things bothers me. And you should not suppress your identity or personality to make yourself feel like other artists. That will only cause you to become unhealthy mentally. Self-identity is complicated and changing. You're not 'just' an artist, or any profession. You are a multitude of interests and aptitudes. Do as you do.

If these feelings are related to any college-education decisions, that I cannot really answer for you. But. If it involves state university art education, if there's another decision that you're battling between, go with the other. You are better off entering a non-institutional art school/atelier after you get your B.A. in whatever else, than to take art in the state university environment. The atelier environment is much more hands-on and focused. The community is also more stronger in an atelier than the state university environment.

You shouldn't go to a full-out art-school if you're having troubling thoughts regarding your identity as an artist. There will always be time in the future to get your training if you choose to. Trust me, I know people in their late 20s and early 30s going to university for art education. Just don't get married and have kids and you'll be fine :tongue:


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

Very interesting. I get what you said about "likenesses" vs. "understanding". I think its true, and I have felt intimidated/frustrated when drawing and it doesn't turn out how it looks in my mind. When the goal should not be to make it look exactly a certain way, but to create based on what it could look like. So I think I see what you are saying there. 

Also, yes, its true that I enjoy the things that I understand and have lots of experience with the best. 



> You're using Te too much in your art and in seeing yourself as an artist. You need to balance Si-Te with Fi. Fi deals with values/importance. Study art history; read the books "The Art Spirit" by Robert Henri, and "Alla Prima" by Richard Schmid. There are more out there to read, of course.


Well, I like art history, but don't see myself pouring much time into it because it seems not as relevant to my own interests and skill sets.The things I really see myself pursuing are things of a practical, literal nature. Like I think about becoming a librarian. Some of my career results on a test I took were chef and landscape architect. 

How I interpret what you said is that art, by its nature and definition, has to do with the world of expression of feelings and ideas (hence Fi). Tell me if that's not what you meant. 
So since Fi is only my tertiary function and my primary ones don't have to do with the meaning of art, perhaps I would be better off not considering being an artist. I could do something with si and Te, with maybe a slightly artistic flare at the most. I have already been thinking that way but it is interesting to hear it from the perspective of mbti functions. 
Let me know what you meant if i have not interpreted it correctly, please.
@9reat I see you edited your post, just so you know. Will read


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

@9reat, I'm curious, do you know your mbti type?


----------



## 9reat (Mar 29, 2016)

Maye said:


> Very interesting. I get what you said about "likenesses" vs. "understanding". I think its true, and I have felt intimidated/frustrated when drawing and it doesn't turn out how it looks in my mind. When the goal should not be to make it look exactly a certain way, but to create based on what it could look like. So I think I see what you are saying there.
> 
> Also, yes, its true that I enjoy the things that I understand and have lots of experience with the best.
> 
> ...


You don't need much Fi usage to be a professional artist, the ones who design/illustrate for clients/entertainment industry. 

What I mean is that you aren't just an 'Si' person. As an ISTJ(if that's really your type), you are 'Si' with the flavoring of 'Te' and 'Fi.' Your blindspot seems to be Fi because you don't seem to be asking yourself how you feel about your art and whether art is important to you 


> I guess that part of the thing that bothers me about doing art is that unless I am very into it, I see it as an outcome I need to reach so I don't enjoy myself. Unless I'm very into the concept I'm creating, which tends to be rare for me.


This is what I mean by you using Te, and without Fi. Are the outcomes important? Is working to become an artist and a better artist important to you? Do you believe being an artist has value? And when you finish work, ask yourself if the piece is important or valuable to you or others, (not whether or not you met some objective standard such as drawing the piece as accurately as you wished (Te).)

Regarding ideas, you don't need to have Fi in your 2 dominant functions to generate enough ideas/feelings as an artist. That is just following the MBTI model too closely and rigidly. What is Fi anyways? Inward feelings towards things, objects, persons, and ideas. Yeah, anybody has those, the mbti is how you habitually view the world, not the limits of your cognitive abilities. You don't need to be constantly asking yourself how you feel about things to be able to use this way of thinking towards your art. 

And you don't need to be constantly asking yourself how you feel about ideas to be a professional artist. Most of the time as a professional artist your feelings and ideas aren't needed. You are creating based off of specifications given to you by your client; you are creating what they would have created if they had your drawing, visual problem-solving and art skills. But they don't use your own feelings and ideas; they use their own, and you need to keep theirs in mind greater than your own.

Making your career decisions based off your mbti type is a horrible decision. Firstly, there is a chance you have mistyped yourself. Secondly, the stereotypes of a type don't need to match the truth of who you are and what you are capable of. Thirdly, there's a professional artist out there with your true type who is doing just fine. Type is only part of the picture, if even that.



> The things I really see myself pursuing are things of a practical, literal nature


If this is yourself speaking, not your type speaking, then do just that. But, even then, stay open to possibilities. At a liberal arts university, you will be exposed to many different subjects. You never know. Art is practical and not practical at the same time. Professional artists are the backbone of the entertainment industry. There would be nothing without them. Entertainment enriches our lives, and the best entertainment is insightful. It is practical in that sense. But, understanding the world as an artist does is generally just the jack of all trades in understanding. You don't understand anything as a true expert would in any field, unless you're Michael Crichton or formally studied different fields. You only understand things enough to invent consistent, logical worlds that may or may not really be feasible, or to teach other artists in the understanding of these things.

EDIT: Regarding my type, I don't know. I've gone from INTJ/INFJ to ISTJ/ISFJ and at this point I don't care anymore what I really am in this system. My road in life is set, I'm a sophomore in uni with a scholarship in my current major and I wouldn't dare change it. Stereotypes are not useful to me and don't help me understand who I am anymore. The cognitive functions are vague and I will think/feel as I do without needing to think/feel about how I think/feel. You don't need to tell yourself to read, or to focus, it happens automatically. Telling yourself "to focus" actually makes things worse.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Wisteria said:


> Any thoughts?


Perhaps as a writer I can lend a different perspective here.

I almost have to say that any sort of primarily visual art involves sensation of some level of sensation, and I almost have to wonder if it doesn't appeal to sensates more that intuitionists (such a fun word, that is). Obviously there are intuitives who are drawn to painting or some other such medium, but I have to wonder if much of art isn't the product of tertiary-inferior intuition instead of dominant-secondary.

But that aside, from the writing side of things, I would agree that art is often linked to inner perception. Artists are reflective bunch, and you can't do much reflection without a robust awareness of the inner world. Those that lack this are generally the ones who make fools of themselves by saying something they didn't mean. It takes reflection to look at your creation and see how you've put yourself into it (literally or metaphorically). I would say that writing tends to attract more intuitives (especially Ni-doms) simply because of the subjective nature of the medium. It is still a visual medium, but the visualization is entirely dependent on the reader, which fits well with the INxJ's repression of Se: they need not focus on sensory details unless they want to or have a very specific thing they want their readers to see (put me in the don't describe things unless you need to camp, I guess ), and thus they are allowed to put their stories together in such a way that it allows their intuition to express its message however it needs to be expressed. Compare this to visual storytelling like film, and suddenly the director has to be concerned with how the shot is composed and what the audience will actually _see_ as well as the story being told. I don't know about other INxJs, but I would hate being a director, and if CelebrityTypes is even remotely accurate, most directors seem to be Se dom or aux. In a novel, the author can completely forget about the physical world.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

I draw like this:
Astral Mouse

Prophet of Slaughter

Any thoughts?


----------



## Ohndot (Apr 12, 2015)

I have a related question - Has anyone not liked a piece of art because it was a bit 'uncanny' (looks a little too much like what's under your hood)?


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

@9reat



Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> I draw like this:
> Astral Mouse
> 
> Prophet of Slaughter
> ...


plz?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

9reat said:


> @_goodthankyou_
> I've lost a lot of my earlier interest in personality models. Personality is of course, a real thing, but self-identifying with one's personality is very difficult. If it weren't, the percentage of mistypes wouldn't be so high, and people wouldn't take so long to realize mistypes. The College of Chinese Wisdom - WSJ
> One's self-identity can change the way they think and behave. There is a lot more to say about choosing to act outside of your own norm, and to not focus on your strengths(what if you are wrong about your strengths?). The brain is highly malleable, everyone's prefrontal cortex will stop functioning optimally if they watch too much porn, for example. Do something enough and the related brain regions will strengthen(or weaken, from neglect). The brain changes, the idea that functions don't strengthen or weaken is likely wrong. Yes, that's not the point of the orientations or MBTI, but still the same, it makes sense from a neuroscience perspective for your brain to change based off how you use it(i.e. you become better at what you do the most). For example, taxi drivers will develop the part of the brain related to navigation.
> 
> ...


Whoever made you think that this all is about usage and not about the preference of dichotomies has bamboozled you greatly!

I should call upon, nah I won't! I will simply say(instead of inviting tower of text) that it indeed is about the preferences. Think whether you prefer Carravagio(clear S painter, also a SeFi personality most likely / maybe SeTi) or whether you prefer Dali(a NeTi artist imo) or Pollock(Ni...Fe?). This kind of thing :wink:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Maye said:


> Very interesting. I get what you said about "likenesses" vs. "understanding". I think its true, and I have felt intimidated/frustrated when drawing and it doesn't turn out how it looks in my mind. When the goal should not be to make it look exactly a certain way, but to create based on what it could look like. So I think I see what you are saying there.
> 
> Also, yes, its true that I enjoy the things that I understand and have lots of experience with the best.
> 
> ...


As 9reat said, you can always draw on demand. This is the type of drawing that doesn't demand any Fi whatsoever. In fact, even someone who doesn't use Fi at all could do it. Te doms especially.

You are paid to do an artpiece and it has to be about superheroes(excuse this, it was the first thing that popped into my mind). So, what do you do? You take some very recognisable SHs from the same universe(say Batman, Superman, Flash etc) and just do a badass drawing. You don't have to care about it-you are simply paid to do it. What is more Te than that? But you will care about something else-that it is factually correct. So you wouldn't think of mixing Batman with Iron Man for example. That'd most likely bother you because you know it wouldn't give you the result you were after. And other corporeal maluses(having your art rejected / complained upon / getting lower salary / getting fired etc).

Does this kind of drawing sound more like your kind of thing?


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

Ixim said:


> As 9reat said, you can always draw on demand. This is the type of drawing that doesn't demand any Fi whatsoever. In fact, even someone who doesn't use Fi at all could do it. Te doms especially.
> 
> You are paid to do an artpiece and it has to be about superheroes(excuse this, it was the first thing that popped into my mind). So, what do you do? You take some very recognisable SHs from the same universe(say Batman, Superman, Flash etc) and just do a badass drawing. You don't have to care about it-you are simply paid to do it. What is more Te than that? But you will care about something else-that it is factually correct. So you wouldn't think of mixing Batman with Iron Man for example. That'd most likely bother you because you know it wouldn't give you the result you were after. And other corporeal maluses(having your art rejected / complained upon / getting lower salary / getting fired etc).
> 
> Does this kind of drawing sound more like your kind of thing?


Yeah, it might be. I've tried doing drawings for people when I don't really care about the art itself and haven't enjoyed it, but maybe that's for different reasons such as putting too much pressure on myself. Or maybe its the fact that any art form is not cut and dry with practical answers. And its hard for me to feel at ease exploring the unknown. But good point. And I will need to explore drawing more to see where it fits in with my natural abilities


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Whoever made you think that this all is about usage and not about the preference of dichotomies has bamboozled you greatly!
> 
> I should call upon, nah I won't! I will simply say(instead of inviting tower of text) that it indeed is about the preferences. Think whether you prefer Carravagio(clear S painter, also a SeFi personality most likely / maybe SeTi) or whether you prefer Dali(a NeTi artist imo) or Pollock(Ni...Fe?). This kind of thing :wink:


Dali is an INFJ. There's no point in trying to type dead people who have no interviews and similar media.


----------



## 9reat (Mar 29, 2016)

Ixim said:


> Whoever made you think that this all is about usage and not about the preference of dichotomies has bamboozled you greatly!
> 
> I should call upon, nah I won't! I will simply say(instead of inviting tower of text) that it indeed is about the preferences. Think whether you prefer Carravagio(clear S painter, also a SeFi personality most likely / maybe SeTi) or whether you prefer Dali(a NeTi artist imo) or Pollock(Ni...Fe?). This kind of thing :wink:


Except preferences and taste with art have absolutely no real correlation with cognitive preferences when it comes to advanced individuals. I prefer paintings by artists like Caravaggio, Sargent, and many others that have nothing to do with their cognitive functions, and I'm NiFe. This is an absolutely HORRIBLE way to influence one's type decision. Pollock and all of his modern art comrades...I hate them. When people are actually studied and invested in art, as an artist, their opinions can go anywhere, no type is limited to any specific preference of art.

And your statements about the preferences basically added nothing to what I said. I could have told you that. I'm talking about the development of cognitive skills, and the plasticity of the brain, not what the MBTI or Jungian theory says about preference. The brain of a taxi driver slowly develops to become better at navigation. It's not just the necessity or preference of thinking that allows the development of these abilities. It's the preference or necessity that leads to repeated usage that will then lead to competence and ability, I think.

I personally just don't like the fact that all MBTI talks about is preferences in related to thinking, etc. Just different tinted glasses, they say, and vague, subjective ones at that. Doesn't tell you anything about ability, where abilities fall, what parts of skills fall under which function. 

All we're doing in this thread is poorly speculating how functions would relate to being artist, how not having the 'artistic' functions as dom or sec preferences would be potentially bad for a career. And some of the people here aren't even artists at that. Well I'm just going to say again that deciding to be an artist professionally based off your MBTI type is a bullshit idea. Being an artist is already only a concept and an idea; there are infinite shades and blends of artists. It is already something that is vague. And then you're going to listen to some other biased person and their subjective ideas on MBTI and what artists are? Yeah, no. Don't do that.



> @9reat
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar View Post
> I draw like this:
> ...


Seems like you're often in the Fi mindset when drawing. Giving form to your 'type' and drawing it, using it as a metaphor for yourself also seems like that. It seems like you're using Ne a lot, but there's no real good evidence for that I think, looks more like any artist's 'mind salad' or random drawing. Don't look to into it. You seem to be using Si in some places to call into your ideas of what things look like. You are using some above average quality symbols for drawing certain things, such as the cogs and the flowers or your knights. You also have an ok sense of perspective for an untrained artist.

You need to Se more(?). Look at your drawings when you're doing them. A lot of the time you're making huge messes that make no sense to anybody except you. If you want others to enjoy your work, you need to learn the fundamentals of drawing and be more considerate of how your drawings look to other people.

Look at more art. Make a pixiv account or look at the work at the http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php/41-Sketchbooks forums or on https://www.artstation.com/ You don't need to be so individualistic with your work. It's good to derive things from yourself, but there is no harm or shame in learning about art from others and taking aspects of their work that you want, but you are lacking in.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

9reat said:


> Except preferences and taste with art have absolutely no real correlation with cognitive preferences when it comes to advanced individuals. I prefer paintings by artists like Caravaggio, Sargent, and many others that have nothing to do with their cognitive functions, and I'm NiFe. This is an absolutely HORRIBLE way to influence one's type decision. Pollock and all of his modern art comrades...I hate them. When people are actually studied and invested in art, as an artist, their opinions can go anywhere, no type is limited to any specific preference of art.
> 
> And your statements about the preferences basically added nothing to what I said. I could have told you that. I'm talking about the development of cognitive skills, and the plasticity of the brain, not what the MBTI or Jungian theory says about preference. The brain of a taxi driver slowly develops to become better at navigation. It's not just the necessity or preference of thinking that allows the development of these abilities. It's the preference or necessity that leads to repeated usage that will then lead to competence and ability, I think.
> 
> ...


You seem to be after Te. Real, irrefutable proof that is logically put. Can't fault you, hollow starry eyed dreaming can only take you so far. But yet another Se / Te fact is that MBTI is really about just that: preferences / what you like / what you find pleasurable etc. Perhaps things one favours link to the quicker knowledge intake on that part? Less energy required to form a synapse? Hm...

If we are talking about neuroplasticity, we should be talking about synapses first. Has the science even explained why they go away? In other words why neurons unlink themselves. Because the repeated doing of something leads towards the formation of a synapse. The lack of doing that leads to the dissolution of one. Why? Who knows.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

9reat said:


> Seems like you're often in the Fi mindset when drawing. Giving form to your 'type' and drawing it, using it as a metaphor for yourself also seems like that. It seems like you're using Ne a lot, but there's no real good evidence for that I think, looks more like any artist's 'mind salad' or random drawing. Don't look to into it. You seem to be using Si in some places to call into your ideas of what things look like. You are using some above average quality symbols for drawing certain things, such as the cogs and the flowers or your knights. You also have an ok sense of perspective for an untrained artist.


Thanks for the reply. Interesting.



9reat said:


> You need to Se more(?).


I don't have conscious Se.



9reat said:


> Look at your drawings when you're doing them. A lot of the time you're making huge messes that make no sense to anybody except you. If you want others to enjoy your work, you need to learn the fundamentals of drawing and be more considerate of how your drawings look to other people.
> 
> Look at more art. Make a pixiv account or look at the work at the Sketchbooks forums or on https://www.artstation.com/ You don't need to be so individualistic with your work. It's good to derive things from yourself, but there is no harm or shame in learning about art from others and taking aspects of their work that you want, but you are lacking in.


Well, my main idols are:
Fuck Yeah... British Old School Gaming
Portfolio :: ian-miller.org
weremoon (Marta SokoBowska) - DeviantArt

For some reason I never managed to emulate them well XD .

One thing I realised fairly recently is that I'm drawing on far too small paper. I have very strong preference for drawing on small paper. A5 is my favourite. Some of older stuff was even drawn on A6 D: .

I suspect a lot of the messiness may come from trying to cram way too much detail on way too small paper. I was recently searching for info on professional illustrators and I discovered they work mainly on A3. Also, illustrations in books tend to be shrunk about 50%.
I always hated A3 paper because it's so unwieldy :/ .

This series of drawings came from my deliberate attempt to draw amount of detail appropriate to format (most of them are A4, one is A3):
Mars 2019A.D.

So far I have drawn only two A3 drawings, though :/ :
Prophet of Slaughter â€” During an ASSAULT on human-held trench on MARS, an...

Prophet of Slaughter â€” A TECHNOKNIGHT in powered suit casually EXECUTING...

I'm not sure if they are more readable than other drawings, though.

I probably should try to draw something A3 every day or something like that. Because I keep being stuck drawing small things.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

I'm a professional artist and, honestly, most who end up going into academia to be trained are intuitives of some sort. The old masters were after a lot of transcendental concepts that they could extrapolate onto....everything else.. in a liberal arts/theological way. They used a lot of Ni since it was objectively Truth in a capital T sort of way, but at the same time amorphous and mystical. They weren't arriving at these things in a systematic way, initially.

The ones that are more "crafty" (not intended to be pejorative) are more sensors.


Functionally, any type could be a professional artist or designer: you just need a replicable process.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Here is one of my posts about art/intuition and MBTI directed towards my own art:
http://personalitycafe.com/art-museum/811106-what-ni-looks-like-one-my-drawings.html


----------



## 9reat (Mar 29, 2016)

Ixim said:


> You seem to be after Te. Real, irrefutable proof that is logically put. Can't fault you, hollow starry eyed dreaming can only take you so far. But yet another Se / Te fact is that MBTI is really about just that: preferences / what you like / what you find pleasurable etc. Perhaps things one favours link to the quicker knowledge intake on that part? Less energy required to form a synapse? Hm...
> 
> If we are talking about neuroplasticity, we should be talking about synapses first. Has the science even explained why they go away? In other words why neurons unlink themselves. Because the repeated doing of something leads towards the formation of a synapse. The lack of doing that leads to the dissolution of one. Why? Who knows.


Yes, I do want real Te for MBTI. But the reason I want this, is because I want to be confident knowing there is merit to the correlations I make. Why try to help or give constructive criticism to artists based on MBTI if it does worse of a job than my own experiences and understanding of art? The functions could be used to point to weaknesses as from above, but in the end it's my own experience and judgement that reign supreme when it comes to advising people in their art. Is that all it can do for me? Maybe.

Another reason I want more Te is that skill development is such a big thing in our society. And if you know where your biggest potentials are you'll be better off, or which careers could be a good idea. And there are a lot of people that relate to this. But this application of MBTI, in my opinion, is weak. And therefore any important decisions based off this application will be weak. Just the idea of people doing this is upsetting to me.

Could it be that functions say what are your limitations of performance in skills are? And perhaps it's only a select few skills that are affected?
Or is that work/deliberate practice have different energy level usages based on your preferred orientations? So will certain types reach competence quicker due to more efficient usage of energy? What then happens after competence is reached?

Stuff that is obviously difficult to know or answer. The processing of information is important in learning certain skills, so certain types could have advantages in learning that skill if they are built for processing that information. Is that enough of a deterrent for a career to be a poor choice?

Looking more into neuroscience and skill development, apparently myelination is important for coordinated activities. Myelin is like the lubricant for connections between neurons. It can make skills feel more comfortable and natural over time.

"The study suggested that the estimated amount of practice an expert piano player did in childhood and adolescence was correlated with the white matter density in regions of the brain related to finger motor skills, visual and auditory processing centers, and others. Most significantly, there was a direct correlation between how many hours they practiced and how dense their white/myelin matter was." The Science of Practice: What Happens When You Learn a New Skill

If this is true, then the energy gone into processing information can potentially decline, regardless of the related cognitive function position. So the theory that others will get farther ahead of you due to better energy usage doesn't hold up to this information, as it seems to be just due to repetition and practice(i.e. myelination). It is no wonder that it takes less energy working in your dominant or secondary cognitive functions. Your preferences are all lubed up, natural, and comfortable ways of being.


----------

