| There's always going to be something of the person in anything created by a person (at bare minimum reflective of the physical properties of the person, such as large or small hands). This is obviously true. Just as any interpretation of art is indicative of mental elements of the person interpreting the art. The artworks on the linked page are similar enough in style that it's obvious something within the artist dictated them. The question is whether there is conscious intent, and what that intent is. Lots of people create art just to create something they find beautiful, with no other meaning intended. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_phenomenon > The ideomotor phenomenon is a psychological phenomenon wherein a subject makes motions unconsciously. > The phrase is most commonly used in reference to the process whereby a thought or mental image brings about a seemingly "reflexive" or automatic muscular reaction, often of minuscule degree, and potentially outside of the awareness of the subject. As in responses to pain, the body sometimes reacts reflexively with an ideomotor effect to ideas alone without the person consciously deciding to take action. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34507844 > Even humans draw many things that they don't understand. If we draw something that we completely don't understand (such as through random scribbling) we don't even call it a representation. It's a fluke. I used to scribble and then trace images in my scribbling (if possible). Often I ended up tracing things that looked like a child's bad drawing of Donald Duck, but once, without having to trace particular lines at all, my scribbling was a perfect seeming of a rose flower (with some minor additional flourishes). I recognized the rose flower, but I certainly didn't set out to draw it. |