Psychology

Is Nature Already a Work of Art?

Gianni Sarcone

Art may not be exclusively a human affair. Nature has its own creative force and aesthetic power. Crystals, shells, clouds, and landscapes produce forms and patterns that we often find as fascinating as works made by artists.

Without disturbing Kant too much—and his somewhat dated distinction between natural and artistic beauty—where does art actually begin?

Nature: the original artist?

Nature creates without any apparent intention. It does not try to please us or express an idea, yet it can produce forms of extraordinary complexity and beauty.

  • Spontaneous beauty: Crystals, landscapes, spirals, symmetries, and biological patterns can display structures we perceive as beautiful.
  • Creation without a plan: Nature produces forms without an artist, a blueprint, or even an audience.
  • Our first inspiration: From the beginning, humans have observed, imitated, and transformed natural forms into their own creations.

For Kant, this is precisely where the difference lies: a work of art involves intention and a concept of what it is supposed to be, whereas natural beauty can be appreciated without knowing any purpose behind what we see.

But is intention really necessary?

Does art require intention?

The idea that we must know what an artist intended in order to understand or judge a work has been questioned for a long time. In 1946, William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley famously called the attempt to use an author’s intention as the basis for interpretation the “intentional fallacy.”

And art can go even further.

It can be improvised, accidental, discovered rather than made. It can emerge from a chance encounter between an object and a particular way of looking at it.

Leonardo da Vinci already understood this. He suggested looking at stains and irregular patterns on old walls because they could trigger visions of landscapes, battles, figures, and strange compositions. Chance could become a generator of images.

In other words, the work is not always entirely in the object.

Sometimes, it appears in the eye of the beholder.

Take a stone polished by the sea. It might suddenly remind you of a sculpture by Henry Moore. Nobody sculpted it. Nobody intended it to represent anything. Yet your brain detects a form, gives it meaning, and perhaps even sees a sculpture.

So—is it art?

From found object to readymade

With Marcel Duchamp, things get even more complicated.

The readymade takes an existing object, removes it from its ordinary context, and presents it as art. Duchamp began exploring this idea as early as 1913 with Bicycle Wheel.

The object itself may have little or nothing to do with traditional ideas of beauty. What changes is the context, the choice, and the way we look at it.

Art therefore moves, at least in part, from something made by the artist to something that can be selected, discovered, and reframed by the artist.

And this makes the boundary between creating and discovering surprisingly thin.

A natural form can resemble a sculpture. A stain can become a landscape. An ordinary object can become a work of art. And sometimes a work becomes art only because someone recognizes it as such.

Perhaps the artist does not always create something from nothing.

Sometimes, the artist does something more subtle:

he reveals what everyone else was looking at but never saw.

So where, exactly, do we draw the line between art and non-art?

And ultimately, what makes something art: the object, the artist’s intention, or the eye of the beholder?

Newspeak and Esperanto: When Simplifying Language Simplifies Thought

Gianni Sarcone

At first glance, Orwell’s Newspeak in 1984 and Esperanto seem to have little in common. One is the fictional language of a totalitarian regime; the other was created by L. L. Zamenhof as an international language designed to make communication easier between people from different countries.

Yet they share an interesting structural principle: the simplification of language through regularity and word formation.

In Newspeak:

good → ungood → plusgood → doubleplusgood

Instead of good, bad, better, or excellent, one basic word does much of the work through prefixes and modifiers.

A surprisingly similar pattern exists in Esperanto:

bona → malbona → pli bona → bonega

good → bad → better → excellent.

The resemblance is structural, but the intentions are radically different. Esperanto uses regularity to make a language easier to learn and to generate words without memorizing endless irregular forms. Zamenhof’s aim was not to restrict thought, but to facilitate international communication.

Newspeak, by contrast, is designed to reduce the space in which thought can operate. Its ultimate purpose is not merely to simplify communication, but to make certain ideas increasingly difficult—or eventually impossible—to formulate.

There is, however, an intriguing historical footnote.

For decades, it has been speculated that Orwell’s antagonism toward his aunt’s husband, Eugène Lanti, a French socialist and prominent Esperanto speaker, may have influenced his conception of Newspeak. The claim remains speculative, not an established fact. But the story is fascinating in its own right because it leads back to the 1920s and 1930s, when many people on the political left regarded Esperanto as more than a neutral language: they saw it as a vehicle for international solidarity, social change, and working-class emancipation.

That makes the apparent linguistic connection even more intriguing—but it is important not to confuse historical speculation with evidence.

The deeper issue lies elsewhere.

A language does not merely describe thought. It also provides many of the distinctions through which we organize it.

Words do not correspond one-to-one with things or ideas. They exist within a network of synonyms, antonyms, associations, contrasts, and cultural practices. Meaning is therefore, in an important sense, holistic: a word cannot be fully understood in isolation from the larger linguistic system in which it lives.

If excellent, remarkable, magnificent, admirable, and exceptional are all reduced to variations of good, we have not merely simplified the dictionary. We have reduced the palette of distinctions available to us.

Of course, structural simplicity does not automatically produce impoverished thinking. Esperanto is a good example: a language can be highly regular and economical while remaining capable of expressing complex ideas. The danger begins when simplification stops removing unnecessary complexity and starts removing meaningful distinctions.

And that is perhaps the point worth remembering:

Distinctions matter.

So don’t be afraid of linguistic complexity. When you write, use a good thesaurus. Look at the synonyms and antonyms. Explore the neighboring words and the subtle differences between them. Then choose the word that says exactly what you mean.

Because language is not beautiful despite its complexity.

Language is beautiful because of it.

How fast do we actually see the world?

Gianni Sarcone

Our visual system does not work like a camera shooting at a fixed number of frames per second. There is no single human “FPS.”

Reality is continuous, but our brain processes visual information on different time scales. Some visual mechanisms are remarkably fast; others are much slower. What we perceive depends on what we are looking at, the stimulus, its brightness and contrast, and even where it falls on the retina.

Flicker is a good example.

When a light flickers fast enough, we stop seeing individual flashes and perceive a steady light. But there is no universal cutoff such as 30 or 60 FPS. Under some conditions, humans can detect flicker well above 60 Hz, and the threshold changes with luminance, contrast, stimulus size, retinal location, and other factors.

And detecting a very brief visual event does not mean that we see at 250 FPS. Temporal resolution is not a single number. Different visual tasks have different limits.

Then there is the famous wagon-wheel illusion.

A spinning wheel can appear to slow down, stop, or even rotate backward. In films, this is a straightforward consequence of the camera sampling the motion at discrete intervals. Interestingly, similar effects can also occur under continuous illumination, suggesting that temporal sampling or aliasing may also occur within the visual system itself. The exact mechanism, however, is more complicated than simply saying that the brain “takes snapshots.”

And what about the feeling that time slows down during danger?

It can certainly feel that way. But experiments have found no evidence that frightening situations suddenly increase our temporal resolution—as if the brain switched to a higher frame rate. Instead, the experience seems to involve changes in attention, memory, and the way the event is reconstructed afterward.

So forget the idea that your brain runs at 30, 60, or 250 FPS.

There is no single frame rate for human vision.

We don’t simply record reality.

We construct our experience of it.

How minimal can a drawing be?

Gianni Sarcone

How far can you strip away a design and still leave it readable? Take almost everything out, and your brain will still fight to make sense of what’s left.

Here are two experiments in pushing that boundary:

  • 24 Configuration: The curve of the 2 flows straight into the diagonal of the 4. The brain uses the Gestalt principle of closure—filling in the missing pieces so you see two distinct digits sharing a single outline.
  • 45 Configuration: Standard typography is stripped back to raw vertical and horizontal lines. The crossbar of the 4 turns directly into the top curve of the 5, relying on your memory of numbers to decode the abstract shape instantly.

When you remove the noise, viewing becomes interactive. You aren’t just looking at a drawing—your mind is actively completing it.

👉 For more patterns, and mathematical curiosities, explore these number facts.

Train your brain by questioning your eyes

Gianni Sarcone

For many years, I collaborated with Publications International Ltd. (PIL) on the Brain Games™ series, creating hundreds of optical illusions for three books designed to challenge visual perception, observation, spatial reasoning, attention, and visual logic.

Optical illusions are more than visual tricks: they make the brain question its first interpretation, detect discrepancies, and construct a different explanation of what it sees. In that sense, they provide a stimulating workout for perception and reasoning.

I now put my expertise in visual perception and optical illusions at the service of publishers, educational institutions, medical centers, and other organizations looking for engaging ways to challenge and stimulate the mind.

Challenge your eyes. Make your brain work.

👉 Discover the latest book on Amazon

optical illusions - Brain Games

Art as an Open Circuit

Gianni Sarcone

Art is sharing—an offering from the artist to the audience. Every audience calls for its own officiant.

In technological terms, a work of art is an output searching for an input. Without that exchange, it remains only a possibility. It comes into existence through its encounter with another mind, where it can generate emotion, doubt, rejection, or wonder. A work is born once in the artist’s mind, and then again in the mind of the person who experiences it.

The artist is a translator between an inner vision and the outside world. They offer a fragment of themselves, without ever being able to control how that offering will be interpreted. Every audience recognizes the artists who resonate with its own sensibility, its questions, and its time. Every audience calls for its own officiant.

But does an art exist that cannot be shared?

If we define art not as the final object—the painting, the book, the symphony—but as the state of consciousness and the act of creation itself, then that art is fundamentally impossible to communicate. The finished work is only a trace, the imprint of an inner experience that no one else can truly access. What the audience receives is never the act of creation itself, but its remainder: its echo, its shadow, and sometimes even its misunderstanding.

share your art
(To illustrate this point, I’ve added an ironic image circulating on the net. I hope you appreciate the irony—and my sense of humor.)

Your Brain vs. Geometry: Rooftop illusion

Gianni Sarcone

Believe it or not, the green and purple rooftops are congruent—identical in shape, size, and angles. What changes is not the geometry, but your perception of it. Perspective, orientation, and contextual cues lead your visual system to interpret the same form as two different structures.

rooftop illusion, related to shepard tables

This effect is closely related to Shepard’s tabletop illusion and earlier studies in which identical parallelograms (A and B), when rotated (and superimposed), are perceived as different shapes, as the brain prioritizes interpretation over measurement.

Since some still insist these roofs are not congruent, I’ve put together a short animation that shows otherwise.

animated rooftop illusion

Bear-ly Seal

Gianni Sarcone

People often ask where my ideas come from. There is no single answer. They tend to surface quietly, shaped by places I’ve seen and cultures I’ve crossed.

“Seal or Bear?” grew out of that kind of moment. An animal suspended in the vastness of a frozen world—emerging from an ice hole, yet refusing to settle into a single identity. Is it a polar bear? A seal? Or something that holds both readings at once?

Bear of seal?

The idea came to me while traveling through northern Canada, surrounded by the stillness of Arctic landscapes and the deep presence of Inuit traditions. That silence has a way of sharpening perception—of making ambiguity feel natural rather than puzzling.

First created in the 1990s, the illusion went on to become a reference point in visual perception studies and later found its way into textbooks.

More recently, the “Seal or Bear?” illusion will be featured by the NHK Educational Corporation as part of a 2026–2027 educational series on psychology and visual perception.

The Eternal Return

Gianni Sarcone

At times, I find myself resembling the shipwrecked man from The Invention of Morel, stranded on an island that at first appears deserted, almost welcoming in its deceptive silence. Yet something soon shifts. The people who inhabit it do not see him. He moves among them like a breath, a weightless trace, already slipping out of reality.

Gradually, he understands that his invisibility is not accidental. These bodies, these gestures, this frozen summer light… all obey another logic. A repetition. A projection. Life here has become mechanical memory, the reconstruction of vanished moments, orchestrated by a machine born of obsession.

And in the face of this unsettling truth, a decisive turn emerges: remain outside, intact and separate, or step into the image, accept dissolution within the cycle at the cost of one’s own substance.

The story leaves behind an unnameable imprint—a nostalgia without object, as if something within us recognized a scene already lived elsewhere. It opens a fissure in what we call reality: its fragility, its occasional nature as stable illusion, and the strange condition of the individual who must vanish in order to fully belong to what he contemplates.

A film worth seeking out, or even better, the novel by Adolfo Bioy Casares on which it is based—brief in form, but long-lasting in its quiet afterlife within memory.

l'invenzione di Morel
Immortality, Love & Loneliness
the island
The island as described by Adolfo Bioy Casares