+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com



On the Distinction between the Abstract Tacts Art and Craft: A Concept

Maasa Nishimuta1  · T. V. Joe Layng2

Accepted: 4 October 2021
© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2021

We may marvel at both the creativity and quality of work in a piece of pottery or a sculpture, or of a well-played basketball
game or well-acted play. Although each may have similarities, and each may have instances of what might be called crea-
tivity, one is often considered art, whereas the other a craft. This article, using concept analyses, will explore what may be
guiding the abstract tact “art” and the abstract tact “craft.” The critical features of each as well as the varying features will
be described, compared, and contrasted. The consequential contingencies governing the creation or performance of each,
and the effect of the work on the audience are the basis of the concept analysis. In the process it will be demonstrated how a
consequential contingency analysis may contribute to understanding art, craft, their creation, and definition.

Keywords Art · Craft · Concept analysis · Abstract tact · Consequential contingencies

Defining “art” has proven difficult and has been the topic of
philosophical debates for centuries. As expressed by Adajian
(2018), writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
“The definition of art is controversial in contemporary phi-
losophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter
of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition
of art has also been debated.” According to Adajian, who
reviewed the various theories of art, many, such as Kant,
believed that purpose played a primary role in the creation
and definition of art. Others suggest that there is no consist-
ent definition of art, that instead the different instances of art
share family resemblances (after Wittgenstein, 1953), rather
than a set of definable shared properties, because art takes so
many forms. Neither is there agreement about what governs

the classification of a work as poor art versus not being art
at all. There is no apparent consensus among philosophers
and others as to how art is defined. Yet, something occasions
saying “art” in the presence of certain stimuli. Further, the
creation of these occasions may have features that distinguish
artistic activities, that is “doing art,” from other activities.

Is perhaps the definition to be found in aesthetics? A
recent series of commentaries appearing in a 2018 special
issue in The Psychological Record occasioned by a lead
article by Francis Mechner (2018) explored what could be
the possible basis for “aesthetic” responses in humans. The
various authors noted that such responses can occur across
a range of stimuli and events, from a great work of art to a
beautiful sunset to mathematical equations. For example,
Hineline (2018, p. 323), writing in response to Mechner,
proposes aesthetic responses as applying to “a broad range
of domains, including behavioral arrangements and the prod-
ucts of workmanship as well as explicitly artistic endeavors.”

Thus, although related to how one might respond to a
work of art, the aesthetic response itself does not thereby
define art. Indeed, strolling through a gallery one may hear,
“I find that art utterly distasteful.” If the aesthetic response
does not define art, this raises the question of what does, and
what that definition may suggest about the creative process
that produces art.

We will examine how a concept analysis (see Layng, 2019)
based on a consequential contingency analysis may contribute

This article was part of ABAI 2019 presentation. We thank Joanne
Robbins, Paul Thomas Andronis, Francis Mechner, and Sean Will
for their thoughtful feedback and support during the ABAI paper
presentation and preparation for this article.

* Maasa Nishimuta
[email protected]

* T. V. Joe Layng
[email protected]

1 Constructional Approach to Animal Welfare and Training,
Palm Bay, USA

2 Generategy, LLC, Seattle, WA, USA

/ Published online: 1 December 2021

The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

to our understanding and definition of art, perhaps in ways
philosophers and art critics have thus far failed to provide. We
will do this by comparing “doing art” to a close-in nonexam-
ple, “doing craft,” both of which may evoke strong aesthetic
or appreciative responses. We will explore what occasions and
distinguishes the abstract tacts “art” and “craft” from the van-
tage point of a consequential contingency analysis. We exam-
ine what may be guiding the responses producing art and the
responses producing craft during their creation and the role
such guidance plays in the definition of each. Stated differ-
ently, we will define art and craft in terms of a consequen-
tial contingency analysis of their creation. These differences
in contingencies will form the basis of the concept analysis
methods (after Tiemann & Markle, 1990) used to distinguish
between the abstract tact “art” and subtract tact “craft.”

The Origins of a Contingency Analysis of Art

In 1969, Skinner gave a talk at the Guggenheim Museum,
“On the Future of Art: Creating the Creative Artist.” He
discussed why artists made art and why audiences looked at
it and emphasized the important role of consequences on the
behaviors of both the artist and the audience.

Why, indeed, do artists paint pictures, and why do peo-
ple look at them? Another way to put that “why” is to
use the colloquial “what for.” What do artists paint
pictures for? What do people look at pictures for? The
word “for” points forward into the future. It points to
the consequences of action. The things that we do a
thing for are the things which follow, and it is these
consequences of behavior which have been shown
recently to be terribly important in giving an account
of what a man does. (Skinner, 1969, p. 2)

Skinner (1953) also observed that literature, art, and
entertainment may become contrived reinforcers. Whether
the public buys books, tickets to performances, or works of
art depends upon whether those books, plays, concerts, or
pictures, occasion and maintain such purchases. However,
purchase of art does not define it as such. As Skinner noted,
“frequently the artist confines himself to an exploration of
what is reinforcing to himself” (p. 75). Skinner suggested an
approach of looking at consequences specific to the creation
of art to explain artists’ and audiences’ behaviors.

A Concept Analysis Based
on the Consequential Contingencies Guiding
the Abstract Tact, “Art”

By adopting Skinner’s approach of looking at consequences
of the behavior as the basis for a formal concept analysis
(Layng, 2019; Tiemann & Markle, 1990), we may be able

to further understand the features that occasion the abstract
tact “art.”

As Robbins et al., (1995, p. 1) wrote:

Skinner made the distinction between a tact controlled
by a generally invariant stimulus, (e.g., saying “Mona
Lisa” in the presence of the collection of properties
that comprise that painting or in the presence of a
print of that painting), and a tact controlled by vary-
ing stimuli, (e.g., saying “Impressionist” in the pres-
ence of a new example of Impressionist art (Tiemann
& Markle, 1990). Skinner (1957) called the former a
simple tact; he called the latter an extended tact. One
form of extended tact is the abstract tact, exemplified
by the “Impressionist” example given above. Abstract
tacts are those tacts that are under control of prop-
erties or features of a stimulus rather than the entire
stimulus itself, that is, the brush strokes and subject
matter which define Impressionism rather than the
individual painting itself. While many abstract tacts
may be controlled by a single property of a stimulus,
others may be controlled by a “subcollection” of prop-
erties, all of which, however, must be present. Abstract
extension requires that a speaker be able to distinguish
between paintings that are examples of Impressionism
and those that are not, even where they share some
Impressionistic properties. This final requirement dis-
tinguishes abstract extension from generic extension,
which does not have the latter requirement. (Skinner,

In an abstract tact or behavioral concept analysis, attrib-
utes or properties of the stimuli that comprise examples
of the class are assigned to two types of features: critical
attributes and variable attributes (Layng, 2019; Tiemann
& Markle, 1990). Critical attributes are the must have fea-
tures (Layng, 2019) that are required for class membership,
absence of any one of which forms a nonexample. Vari-
able attributes are can have features (Layng, 2019) that vary
within the class, whose variations provide a wide range of
examples. Concept analysis asks what attributes are guiding
people to classify examples and nonexamples of the class.
That is, what are the must have features? For example, how
do people classify chairs from nonchairs such as a couch
or a stool? The concept analysis reveals which attributes of
chair are critical for people to classify a piece of furniture as
a chair (Layng, 2019). Our task in this article is to provide
an analysis that includes all the various art forms, painting,
sculpture, theater, dance, and so on, as distinguished from
all forms of craft, in an attempt to identify some of the vari-
ables responsible for the creation of each (see, for example,
Fig. 3).

When observing a work of art, we may be amazed by the
work itself. Looking at a painting in a museum and finding

586 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

it beautiful, like the sunflower oil painting by Van Gogh in
Fig. 1, we may describe how well the creation of the paint-
ing is executed, such as the arrangement of the flowers, the
brush strokes, the color combinations, and so on. Skinner
(1969, p. 3) stated that the words “beautiful” or “amazing”
we use are synonyms for the technical word “reinforcing.”
That is, when Skinner says an audience, including the artist,
finds a work reinforcing, he is not referring to some inter-
nal satisfaction, or an aesthetic appreciation (after Mechner,
2018) though that may be reported, he is instead describing
how the arrangement of the components of the work main-
tain our looking, purchases, and so on, and for the artist,
continued engagement in the work.

But what about the artist who creates the work? What
are the consequences that maintain the creation of a work
of art? Skinner (1953) and Layng (1971) suggest that as
artists create works, they also find the evolving composi-
tion, the arrangement of the stimuli they are producing,
to be reinforcing, which maintains the creation of works
of art. Skinner (1969) notes that the artist is not simply
putting paints on a canvas but is doing so in a way that the
arrangement of the stimuli is reinforcing for the artistic
effort. As one stimulus is produced, it will occasion the
production of yet other stimuli that now in combination
with the previous one will maintain the artist’s behavior
or result in a change or restart. The arrangement of the
stimuli becomes a combination of different elements. For
example, the arrangement of stimuli can be a number of
brush strokes with particular color differences or intensi-
ties, or sizes in the painting. As long as one set of stimuli
that the artist creates in a medium produces an occasion for
further creation, it reinforces that behavior and creates the
conditions for further alteration of those stimuli. However,
if a set of stimuli the artist creates does not occasion further
creative manipulation of the medium, the artist may erase,
change, or throw away the whole work of art, and start it

over again. The artist continues to arrange the stimuli until
no further changes provide additional occasions for going
on, with the final reinforcement value of the work residing
in its “completion.” This may be made potent by prospec-
tive public display or sale of the work. As Skinner (1969, p.
6) stated, the “[Artist] puts paint on a canvas and is or is not
reinforced by the result,… he can let the picture stand, or he
can change it. And that is the major nature of his activity,”
manipulating the paint, or stimuli, on a canvas.

Others have made similar observations. In his article,
“A Behaviourist Theory of Art,” philosopher James K.
Feibleman (1963) wrote:

Beauty is the quality which emerges from the per-
fect relations of parts in a whole, it is the quality
of internal relations. The artistic method consists in
apprehending in a material object the quality of such
relations. Beauty is in readily accessible form when
the qualitative correlate of the relation of consistency
in a material object dominates the appearances of
that object. Where the quality of internal relations
is featured in a material object (as it is in a work of
art), it symbolizes a unity in which every separate
part is represented as a necessary part of the whole.
A work of art, then, is a material object made for
the quality of its internal relations. (p. 8; emphasis

Skinner (1969) and Layng (1971) suggest that these
“internal relations” come from the arrangement of the
stimuli during creation. How the artist arranges the stimuli
in the medium depends on the artist’s history of reinforce-
ment and their current contingencies. The artist’s con-
tinuous manipulation of the medium inherently provides
occasions for further arrangement, which maintains their
behavior. That is, the artist arranges the stimuli comprising
the work such that the arrangement itself maintains and
occasions the artist’s behavior. Thus, the critical attributes
of the abstract tact, “art,” are (1) the creation of a work
(2) maintained solely by the arrangement of stimuli within
that work. These define the work as art and the creator as
an artist.

The outcome created by arranging stimuli and the subse-
quent behavior it occasions are what maintains the artist’s
behavior and distinguishes it from other acts of creation. It is
this arrangement of the stimuli and its effects on the artist’s
behavior, that defines art. As Skinner (1972, p. 398) wrote:

A poem seldom makes its appearance in a completed
form. Bits and pieces occur to the poet, who rejects
or allows them to stand, and who puts them together
to compose a poem. But they come from his past his-
tory, verbal and otherwise, and he has had to learn
how to put them together.Fig. 1 Sunflower painting by Vincent Van Gogh (1887) at The Metro-

politan Museum of Art (Public domain, CC0)

587The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Potentiation of the Arranged Stimuli
as Reinforcers and Emotive Expression

Many people know the Water Lilies paintings by Claude
Monet, one of which is shown in Fig. 2, and many people
find them to be reinforcing, that is, they look at them for a
long time and are willing to pay an admission fee to see
them. Let’s examine what Monet may have done to create the
paintings. In order to draw the Water Lilies series, he created
a garden with water lilies so that he could observe them in
reality and produce and arrange stimuli on canvas to capture
what he saw. He produced and arranged the stimuli: such as
the lilies themselves, the water, the garden, the combination
of colors, and the brush strokes, which reinforced his behav-
iors during the creation of the paintings.

What makes a particular arrangement reinforcing lies
in the personal and cultural history of the artist, as well
as current environmental events, such as a loss, a sunset,
a love, and so on. The potentiating variables (Goldiamond
& Thompson, 1967/2004) that make the arrangements rein-
forcing may at times be recognized in the arrangement. The
sadness in Picasso’s The Old Guitarist is often attributed to
the suicide of a friend. How closely an arrangement matches
a particular school of art, or instructions of a teacher, or
likeness of a model all may potentiate the emerging arrange-
ments as reinforcers. Seeing the result of those arrangements
may lead observers to believe that the artist is attempting to
express an inner vision or emotion, and that it is this expres-
sion that defines the work as art. Plato (380 BCE), as early
as the fourth centry bce asserted four qualities of artistic
composition as divinely inspired and emerging from within
the artist. This view in various forms has been maintained to

this day as what philosopher Karl Popper (2002) called the
subjectivist theory of art. The approach taken here, however,
proposes that the reinforcing and any possible emotive fea-
tures of art arise not from within the artist, as feelings to be
expressed, but from the act of its creation. This is not alto-
gether different from Popper’s (2002) objectivist alternative:

According to my objectivist theory (which does not
deny self-expression but stresses its utter triviality) the
really interesting function of the composer’s emotions
is not that they are to be expressed, but that they may
be used to test the success or the fittingness or the
impact of the (objective) work: the composer may use
himself as a kind of test body, and he may modify and
rewrite his composition (as Beethoven often did) when
he is dissatisfied by his own reaction to it; or he may
even discard it altogether. (Whether or not the compo-
sition is primarily emotional, he will in this way make
use of his own reactions—his own “good taste”: it is
another application of the method of trial and error.)
(Kindle edition)

He goes on to write: “According to this objectivist theory
it is the work which is mainly responsible for the emotions
of the musician rather than the other way round.”

Likewise, contingencies, perhaps described by certain
emotions, may be responsible for initiating the art in the
first place. Such contingencies may occasion description of
art as reflective of the artist’s emotional state, but it is per-
haps better understood as a reflection of their consequential
contingencies of which their emotions are a part (cf. Layng,
2017). We contend, that once initiated, it is the developing
arrangement of stimuli as a work is being created that main-
tains the artist’s behavior and perhaps occasions collateral
emotions or emotional behavior (after Goldiamond, 1979;
Layng, 2017, 2020).

The Many Forms of Art

Next, let us explore the variable attributes of artistic crea-
tion. Art is produced in many forms. It can be painting,
poetry, stage play, photography, pottery, sculpture, sing-
ing, songwriting, clothing, and so on. This variation in the
respective media gives us a wide variety of examples of art,
but those do not enter into its definition as art––rather these
are variable attributes. Other variable attributes include the
subject, the complexity of the work, time taken to complete
or perform, its permanence, and so on. The price paid for
a work of art, if sold, may also vary from next to nothing
to millions of dollars, but the price does not define a work
as art; rather, it is another variable attribute; consider the
original sale prices, if any, of Van Gogh’s paintings.Fig. 2 Water lilies painting by Claude Monet (1906) at The Art Insti-

tute of Chicago (Public domain, CC0)

588 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Popularity as a Variable Attribute

We maintain that how the audience responds and inter-
acts with art does not define a work as art, so this is yet
another variable attribute. Not unlike the artist, in order
for the audience to call it a work of art, the arrangement
of the stimuli in the art must likewise bring the audience’s
behavior under the control of the arrangement of the stim-
uli (Layng, 1971). They may consider it art, but not art
that serves as a reinforcer. They may recognize that the
arrangement of the stimuli was reinforcing to the artist but
fails to reinforce their own continued engagement with it.
Stated otherwise, they may not find it aesthetically pleas-
ing. They may consider it poorly done art. For others, a
work may not be considered art at all. For example, an
individual viewing three different works of art may linger
for one, indicating that one reinforces viewing whereas
the others do not. Another person lingers at different one
of the three ignoring the other two. Therefore, there can
be opposing opinions of the same work. Their evaluation
does not enter into the act of creation unless the reinforc-
ing effect of the arrangement for the artist is potentiated
by audience approval while the creative act is taking place.
Hence there are painters, poets, and such who never show
their work, or whose work is never acknowledged until
after their death. Thus, the art is defined through its crea-
tion, not by its preservation. What the audience reports,
either art or not art, its popularity, does not determine
whether a work is art or not art, it instead determines its
universality (Layng, 1971). Thus, popularity is a variable
attribute of art.

Popularity and money may be beneficial for the artist,
but the artist’s reinforcement in creating art is neither the
universality nor the money, but the arrangement of the
stimuli themselves that keep them creating the art. Artists
may be commissioned, and may not finish a work if not
paid, but that is simply a monetary consequence super-
imposed upon those arising from the work itself. Young
children “doing art” are unlikely to find their art hung in a
museum, it may not be popular, however, we contend that
they are doing art if their behavior is reinforced by the
arrangement of stimuli during their creation.

Craft as a Nonexample of Art

Are there works where the arrangement of the stimuli is
reinforcing, and as “aesthetically pleasing,” yet would not
be classified as art? When we call some works crafts rather
than art, we are appreciating the arrangement, but some-
thing is different. We and craftspersons are interacting dif-
ferently with the work from the way we interact with art.

With a craft, reinforcers maintaining the creation of the
work differ somewhat from those maintaining creation of
a work of art. There is an added consequence, function or
utility. We may, for example, use the work as a container
to put something in, or to put something on. We use a cup
into which we pour coffee, use a table upon which we put
a book, wear clothes to prevent us from getting cold or to
get attention from friends, use a car and an airplane for
transportation. We will use works of craft for a functional
purpose other than simply enjoying the work itself.

Yet, the term “craft” conveys more than simply function.
Putting together a prefabricated cabinet creates utility, but
it is not considered craft. The craftsperson not only creates
function, but also provides that function in the context of an
arrangement of the stimuli found to be reinforcing. Hine-
line (2005) eloquently described how the creation of a tool
may be jointly guided by the reinforcing properties of the
arrangement of stimuli and its functional use. Both the func-
tion and the arrangement of stimuli maintain the craftsper-
son’s behavior. Thus, the critical attributes of the abstract
tact “craft” are (1) the creation of a work (2) maintained by
the arrangement of the stimuli within that work, (3) which
has utility, that is, serves a useful function, at the time of its
completion. Figure 3 summarizes the critical and variable
attributes of art and craft.

A vase, such as in Fig. 4, can be fashionable and beauti-
ful, the arrangement of the stimuli may be reinforcing, but
if the reinforcers maintaining the craftsperson’s behavior is
to create something beautiful in which to put flowers, its
function, it is a craft. The beauty or the creativeness does
not determine whether the work is art or craft, rather what
reinforces the behaviors of the creator in its creation deter-
mines art or craft. Though closely related, art and craft are
different. Feibleman (1963, p. 6) speculated that the creation
of art has its foundation in craft.

Perhaps art arose as a secondary development of physi-
cal technology. Men who made for themselves crude
tools, such as chipped stone arrowheads and clay pots,
may have seen the comparison between those well
done and those better done. The delight in the differ-
ence may have exceeded the utility of either. Hence
there may have arisen the notion of things excellent
for their own sake, that is to say for the sake of the
excellence rather than for the sake of the thing, and the
product was the first work of art: superfluous beauty
probably first produced and afterwards recognized as
a by-product of craft excellence.

This plausible paleobehavioral speculation suggests
how craft became art and later how art and craft eventually
diverged based on the arrangement of stimuli and the artistic
behavior occasioned during creation.

589The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Similar to art, craft may have many variable attributes.
Craft can vary in form or medium, subject, the complex-
ity of the work, time taken to complete or perform, price,
permanence, two perspectives of the craftsperson and the
user, and its universality.

Performance Art and Performance Craft:
A Comparison

A basketball game in Fig.  5 and a dance performance
in Fig.  6 highlight the difference in critical attributes
between art and craft that lack permanence. In both, we
are amazed by how the players or dancers interact: their
movements may awe us. But when over, nothing remains
of either. Yet even though we find the arrangement of
the stimuli of both to be reinforcing, one is craft, and
the other is art. In a basketball game, the players interact
with each other to win a game. Their grace and skill may
delight us; they not only score but do so in such a way
as to keep us highly engaged. Their interaction with one

Fig. 3 Summary of the critical
and variable attributes of art and
craft (The format is adapted
from Tiemann & Markle, 1990)

Fig. 4 Flower vase (Photo by Wenyang on Unsplash)

Fig. 5 Basketball game between the U.S. Air Force Academy and
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (Wikimedia, Public domain)

590 The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

another is not simply to win the game. “Flair” is added to
their play, a no-look behind-the-back pass is made when
a simpler forward pass would suffice, the performance
provides reinforcers for the players, and likely the audi-
ence, beyond simply scoring points, but the critical rein-
forcer (after Goldiamond, 1976) is the scoring of points.
Because basketball has both reinforcing effects during
the composition of the game and has a functional utility,
scoring points and winning the game, it is a craft. For
the audience, when the game is over, one is perhaps left
with a tendency to return to the game after either a win
or a loss. However, continued losses may see a marked
decline in attendance, demonstrating the consequences
maintaining viewing is not simply the performance of
the athletes. For a dance performance, it is simply the
arrangement of the stimuli that maintains the composer
and dancer’s behavior, thus, it is an art. And, for the
audience, perhaps there will be a tendency to attend more
dance performances.

The Distinction between Audience Tacts
and Artistic Works

Earlier, we discussed two perspectives for art and craft,
the artist or craftsperson and the audience. Those per-
spectives are variable attributes; thus, how audiences
report or interact with the works does not define whether
the works are art or craft. There are times when what
reinforces audience behavior matches what reinforces the
artist and the craftsperson’s behavior. However, there are
also times where there is a mismatch between them. The
reinforcers maintaining the audience’s or user’s behav-
iors can be dynamic. They can change over time. Also, a
person, such as a museum worker who explains the work,
can inf luence how an audience might “see” a work of

art, thus altering the reinforcing effect of the arrange-
ment of stimuli in the work. Let’s look at examples of
the two perspectives, and the match and mismatch of the

A Persian rug, a carpet woven by hand using various
materials like wools and silks, is a great example to show
the mismatch of the reinforcers maintaining the behavior
of the artist and the audience. Persian rugs are originally
created as art to display as tapestries on the wall, as seen in

Fig. 6 A dance performance (Public Domain, CC0)
Fig. 7 Persian rug hung on the wall (With a permission by Rug

Fig. 8 Persian rug used as furniture (Photo by Ryan Christodoulou on

591The Psychological Record (2021) 71:585–594

Fig. 7. As Fallahi (2017) said, “the rug often conveys the
weaver’s character or mood, much in the same way an artist
portrays their mood or views in a painting.” However, today,
we see many people put a Persian tapestry on the floor and
use it as a rug, as in Fig. 8. When the tapestry changes its
use from an object whose arrangement of stimuli maintains
the observer’s behavior to an object that serves as a walking
surface, it changes from art to craft. The rug now has util-
ity from the observer’s point of view. However, the way the
audience classifies and uses it does not mean that the rug is
no longer art from the point of view of the artist. The rug
maker made it as art.

On the other hand, a craft can shift to be classified as
art from the audience’s perspective. In the past, ancient
Chinese clothes were worn as regular clothes. Clothes
worn by the imperial family, like the dragon robe shown
in Fig. 9, might have had another purpose that suggested
their class or status. That is, they were created as a craft;
their utility was an important consequence shaping their
creation. Today, those clothes may be displayed in a
museum for people to enjoy observing the way it was
sewn, the historical patterns, the combinations of the
colors, and so on, as in Fig. 10. As time has passed, for

some audiences, the clothes shifted from craft to art; that
is, their utility as clothing became inconsequential, leav-
ing only the arrangement of stimuli to maintain audience
engagement. This shift, however, is in the classification
by the audience. The tailor, however, was making wear-
able clothes, a craft. At times the distinction may not
be so obvious. Consider this: an ancient Grecian urn,
originally crafted to hold olive oil, becomes so fragile
with the passage of time that its utility as an oil vessel is
gone, yet it maintains its original arrangement of stimuli.
It is eventually displayed in an art museum, even perhaps
occasioning poetry to be written about it. Most important,
though, with the passage of enough time how can we be
certain the craftsman/artist was actually guided by the
urn’s functionality?


In summar y, we maintain that the cr itical attr ibutes
revealed by a concept analysis of the contingencies of
reinforcement responsible for the creation of a work of
art versus that of the close-in nonexample, craft, sup-
port Skinner, Layng, Feibleman, and Popper’s conten-
tion that (1) the definition of art is to be found in its
creation. (2) It is the reinforcing effects produced by

Fig. 9 Portrait of the Kangxi Emperor in court dress (Wikimedia,
CC0 1.0