Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:39:45.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artistic misunderstandings: The emotional significance of historical learning in the arts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

Nicolas J. Bullot  and
Rolf Reber
Nicolas J. Bullot
Affiliation:
School of Creative Arts and Humanities, Casuarina Campus, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Australia. [email protected]://www.cdu.edu.au/creative-arts-humanities/staff-profiles/nicolas-bullot
Rolf Reber
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway. [email protected]://www.sv.uio.no/psi/english/people/aca/rolfreb/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Distancing-Embracing model does not have the conceptual resources to explain artistic misunderstandings and the emotional consequences of historical learning in the arts. Specifically, it suggests implausible predictions about emotional distancing caused by art schemata (e.g., misunderstandings of artistic intentions and contexts). These problems show the need for further inquiries into how historical contextualization modulates negative emotions in the arts.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e354
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, R. P. (1981) Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist 36(7):715–29. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.715.Google Scholar
Bullot, N. J. & Reber, R. (2013a) The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(2):123–37. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000489.Google Scholar
Bullot, N. J. & Reber, R. (2013b) A psycho-historical research program for the integrative science of art. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(2):163–80. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12002464.Google Scholar
Bullot, N. J., Seeley, W. P. & Davies, S. (in press) Art and science: A philosophical sketch of their historical complexity and co-dependence. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (2001) Beyond aesthetics: Philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danto, A. C. (2003) The abuse of beauty: Aesthetics and the concept of art. Open Court.Google Scholar
Davies, S. (2006) The philosophy of art. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1968) The languages of art. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, P. (2007) Ochre and rust: Artefacts and encounters on Australian frontiers. Wakefield.Google Scholar
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S. & Zeki, S. (2009b) Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. Neuroimage 44(3):1125–32. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (1984) Stories, scripts, and scenes. Aspects of schema theory. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Menninghaus, W. (2003) Disgust. Theory and history of a strong sensation, trans. Eiland, H. & Golb, J.. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Swami, V. (2013) Context matters: Investigating the impact of contextual information on aesthetic appreciation of paintings by Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 7(3):285–95. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030965.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (1995) Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception. Psychological Review 102(4):671–83.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1970) Categories of art. The Philosophical Review 79(3):334–67. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar