Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:12:41.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distancing, not embracing, the Distancing-Embracing model of art reception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

Stephen Davies
Stephen Davies*
Affiliation:
Philosophy, School of Humanities, University of Auckland, Auckland CBD 1010, New Zealand. [email protected]://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/profile/sj-davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite denials in the target article, the Distancing-Embracing model appeals to compensatory ideas in explaining the appeal of artworks that elicit negative affect. The model also appeals to the deflationary effects of psychological distancing. Having pointed to the famous rejection in the 1960s of the view that aesthetic experience involves psychological distancing, I suggest that “distance” functions here as a weak metaphor that cannot sustain the explanatory burden the theory demands of it.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e357
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

Aristotle, (1972) Poetics (revised), ed. Lucas, D. W.. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Bullough, E. (1912) ‘Psychical distance’ as a factor in art and an aesthetic principle. British Journal of Psychology 5(2):87–118. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1912.tb00057.x.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (1990a) The philosophy of horror or paradoxes of the heart. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. (1965) Aesthetic essence. In: Philosophy in America, ed. Black, M., pp. 115–33. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Davies, S. (2009) Responding emotionally to fictions. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67:269–84.Google Scholar
Dickie, G. (1964) The myth of the aesthetic attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly 1:56–65.Google Scholar
Feagin, S. L. (1983) The pleasures of tragedy. American Philosophical Quarterly 20(1):95–104.Google Scholar
Gaut, B. (1993) The paradox of horror. British Journal of Aesthetics 33:333–45.Google Scholar
Hanfling, O. (2000) Five kinds of distance. British Journal of Aesthetics 40(1):89–102. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/40.1.89.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1987) Of tragedy. In: Essays moral, political, and literary (revised), ed. Miller, E. F., pp. 1741–42. Liberty Classics.Google Scholar
Korsmeyer, C. (2011) Savoring disgust: The foul and the fair in aesthetics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, J., ed. (2013) Suffering art gladly: The paradox of negative emotion in art. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pandit, S. (1976) In defence of psychical distance. British Journal of Aesthetics 16:56–60.Google Scholar
Price, K. (1977) The truth about psychical distance. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35:411–23.Google Scholar