university press scholarship online oxfordscholarship ... · implications for the domains of...

Is Aesthetic Experience Possible?

of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: CUNYGraduate Center; date: 22 July 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

AestheticsandtheSciencesofMindGregCurrie,MatthewKieran,AaronMeskin,andJonRobson

Printpublicationdate:2014PrintISBN-13:9780199669639PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:September2014DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669639.001.0001

IsAestheticExperiencePossible?

SherriIrvin

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669639.003.0003

AbstractandKeywords

Severalcurrentviewsofaestheticexperienceandappreciationproposethattheseactivitiesinvolvesecond-orderawarenessofone’sownmentalstatesorprocesses.Psychologicalresearchoverthelastseveraldecades,ontheotherhand,raisesseriousquestionsabouttheviabilityofsecond-orderawarenessofmentalprocesses.Inthispaper,Irvinenumeratestheproblemsthatthisresearchraisesforaccountsofaestheticexperienceandappreciation,andexplorestheprospectsforsolvingtheseproblems.Sheproposesanaccountofthreerelatednotions—aestheticexperience,(mere)aestheticappreciation,anddeepaestheticappreciation—inlightoftheempiricalfindings.

Keywords:aestheticexperience,aestheticappreciation,mindfulness,introspection

Onseveralcurrentviews,aestheticappreciationorexperienceinvolvessecond-orderawarenessofone’sownmentalprocesses.MatthewKieransays,‘Whenwetrulyappreciateawork,weappreciateitspictorialcomposition,thearcofthelines,theshading,


of 23


theforeshadowing,thewaysinwhichtheartistryshapesandguidesourresponses’(Kieran2005:213;emphasisadded).GaryIsemingersuggeststhat‘[s]omeoneisappreciatingastateofaffairsjustincasesheorheisvaluingforitsownsaketheexperiencingofthatstateofaffairs’,andisthusin‘theaestheticstateofmind’(Iseminger2005:99;emphasisinoriginal).JerroldLevinsonsuggeststhatvaluinganexperienceinitself,inIseminger’ssense,mightbecashedoutas‘tak[ing]satisfactioninsuchanactivityforitsownsakewhile,atsomelevel,endorsingorapprovingdoingso’(Levinsonforthcoming;emphasisinoriginal).Thus,inLevinson’sversion,wehavetheexperiencingofastateofaffairs,thetakingofsatisfactioninthisexperiencing,andtheendorsingofone’ssatisfaction.

Levinsonultimatelyholdsthathigher-ordervaluingofone’sownexperienceisonlyonevarietyofaestheticexperience,though.Hesays,‘Aestheticexperienceisexperienceinvolvingaestheticperceptionofsomeobject,groundedinaestheticattentiontotheobject,andinwhichthereisapositivehedonic,affectiveorevaluativeresponsetotheperceptionitselforthecontentofthatperception’(Levinsonforthcoming;emphasisinoriginal).Sinceapositiveresponsetothecontentoftheperceptionissufficient,second-orderawarenessisnotrequiredforallformsofaestheticexperience.NoëlCarroll,likeLevinson,incorporatessecond-orderawarenessintohisaccountofaestheticexperience,butwithoutmakingitarequirement:‘attentionwithunderstanding...tothewaysinwhich[thework’sformalandaestheticproperties]engageoursensibilitiesandimagination’isonevarietyofaestheticexperience,butsimplyattendingtothoseformalandaestheticpropertiesthemselves,withoutanysecond-orderawareness,isanother(Carroll2002:167).

Butwhatifitturnsoutthatwedon’thaveintrospectiveaccesstotheprocessesbywhichouraestheticresponsesareproduced?Whatifweare,infact,verypoorjudges(p.38)ofhowtheartistryofawork‘shapesandguidesourresponses’,asKieranputsit?1Thereisgoodreasontothinkthatweare,infact,poorjudgesofsuchthings.Inafamouspaper,NisbettandWilson(1977)surveyedresultssuggestingthatweareignorantofmajorswathesofwhathappensinourmindsandwhy,thoughwenonethelessmakeconfidentclaimsaboutthesematters.Weareunawareofcrucialfactorsthatenableustosolveproblems,thatcauseustopreferoneitemtoanother,andthatsignificantlyinfluenceourmajorlifedecisions.AsNisbettandWilsonsumthingsup,‘Subjectivereportsabouthighermentalprocessesaresometimescorrect,buteventheinstancesofcorrectreportarenotduetodirectintrospectiveawareness.Instead,theyareduetotheincidentallycorrectemploymentofaprioricausaltheories’(p.233).Thoughwebelievethatweareconsultingourintrospectivememorieswhenweexplainourjudgements,decisions,oractions,weareinfactconstructingposthocrationalizations.

NisbettandWilson’spapertriggeredmanysubsequentstudieswithtroublingimplicationsforthedomainsofaestheticexperienceandjudgement.2IwilldescribewhatItaketobetheproblemsrevealedbythesestudiesandconsidertheimplicationsoftheseproblemsforourunderstandingofaestheticexperienceandappreciation.

2.1TheBadNews,andaLittleGoodNews


of 23


Herearetheproblems,asIseethem.First,irrelevance:subjects’aestheticorproto-aestheticpreferencesarestronglyaffectedbyconditionsthatareaestheticallyirrelevant.So,forinstance,Cutting(2003)wasabletoalterhissubjects’preferencesamongImpressionistpaintingssimplybymanipulatinghowfrequentlyvariouspaintingsappearedintheirenvironments.3Evenmorestrikingly,whenNisbettandWilson(1977)askedsubjectsinadiscountstoretoratethequalityoffourpairsofstockingsthatwereinfactidentical,spatialpositionhadalargeeffectonrankings:12percentofsubjectspreferredthestockingsontheleft,17percentthosesecondfromtheleft,31percentthosesecondfromtheright,and40percentthoseontheright.Similareffectswereseenfornightgowns.4Position,obviously,isirrelevantasareasontopreferonepairofstockingsoronenightgowntoanother.Finally,Yamada(2009)suggeststhatareversalofpreferencecanbeachievedbyaskingsubjectsdifferentquestionsaboutthestimuli.Subjectswereaskedtocompareanabstractandarepresentationalpainting.Whenaskedtoverbalizetheirreasonsforlikingthepaintings,theypreferred(p.39) therepresentationalpainting.Whenaskedtoverbalizetheirreasonsfordislikingthepaintings,theypreferredtheabstractpainting.Whichquestiononeisasked,however,isirrelevantasareasonforpreferringonetotheother.

Thesubject’sowncharacteristics,too,canbeasourceofirrelevanceeffects.Right-handedsubjectsjudgethatpaintingswithvisualinterestontherightare‘moreaestheticallypleasing’,whileleft-handedsubjectsprefervisualinteresttotheleft(McLaughlinetal.1983:149).One’shandednessisclearlyirrelevanttothevalueofartworksonemaybejudging.

Thesecondproblemiscoarse-grainedness.Aestheticallyrelevantaspectsofaworkfailtohavetheexpectedeffectsonpeople’sjudgements.NisbettandWilson(1977)gavesubjectsaselectionfromJohnUpdike’snovelRabbit,Run.Somesubjectsreadtheentireselection,whileothersreadversionsthathadvarioussignificantpassagesdeleted.However,subjectsinallconditionsratedtheselectionashavingthesamedegreeofemotionalimpact.Thissuggeststhatthesubjects’responsetotheworkwasnotresponsivetospecificdetailsinthewaythatartistspresumablyhopewhentheycarefullyrefinetheirworks.5

Studiesofthevisualperceptionofpaintings,too,supporttheideathatmuchaestheticjudgementiscoarse-grained.Locheretal.(2007)foundthatratingsmadeafter100millisecondexposurestopaintingsarehighlycorrelatedwithratingsmadeafterunlimitedexposure.Eyemovementanalysisshowedthatinitialreactionsduringunlimitedexposurewerebasedonexplorationofonly27percentofthework.Moreover,intheentiretyoftheunlimitedexposurephase‘approximately54%ofthepictorialfieldswerenotdirectlyfixatedordidnotreceivesustainedfixation’(p.75).Subjectsneglectedlargeportionsoftheartwork,andtheirratingswerebasedprimarilyondetailscursorilytakeninduringveryearlyphasesofexposure,andnotsubstantiallyupdatedafterfullerstudy.

Thethirdproblemisignorance.Subjectstendnottoknowwhetheraparticularconditionhasaffectedtheirjudgement.SubjectsintheRabbit,Runstudybelieved,incorrectly,thatthepassagesthatweredeletedinsomeconditionsinfluenced,orwouldhave


of 23


influenced,theirjudgementsofemotionalimpact.SubjectsinanotherstudybyNisbettandWilsonmistakenlybelievedthattheirjudgementsofadocumentaryhadbeenalteredbyadistractingnoiseoutsidethetheatre,butinfact,theirratingswerethesameasthoseofsubjectswhosawthedocumentarywithoutthenoise.Subjectsinthestockingstudywereunawarethatthepositionofthestockingshadaffectedtheirjudgements;indeed,theywereincredulousatthesuggestion.6Insomestudies,theignoranceextendsevenmoredeeply:subjectswhoareinducedtochangetheir(p.40) evaluationofsomethingoftenfailtorecognizenotonlywhathasbeenresponsibleforthechange,buteventhatthechangehashappenedatall:theyincorrectlyrecallhavingheldtheircurrentevaluationallalong.7Subjectsarealsoignorantofthefactorsthatinfluenceproblemsolving:inaclassicexperiment(Maier1931),subjectshadtofindmultiplesolutionstoaproblem,andoneofthemoredifficultsolutionsinvolvedswingingacord.Veryfewsubjectsfoundthissolutionbeforeanexperimenter‘casuallyputoneofthecordsinmotion’(NisbettandWilson1977:241),butnearlyeveryonefounditwithinforty-fivesecondsthereafter.Two-thirdsofsubjectswerecompletelyunawarethatthecuehadhelpedthemsolvetheproblem.Evenondirectquestioningsubjectsaresometimesadamantthattheywerenotinfluencedbyafactorthat,statistically,clearlyhadastrongeffectonmost.8

Thefourthproblemisconfabulation.Peopleareunawarethattheylackgoodintrospectiveaccesstothefactorsthatinfluencetheirjudgements,andtheyprovideconfabulated‘explanations’oftheirchoices.Inthestockingstudy,subjectsattributedtheirratingstodifferencesinthe‘knit,weave,sheerness,elasticity,orworkmanshipofthestockings’,thoughthestockingswereinfactidenticalintheserespects.NisbettandWilson(1977,esp.p.241)reportthatsuchspuriousexplanationsarecommon.Subjectsapparentlyrelyontheoriesaboutwhichfactorsarerelevanttojudgementinfabricatingsuchexplanations.

Thefifthproblemisexplanation-inducedinstability.Whensubjectstrytoreportonthementalprocessesthathaveinfluencedtheirjudgements,thischangeswhattheyreportpreferring:asubjectaskedtoexplainherpreferenceislikelytosaythatshelikesacomicalposterbetterthanaposterofanImpressionistpainting,butsubjectsnotaskedtoexplaintendtoholdtheoppositepreference(Wilsonetal.1993).Johanssonetal.(2005)askedsubjectstoreporttheirpreferencebetweentwofaces,XandY.SomesubjectswhoreportedpreferringXwouldlaterbeaskedtoexplainwhythey(allegedly)preferredY.Forthesubjecteventonoticethatshewasbeingaskedtoexplainapreferencethatshedidnotholdwasrare;andherexplanationwouldofteninvokefeaturesofYthatwerenotalsopossessedbyX,showingthatshewasnotreportingonanintrospectiveprocessthatgeneratedtheinitialpreference.Moreover,afterbeingaskedto‘explain’her‘preference’forY,thesubjecttypicallywouldexpressapreferenceforYifsubsequentlyaskedtocompareXandYagain(HallandJohansson2008).Thestudydescribedabove,inwhichpreferencesshifteddependingonwhethersubjectswereaskedtodescribewhattheylikedordislikedaboutpaintings,suggeststhatsubjectsrelyontheeasiestfactorstoverbalize:positiveandnegativereasonsareeasier(p.41) toarticulateinrelationtofigurativepaintingsthaninrelationtoabstractpaintings


of 23


(Yamada2009).

Thesixthproblemisexplanation-induceddeterioration.Whenpreferenceschangeasaresultofexplanation,theyarelowerinqualityfromtwoperspectives.First,thepreferencesarelesslikelytomatchthoseofexperts.9Second,subjectsarelesslikelytobesatisfiedbytheirchoices.Subjectswhochosethecomicalposterwerelesslikelytohavehungit,reportedlikingitless,andwerewillingtosellitforalowerprice(Wilsonetal.1993).

Therearetwoshredsofslightlybetternews.Thefirstiscorrectexplanation.Peoplefrequentlyoffercorrectexplanationsoftheirchoices.Theexperimentsinwhichpeopleofferedfalse‘explanations’weredesignedtoexploitdiscrepanciesbetweensubjects’choiceprocessesandtheexplanationstheywerelikelytooffer.Peoplearen’tusuallyaskedtoperformabsurdtaskslikerankingthequalityofidenticalstockings.Inareal-worldchoicesituation,actualdifferencesinknit,weave,sheerness,andelasticitypresumablywouldaffectsubjects’rankings,andtheywouldnotbeforcedtoinventastoryaboutthesefeatures.

However,thecomfortweshouldtakefromthisislimited.First,manycorrectexplanationsseemtobeproducedthroughtheorizingratherthanintrospection,butsubjectsnonethelessbelievetheyareofferingintrospectivereports.Confabulationremainsanissue.Second,ifpositioneffectsaresostrongintheabsurdchoicesituation,theyarepresumablyalsopresent,thoughperhapslesspronounced,inordinarysituations.Irrelevanceandignorancethusremaininplay:subjects’responsesaredriveninpartbyirrelevantfactorsofwhichtheyareunaware.

Thesecondshredofslightlybetternews,callitdifferentialsusceptibility,isthatsomepeople,particularlyexpertsinadomain,arelesssusceptibletosomeoftheseeffects.10Theresultsofthestudiesareconsistentwiththeexistenceofasubgroupofpeoplewhoarebetteratfilteringoutaestheticallyirrelevantinformationand/orrecognizingwhathastrulyaffectedtheirchoices.11Thestudiesleaveopenthepossibilityofaminoritywithsignificantintrospectiveaccesstotheirchoices.AthirdofthesubjectsinMaier’s(1931)problem-solvingstudyinvolvingtheswingingcordreported,correctly,thattheexperimenter’sbumpingtheropehadhelpedthemsolvetheproblem.12Flemingetal.(p.42) (2010)suggestthatthereareindividualdifferencesinintrospectiveawarenessofmentalprocesses,andthatthesecorrespondtodifferencesinbrainstructure.13

Tosumup,herearetheproblemsandbitsofslightlybetternews.

Thebadnews:

1.Irrelevance:aestheticresponsesaredeterminedinpartbyaestheticallyirrelevantconditions.2.Coarse-grainedness:aestheticresponsesareexcessivelycoarse-grained,failingtotakeintoaccountaestheticallyrelevantaspectsofthework.3.Ignorance:wedon’tknowwhatcausesouraestheticresponses.


of 23


4.Confabulation:wedon’tknowthatwedon’tknowwhatcausesouraestheticresponses,andweofferconfabulated‘explanations’.5.Explanation-inducedinstability:whenwetrytoofferexplanations,thischangesourpreferences.6.Explanation-induceddeterioration:preferencesformedafterexplanationarelowerinquality.

Theslightlybetternews:

1.Correctexplanation:peopleoftenexplaintheirchoicescorrectly,thoughmostlythroughtheorizingratherthanintrospection.Thisgoodnewshaslimitedabilitytomitigatethebadnews,sincesubjectsstillbelievetheyareintrospecting.2.Differentialsusceptibility:thereseemtobesubgroupsofpeoplewhoarelesssusceptibletosomeoftheproblems,andtheymayhavegreaterintrospectiveaccesstotheirmentalprocesses.

2.2WhyTheseAreProblemsforAestheticsInthestudiesdiscussedabove,subjectswereaskedtoreportonlikingordislikingofanartworkorotherobject,toexpressapreferencebetweenobjects,tomakechoicesaboutwhethertoacquireorkeepanobject,ortomakejudgementsofqualityregardingnon-artobjects.Howaresuchmeasuresrelatedtoaestheticexperienceandappreciation?

Liking,preference,andchoicemightcomeapartfromaestheticjudgementinparticularcases.Inonethelessregardthesemeasuresasatleastproto-aesthetic,intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary.First,thereissurelyanintimaterelationshipbetweenanexperienceofaestheticvalueandanexperienceofliking,pleasure,orpreference,evenifthecorrelationisnotperfect.Traditionalaccountsofaestheticvalue(p.43) haveoftendefineditintermsoftheproductionofpleasurablestates(e.g.Bell1914;Hume1757/1985).

Second,considerthespecifictasksthesubjectsperformed.Theywereaskedto‘lookateachpairandjudgewhichimagetheylikedbest’(Cutting2003:328);‘choosethepiecetheyliked[ordisliked]themost’(Yamada2009:1141);‘choosethememberofeachpairtheyfoundmoreaestheticallypleasing’(McLaughlinetal.1983:149);rate‘thepleasingnessof’eachimage(Locheretal.2007:63);rate‘howmuchtheylikedeachposter’and‘choosewhicheverone[theyliked]thebest’(Wilsonetal.1993:333and334);‘choos[e]whichfaceineachpairtheyfoundmostattractive’(HallandJohansson2008:269);say‘whatemotionalimpact[aliterarypassage]hadhad’(NisbettandWilson1977:245);andjudgeadocumentarywithregardto‘howinterestingtheythoughtitwas,howmuchtheythoughtotherpeoplewouldbeaffectedbyit,andhowsympathetictheyfoundthemaincharactertobe’(NisbettandWilson1977:245).Mostofthesetasksinvitesubjectstofocusdirectlyontheirexperientialencounterwiththeobject,whichisofinterestinrelationtotheoriesofaestheticexperienceandappreciation.How‘aestheticallypleasing’animageis,how‘attractive’afaceis,the‘emotionalimpact’ofaliterarypassage,and‘howinteresting’adocumentaryisallseemdirectlyrelevantto


of 23


aestheticassessment.Itistruethatjudgementsofhowmuchanimageisliked,orhowpleasingitis,couldcomeapartfromaestheticassessment:asubjectmightprefer,orfindmorepleasing,alandscapesheregardsasaestheticallymediocreincomparisontoanaestheticallysuperiorpaintingofarottingcarcass.ButCutting’s(2003)subjects,forinstance,werecomparingpairsofImpressionistpaintingswithsimilartechniquesandsubjectmatters,sothereisnoreasontothinkthatthefactorsthatwouldseparatelikingfromaestheticassessmentwereinplay.

SomeofNisbettandWilson’s(1977)subjectswereaskedto‘saywhicharticleofclothingwasthebestquality’(p.243).Intuitively,judgementsofqualityingarmentslikestockingsandnightgownsarenotaestheticjudgements:theyinvolvecriteriarelatedtobothappearanceanddurability.Butthereisnoobviousreasonaestheticjudgementswouldbeimmunetopositioneffectstowhichjudgementsofqualitysuccumb.

Insum,preferenceandlikingaresurelycorrelatedwith,evenifnotidenticalto,aestheticassessment.Intheabsenceofreasonstoexpectsystematicreversalsofthisrelationship,itisreasonabletoexpectthatfactorsinfluencingpreferenceandlikingwillinfluencerelatedaestheticphenomena.

Howdotheproblemsoutlinedabovecausetroubleforaccountsofaestheticappreciationandexperience?Onviewsrequiringthatartworksbecorrectlyapprehended,itseemsthatanyoneafflictedbyirrelevance,andpossiblyalsocoarse-grainedness,couldnotbeappreciatingaworkaesthetically.Incasesofirrelevance,itseemstheobjectisperceivedthroughafogofirrelevantconditionsthatcauseviewerstomisapprehendit.Identicalstockings,seenthroughthehazeofthepositioneffect,seemtodifferinweave,elasticity,andsheerness.Coarse-grainedness,ontheotherhand,neednotinvolvefalsebeliefsabouttheobject:itisnotfalsetodescribeseveraldifferentshades(p.44) as‘red’,orseveraldifferentemotionaltimbresas‘sad’.Butitdoessuggestafailuretoapprehendtheobjectfullyenoughforaestheticappreciation.

Carroll’saccountmayimplythatsubjectssusceptibletoirrelevancearenothavingaestheticexperiencesatall,evenwheresecond-orderawarenessisnotinplay.Carroll’saccountrequires‘attentionwithunderstandingtothework’sformalandaestheticpropertiesand[/or]theirinteractionwitheachotherand[/or]tothewaysinwhichtheyengageoursensibilitiesandimagination’.Subjectsinthegripofirrelevanceareattendingwithout(much)understanding.Coarse-grainedness,too,involvesatroublinglylimiteddegreeofunderstanding,thoughperhapsnotenoughtodisqualifysubjectscompletely.Appreciation,ortheaestheticstateofmind,seemstobecompromisedbytheseproblemsonIseminger’saccountaswell.Hesaysthat‘theaestheticstateofmind...isthestateofmindinwhich,whiletracking[formalandexpressive]features(amongothers...),onefindsthistrackingvaluableforitsownsake’.14Butsubjectsinthegripofcoarse-grainednessand,especially,irrelevancearenotinfacttrackingthesefeatures,thoughtheymayfalselybelievethattheyare.Similarly,onLevinson’sviewthat‘[a]estheticexperienceisexperienceinvolvingaestheticperceptionofsomeobject,groundedinaestheticattentiontotheobject’,itisunclearwhetherirrelevanceandcoarse-grainednessareconsistentwithaestheticexperienceatall,sincetheyseemtoindicate


of 23


thataestheticattentiontotheobjectisseriouslycompromisedorabsent.

Kieran’saccountdoesnotappeartotreatcoarse-grainednessasdisqualifyingsubjectsfromaestheticappreciation.However,thefactthatweareignorantoftheprocessesthatcauseouraestheticresponsesseemstobedisqualifyingonthisaccount.Ignoranceseemstoruleoutthepossibilitythatwecouldappreciate‘thewaysinwhichtheartistryshapesandguidesourresponses’,asKieranrequires.Incorrespondence,Kieranhassuggestedaweakerreadingofhisrequirement,onwhichbeingawarethatone’sresponsesarebeingshapedbythework,evenifonedoesnotknowhow,mightbeenough.Onthisreading,ignorancealonewouldnotthreatenaestheticexperience,butthecombinationofignoranceandirrelevancewould.Forirrelevanceraisestheprospectthatsome(aspects)ofourresponsesmaynotbecausedbytheworkatall,butratherbyconditionssuchasthewayitispositionedinthemuseum.Incombinationwithignorance,irrelevancemaypreventusfromdistinguishingtheartistry’scontributiontoourresponsesfromthecontributionofotherfactors,asevenKieran’sweakerconditionseemstorequire.

Ignorancealsocallsintoquestiontheextenttowhichwecouldbevaluingourexperiencingofastateofaffairs,asIsemingerrequires:fortheconnectionbetweenthestateofaffairsandourexperiencingisunclear.

Thetendencytoconfabulatewhenweattempttoexplainourresponsesmaynotaddmuch,otherthanembarrassment,tothedifficultiesdescribedabove.Explanation-inducedinstabilityanddeteriorationdoaddsomething,though:theysuggestthatthe(p.45) problemswillnotbeeasytosolve,andattemptstosolvethemmaybeharmful.Anobviouswaytoaddressirrelevance,coarse-grainedness,andignoranceistotrytopaycloserattentiontowhatis,infact,goingoninourminds.Butexplanation-inducedinstabilityanddeteriorationsuggestthatwhenwetrytoreportonourmentalprocesses,thisalterstheircourseandcausesdeteriorationintheoutcomes,underminingsatisfaction.

2.3AestheticExperience,AestheticAppreciation,andDeepAestheticAppreciationBeforeconsideringfurtherimplicationsofproblemswithsecond-orderawareness,I’dliketointroducesomemethodologicalconstraints.Thefirstisthatonanyacceptableaccount,itmustturnoutthataestheticexperienceandappreciationarepossible.Theanswertothequestionposedinmytitle,then,isyes.Aestheticexperienceandappreciationareimportantdimensionsofhumanlife.Ifanaccountofaestheticexperienceorappreciationpicksoutphenomenathatturnoutnottobeempiricallyviable,weshouldconcludethatithaspickedoutthewrongthings.Weshouldbewaryofaccountsofaestheticexperienceandappreciationdevelopedwithoutconsultingrelevantempiricalevidence.15

Further,aestheticexperienceandappreciationshouldnotturnouttoberare,exaltedstatesaccessibleonlytoartexpertsorthepreternaturallygifted.Ordinarypeoplehaveaestheticexperiencesonafairlyregularbasis.Theseincludeadmiringagardeninfull


of 23


bloom,havingone’sbreathtakenawaybythebeautyofone’ssleepingchild,andlisteningwithenjoymenttomusicontheradio.Whenpeopleattendto,respondto,andtakepleasureintheformandcontentofmusicastheylisten,singalong,anddance,theyarerespondingaesthetically,eveniftheylackasophisticatedcapacitytodescribetheelementsofthemusic,ortoexplainorjustifythecomponentsoftheirresponses.16Similarly,ordinarypeoplecanappreciatemanykindsofartworks,rangingfrompopularmusictopaintingsinmuseums.Someworksmaybesocomplexordifficultthatonlyafewpeoplecanappreciatethem,butsuchworksaretheexception.

Wecanstilldistinguisheverydayresponsesfrommoresophisticatedaestheticengagementwithartworks.Indeed,therearetwodistinctionsitwillbehelpfultomake.Thefirstisbetweenaestheticexperienceandaestheticappreciation.Inmyview,aestheticappreciationisfocusedonitsobject:itisappreciationofthatobject,andassuchtheobjectmustbelargelycorrectlyapprehended.Itisdesirable,however,tohaveamorepermissiveaccountofaestheticexperience,suchthatonecanhaveanaestheticexperiencecausedbyanobjectthatisseriouslymisunderstood,orevenimagined(as(p.46) inthecaseofhallucinations).17Anaestheticexperienceofanartworkmayturnouttobesufficientforaestheticappreciationofthatartwork,aslongastheexperiencehasinvolvedasufficientlyaccurategraspoftheartwork.18Anaestheticexperiencethatistriggeredbyanartwork,butinwhichtheartworkhasbeenseriouslymisunderstood,willnotcountasaestheticappreciationofthework.Therelationofaestheticexperiencetoaestheticappreciationcanbeconstruedinasimilarwayfornon-artworks.

Aseconddistinctionisbetweenmereappreciationofanartworkanddeepappreciation.Deepappreciation,whichcomesindegrees,isappreciationthatdemonstratesagraspofsuchthingsasartistictechnique,art-historicalrelations,theartist’sachievementinmakingthework,andthemannerinwhichtheartworkevokescognitive,perceptual,andemotionalresponses.Deepappreciationtypicallyinvolvestheabilitytoofferdetaileddescriptionsoftheartworkandtheachievementitmanifests.Deepappreciation,then,requiressignificantbackgroundknowledgeandpreparednesswhichmaybeabsentinordinaryappreciation.

Ihaveclaimedthat,onanacceptableaccountofaestheticappreciation,itshouldturnoutthatmostpeoplearecapableofappreciatingartworks.Thisconstraintdoesnotapplytoaccountsofdeepappreciation:itmayturnoutthatsome,ormany,peoplehaveneverhadexperiencesofdeepappreciation.Itisnotelitisttoacknowledgethatwhenapersonhasmadeaspecialefforttodevelopcompetencewithrespecttoagivenartform,beitpaintingorhiphop,shewillbeabletoappreciatetheworkmorefullybyvirtueofherbettergraspoftheworkitselfandtheart-historicalrelationsinwhichitstands.NorwouldIautomaticallyruleoutaccountsonwhichthedeepestformsofappreciationrequireacapacitythatisrareorevenabsentinhumans.Perhapsaninabilitytoappreciatearttotheveryfullestextentisamonghumans’manylimitations.

Howdoesintrospectiveawarenessfigureinaestheticexperience,aestheticappreciation,anddeepaestheticappreciation,respectively?IntrospectiveawarenessofthekindcalledintoquestionbyNisbettandWilson(1977)andtheirsuccessorsisunnecessaryfor


of 23


aestheticexperience.Someawarenessofone’sownperceptionisnecessaryforaestheticexperience—onecannothaveanaestheticexperienceofperceptualinformationthatoneisunawareoftakinginandprocessing(aswhenoneisdrivingalongdistanceand‘zonesout’forawhile)(Irvin2008a).However,theabilitytoobserveone’sownmentalprocessandunderstandpreciselywhyonefeelsmovedbyapieceofmusicoranaturalenvironment,orwhichaspectsoftheobjectareresponsibleforone’sfeeling,shouldnotberequired.(Second-orderawarenessmaynonethelessbeimplicatedinsomeformsofaestheticexperience,asCarrollandLevinsonsuggest.)

(p.47) Whataboutordinaryaestheticappreciation?Doesitrequireintrospectiveawarenessofmentalprocesses?No.Aestheticappreciationofanartworkrequiresasufficientlyaccurategraspofthework,andsomeoftheproblemsidentifiedabovewouldthreatenthis:whenapositioneffectinfluencesone’sperception,leadingonetothinkthattwo(virtually)identicalobjectsdifferinspecificqualities,one’sgraspof(atleastoneof)themissignificantlycompromised.Forordinaryappreciation,though,itissufficienttohaveareasonablegraspoftheobjectitselfwithouthavinginsightintowhatitisabouttheobjectthatcausesonetoenjoyitortoevinceaparticularresponsetoit.AspectsofthemusicalstructureofanR&BsongmaycausemetomakecertainchoicesinhowIdance,ortofeelespeciallymoved,butIcanappreciatethemusicaestheticallywithoutunderstandinghowtheseeffectsareachievedorwhichelementsofthemusicareresponsible.

Deepaestheticappreciationinvolvesunderstandingofhowtheartworkachievesitseffects,andthussignificantinsightintomentalprocesses.Whenwelearnhowparticularemotionaleffectsinfilmareachievedthroughsubtletechniqueswehadnotpreviouslynoticed,thisincreasesthedepthofourappreciation.

Istherequiredinsightintomentalprocessesfeasible,giventheempiricalresults?Thestudiestypicallyposeadirectchallengeonlytointrospectivememory,nottoreal-timeintrospectiveawareness,sincetheyasksubjectstomakereportsafterthefact.Butthisisnotespeciallycomforting;itseemsunlikelythatsubjectswhofailedtoreporttheroleofthehintinhelpingtosolvethecord-swingingproblemwere,infact,awareoftheroleofthehintwhentheycameupwiththesolution,butthenforgot.Similarly,itseemsunlikelythatsubjectsknewthatapositioneffectinfluencedtheminchoosingthestockingsontheright,butthenforgotthiswhenaskedtoexplaintheirchoices.19

Thestudiesshowthatweoftenlackintrospectiveawarenessofthewaythemindbringstogetheravarietyofconsiderationstocomeupwithachoiceorevaluation.Thisdoesnotimplythatwehavenointrospectiveawarenessatall.Thebiggestthreatistointrospectiveawarenessofprocesses,notofstates.Thestudiesdon’tsuggestthatIcan’trecognizethatIamhungry,thatIamsad,thatIamsmellingcinnamon,orthatIamhavinganoccurrentthoughtaboutbicycles.WhatismosttroublingisthatImayweavemyawarenessofsuchstatesintoataleaboutmyevaluationofanobjectandbelievethatthistaleactuallyexplainstheevaluation,wheninfactitsimplymasksunconsciousprocessingthatmaynothaveappealedtothesamefactorsmentionedinthetale.


of 23


Thestudiesalsosuggestthatintrospectiveknowledgeormemoryofparticularstatesisoftenabsentormisleading.Thefeeloftwo(moreorless)identicalpairsofstockingsagainstmyfingers,ortheirappearancewhenhelduptothelight,issurelyquitesimilar.20Itappearsthatsubjectsmisapprehendormisremembertheirownstatesofperceptualconsciousnesswhentheyexplaintheirevaluations.

(p.48) Wethushavetwoproblems:lackofintrospectiveawarenessofmentalprocesses,andmisleadingintrospectiveaccesstoormemoryofmentalstates.Iproposethatwetackletheseproblemsseparately.

2.4IntrospectiveAwarenessofPerceptualStatesWhenpeopleattempttogiveverbalexplanationsfortheirpreferences,thiscausesthequalityofthosepreferencestodeteriorate.Butanotheravenuemaybemorepromising:learningtopaycloserattentiontooccurrentperceptualstates.Notoriously,wefilterhugeamountsofincomingperceptualdataoutofexplicitconsciousness,evenwhenwearebehaviourallyrespondingtosomeofit.Butitispossibletobringintoawarenessstatesthatwehavepreviouslyglossedover.21AnumberofBuddhist-derivedmeditationpracticesaredevotedtobringingmoreofourexperientialstatesintoexplicitconsciousnesswhilesuspendingtheevaluativemechanismsthattendtodistortourawareness.Theaimofmindfulnessmeditationistomaintainnon-judgementalawarenessofallaspectsofone’sexperience,includingperceptions,bodilysensations,thoughts,andfeelings.Long-standingclaimsbymeditatorsaboutimprovementsintheirperceptualacuity,attention,andcognitiveprocessinghavebeenincreasinglyvalidatedthroughempiricalresearch,thoughfurtherinvestigationisneeded.22

Mindfulnesstechniquesimproveabilitytodetectstimuliandaccuratelyidentifytheirproperties.Theyreduceattentionalblink,ortheperiodoftimeafterstimulusdetectionbeforeasimilarstimuluscanbedetectedagain(Brownetal.1984a,1984b;Mayetal.2011;Slagteretal.2007,2009),improvethespeedofencodingofvisualinformation,thusallowingsubjectstodetectstimuliofshorterduration(Brownetal.1984a,1984b;Jensenetal.2012),andimprovereactiontimestoauditorystimuli(Lutzetal.2009).Theyimprovecriticalflickerfusionfrequency,ameasureofvisualacuityreflectingone’sabilitytodetectthatafigureisflickeringratherthansteady(ManjunathandTelles1999;RaghurajandTelles2002;Tellesetal.1995,2007;seeCahnandPolich2006fordiscussion.Theyalsoreducesusceptibilitytoopticalillusion(Tellesetal.1997,2007).

Onattention-relatedtasks,mindfulnesstechniquesimproveperformance,shortenresponsetimes,andreduceerrorrates(Jensenetal.2012;Jhaetal.2007;Semple2010;vandenHurketal.2010).Theyalsoimproveworkingmemory(Jensenetal.2012)andexecutivefunction,whichreferstocognitiveprocessesthatgovernothercognitiveprocesses,suchastheswitchingofattentionfromonetasktoanother(Zeidanetal.2010).

Someofthemostpromisingresultsarefromsportpsychology.Moore(2009)andGardnerandMoore(2012)reviewfindingsthatathletestrainedinmindfulnessimproveonmeasuresofattentionaswellasperformance.Manystudiesfoundimprovementsin


of 23


(p.49) performance,operationalizedascoachratingsofperformance(GardnerandMoore2007),objectiveperformanceontrainingequipment(FernándezGarcíaetal.2004),andnationalrankings(Bernieretal.2009).Otherstudiessuggestmechanismsofperformanceimprovement:Hasker(2010)foundimprovementsin‘abilitytodescribeandtobenon-reactivetowards...internalexperiences’and‘increasedexperientialacceptance’,whichisrelatedtoareductioninavoidanceofnegativeexperiences(p.iv);Thompsonetal.(2011)foundimprovedabilitytoactwithawarenessandreducedtask-relatedworriesandtask-irrelevantcognitions.Finally,inanalysisofastudyunrelatedtosportsperformance,Kassetal.(2011)suggest,‘Mindfulnesstrainingmaygreatlyimpactactualdrivingperformanceovertimebyimprovingdrivers’awarenessoftheirenvironmentandenablingthemtoblockoutdistractionsandtoquicklyidentifyhazards’(p.236).

Howaretheseresultsrelevantforourpurposes?Mindfulnesstrainingenhancesperceptualacuityandspeedsprocessing,makingitmorelikelythatpeoplewillaccuratelydetectthefeaturesofanobject.Itincreasesawarenessofone’sinnerexperiencesandimprovesworkingmemory.Alloftheseeffectshavepromiseforcombattingcoarse-grainedness:ifoneisbetterabletodetectthefeaturesoftheobjectandone’sownperceptualexperiences,andbetterabletoholdthisinformationinmind,oneismorelikelytoberesponsivetotherelevantfeaturesoftheobject.Mindfulnesstrainingalsoimprovesexecutivefunction,reducingtheattentionpaidtodistractionsandenhancingfocusonrelevantinformation.Thishasclearpromiseforcombattingtheproblemofirrelevance.Moreover,theseimprovementsinacuityandattentionhavepay-offsforathleticperformance,whichfurthersupportstheideathatmindfulnesstrainingenablessubjectstodetectandmaintainfocusonrelevantratherthanirrelevantaspectsoftheirinnerandouterexperience.

Obviously,theseresultsaresuggestiveratherthandecisivewhenitcomestoaestheticjudgement.Tomyknowledge,nostudieshavemeasuredwhethermindfulnesstrainingenhancesone’sabilitytonoticeandrespondtotheaestheticallyrelevantfeaturesofapoemorpainting.Butthemountingevidenceinotherdomainsinvitesthehypothesisthatthecognitive,perceptual,andattentionaleffectsofmindfulnesstrainingwouldenhanceaestheticjudgement.Assumingthatourperceptualstatesthemselvesarenotmassivelymisleadingasindicatorsoftheentitiesbeingperceived—andnothingintheresearchcallingintrospectionintoquestionsuggeststhattheyare—perceptualmindfulnessseemstobetherightsortofthingtoallowustoappreciateartworksinthewaythatCarrollrequires,byattendingwithunderstandingtotheirformalfeatures,andtobeintheaestheticstateofmindasIsemingerrequires,bytrackingthework’sformalandaestheticfeaturesandvaluingtheveryexperienceofthustrackingthem.

2.5DeepAestheticAppreciationandAwarenessofMentalProcessesMindfulnesstrainingmightallowustodevelopgreaterawarenessofouroccurrentthoughtsandemotionalstatesaswellasperceptualstates,andthiswouldhavethe(p.50) potentialtoinformusabouttheinterrelations,inourownminds,ofelementsofperception,cognition,andemotion.Butwillthisbesufficientforviewsthatseemto


of 23


requireawarenessofourmentalprocesses?Evenifwecandevelopgreaterawarenessofouroccurrentperceptual,cognitive,andemotionalstates,itappearsthatwithoutaccesstounderlyingprocessesortheabilitytoruncontrolledexperimentsonourselves,anysuchinformationwemightobtainwillbeonlycorrelational,notcausal.Andsomeoftheaccountswehaveconsideredseemtorequireinformationabouthowourresponsesarecaused.Onevarietyofaestheticexperience,onCarroll’saccount,isattentionwithunderstanding‘tothewaysinwhich[thework’sformalandaestheticproperties]engageoursensibilitiesandimagination’(Carroll2002:167).Kieransuggeststhatpartofappreciatinganartworkisappreciating‘thewaysinwhichtheartistryshapesandguidesourresponses’(Kieran2005:213).Theseareclearlycausalnotions,anditappearsthatourviewsabouthowourresponsesarecausedmaybegroundedintheoriesaboutmentalprocessesratherthaninintrospection.23

ButIsuggestthatinvokinganexternaltheoryabouthowone’sownresponsesandthoseofothersareproduced,aspartofone’sdeepappreciationofanartwork,isnot,infact,suchatroublingthing.Fordeepappreciationisaimedatidentifyingvaluesinaworkthatareaccessibleintersubjectively,notjusttotheindividualappreciator.Todeeplyappreciateaworkisnotmerelytobesensitivetohowitaffectsme:formyownresponsesmaybegroundedinordependentonidiosyncrasiesinmyownexperiencesorperceptualmechanisms.Totheextentthatthisistrue,aworkthatisveryvaluabletomemaynotbeveryvaluablesimpliciter,andidentifyingthemechanismswherebytheworkproducesidiosyncraticresponsesisnotgermanetodeepappreciation.

WhenweconsiderCarroll’sandKieran’saccountsinrelationtotheideaofdeepappreciation,then,weshouldtakeseriouslytheiruseoftheplural:itishowthework‘engagesoursensibilitiesandimagination’,‘shapesandguidesourresponses’,thatisatissue.Andanaccuratetheoryofhowresponsesareproducedbyvariousaspectsoftheartwork,abettedbyobservationsofone’sownstatesthatareconsistentwiththetheory,maybejusttherightsortofthingtoinvokehere.

Wemightwonderwhetherexplanation-inducedinstabilityanddeteriorationwillfollowuponattemptstounderstandandexplainourresponsesintheseways.Ifweattempttobringexternaltheoriestobearinunderstandingourresponses,willthischangeourpreferences,andinobjectionableways?TheexperimentalresultsIhavediscusseddon’tgiveusinsightintothis,sincetheyinvolvesubjectswhoattemptedtointrospectivelyobserveorrecollecttheirmentalprocesseswithoutappealtoaccuratetheories.

Itstandstoreasonthatbringingaccuratetheoriestobearwillsometimesalterourjudgements.IfIbecomeawareofpositioneffectsonjudgement,Imaybeinapositiontoattendespeciallycarefullytothefeaturesoftheobjectinordertoavoidbeing(p.51)influencedbysucheffects.24Thissortofjudgementinstabilityishardlyobjectionable:itisastraightforwardimprovement.Thegreatestworry,perhaps,isthatmyimmersiveexperiencemaybecompromisedbymyattemptstoobserve,inrealtime,howparticularfeaturesoftheworkaffectme.If,inwatchingasceneinamovie,Iamattendingtotheextremelyslowzoominonacharacter’sfaceinrelationtoatheoryabouthowthismanoeuvreevokesemotion,thismaydisruptmyemotionalresponse.


of 23


IfIamrelyingonanaccuratetheoryofhowpeople’sresponsesareproducedbyparticularaspectsoftheartwork,shoulditmatterthatImyselfdonotexperiencetherelevantresponse?ShouldInotsimplybeabletoattendtotheartworkandcross-referenceitsfeatureswithmytheoryinordertodetecthowitshapesandguides‘our’responsesingeneral?Worriesaboutparticularismsuggestthatone’sactuallyhavingtheresponseisimportant:intheabsenceoftheresponse,itisalwayspossiblethattheresponsethatwouldtypicallybeevokedbyagivenelementhasbeendisabledorreversed,withinthecontextofthisparticularwork,bysomeotherfactorthatone’stheoryhasnottakenintoaccount.25Insofarasaestheticappreciationisthoughttobeexperiential,havingtheresponseisnecessary.Andifone’saestheticresponseishindered,oneisnothavingasstrongorsatisfyinganexperienceasoneotherwisewould,whichisundesirableinitself.

Iseetwopossibilitiestomitigatetheworrythatapplyingtheoreticalknowledgetoaworkwillundermineaestheticresponses.First,itmaybethattheoreticalknowledgeabouthowparticularaspectsofaworkaffectourresponsesisdisruptivewhenfirstacquired,butovertimecancometocoexistwithresponsesthatarerestoredto,orevenenhancedrelativeto,theirinitialintensity.26Second,theremaybemorethanonemodeinwhichaworkcanbeexperienced,anditmaybepossibletolearntoshiftamongthesemodes.Itmaybepossibletoexperienceaworkimmersively,experiencingandenjoyingtheeffectsitproducesonus,andthenlatertoexperienceitmoreanalytically,withspecificattentiontotheaspectsthatourtheoreticalknowledgetellsusshouldbeoperativeinproducingourresponses.

2.6ConclusionTosumup:aestheticexperience,appropriatelyconstrued,isnotthreatenedbytheproblemsIenumeratedabove.Thisisbecauseanexperienceneednotincludeanaccurategraspofitsobjecttobeaesthetic.

(Mere)aestheticappreciation,whichinmyviewdoesrequireasufficientlyaccurategraspofitsobjectbutdoesnotrequireattentiontoone’sownmentalstatesor(p.52)processes,isthreatenedbyirrelevanceandcoarse-grainedness.However,totheextentthattheseproblemsreartheirheadsinunusualcases,thisneednotworryusexceedingly.Also,mindfulnesstrainingmaymitigatetheseproblems,helpingustograspobjectsmoreaccuratelywhileweedingoutdistortingfactors.

Deepaestheticappreciationisthreatenedbyalloftheproblems,becausedeepappreciationrequiresunderstandingofhowourresponsesareproducedbythework.However,introspectionofone’sownmentalprocesses,whichisseriouslycalledintoquestionbytheempiricalwork,maynotberequired.Introspectiveaccesstotheflowofone’soccurrentperceptual,cognitive,andemotionalstates,combinedwithaccuratetheoreticalknowledgeaboutcausalrelationsbetweenaspectsofaworkandpeople’sresponses,maybesufficienttoallowustoassessthework’smeritsasdeepappreciationrequires.Thismayinvolvethecultivationofparticularkindsofcognitiveskills,suchastheabilitytoshiftbetweenmodesofexperienceofawork.Aslongasitispossibletoacquiresuchskills—andtheempiricalresultssurveyedhereprovidenoreasontodoubtthis—


of 23


deepappreciationwillturnouttobechallenging,butattainable.

What,then,istheultimateimpactoftheempiricalfindingsonthecontemporaryviewsofaestheticexperienceandappreciationwithwhichIbegan?Take,again,Kieran’s(2005:213)claim,‘Whenwetrulyappreciateawork,weappreciateitspictorialcomposition,thearcofthelines,theshading,theforeshadowing,thewaysinwhichtheartistryshapesandguidesourresponses.’Kieran’sclaimfallsundermynotionofdeepappreciation.Ifhisrequirementthatweappreciate‘thewaysinwhichtheartistryshapesandguidesourresponses’werearequirementforintrospectiveawarenessofthesematters,itwouldbethreatenedbytheempiricalfindings.However,ifitispossibletoappreciatethesemattersbyapplyingtheoreticalknowledgeaboutmentalprocessestointrospectiveawarenessofourstates,thenKieran’sview,evenonastrongreadingofhisrequirement,survivestheempiricalchallenge.

Carroll(2002:167)saysthat‘attentionwithunderstanding...tothewaysinwhich[thework’sformalandaestheticproperties]engageoursensibilitiesandimagination’isonevarietyofaestheticexperience.Iagreethatthissortofattentioncouldfigureinaestheticexperienceormereaestheticappreciation,thoughItakeittoberequiredonlyfordeepappreciation.Carroll’sconditionissimilartoKieran’s,andtheimpactoftheempiricalchallengeissimilaraswell:ifCarrollmeans,here,torequiredirectintrospectiveawarenessoftheseprocesses,thatmayturnouttobeimpossibleformanyormostofus;butifatheoreticalgraspofprocesses,combinedwithintrospectiveawarenessofoccurrentstates,issufficient,thenthisvarietyofaestheticexperienceremainspossible,thoughperhapschallengingtoachieve.BecauseCarrollrequires‘attentionwithunderstanding’forthisvarietyofaestheticexperience,itisnotclearthatthecocktailoftheoreticalknowledgeofprocessesandintrospectiveawarenessoftheflowofoccurrentstateswouldsatisfyhim.Butperhaps‘attention’totheoccurrentstates,combinedwith‘understanding’ofprocessesatatheoreticallevel,coulddothetrick.

(p.53) Iseminger(2005:99)suggeststhat‘[s]omeoneisappreciatingastateofaffairsjustincasesheorheisvaluingforitsownsaketheexperiencingofthatstateofaffairs...’.Insofarasexperiencingastateofaffairsinvolveshavingasufficientlyaccurategraspofit,Iseminger’snotionwillmapontomynotionofaestheticappreciation.Itappearsthatagraspoftheflowofone’soccurrentstates,evenwithoutagraspoftheprocessesbywhichtheyareproduced,maybesufficienttocountasexperiencingofastateofaffairs,aslongasthoseoccurrentstatesdon’tmisleadoneregardingthestateofaffairs;andthereisnoobviousbarriertovaluingthisflowofoccurrentstates.Ifitispossibletogaingreaterintrospectiveaccesstoourperceptualstatesthroughmindfulnesstechniques,therebystavingoffirrelevanceeffects,aestheticappreciationinIseminger’ssenseissafeguarded.

Levinson(forthcoming)says,‘Aestheticexperienceisexperienceinvolvingaestheticperceptionofsomeobject,groundedinaestheticattentiontotheobject,andinwhichthereisapositivehedonic,affectiveorevaluativeresponsetotheperceptionitselforthecontentofthatperception.’27Iftherequirementof‘aestheticattentiontotheobject’isstrict,thisisanotionofaestheticappreciation;ifnot,itisanaccountofaesthetic


of 23


experience.Theempiricalresultsdon’tgiveusdeepreasontoworrythatwecan’tbeawareofthecontentofourperception,oroftheperceptionitself.TheprincipalworryaboutLevinson’saccountisthattheempiricalresultssuggestadifficultywithknowingjustwhatour‘hedonic,affectiveorevaluativeresponse’isaresponseto:arewerespondingtothecontentofourperception,orissomethingelse(e.g.apositioneffect)contributingtoourresponse?Thissuggestsnotthataestheticexperience(orappreciation)isimpossible,butthatitmaybedifficulttoknowwhetherwearefulfillingtheconditionsforaestheticexperienceorappreciation.Iwillnotattemptheretoassesshowtroubledweshouldbebythisepistemicdifficulty.

Insum,theseaccountscanbeinterpretedinsuchawayastomaketheirrespectivevarietiesofaestheticexperienceorappreciationpossible,giventheempiricalresults.Forsometheories,thisinvolvesembracingtheoretical,ratherthanintrospective,awarenessofmentalprocesses.Whethertheirproponentswouldendorsetheseinterpretations,however,isanotherquestion.28

References

Bibliographyreferences:

Beaman,ArthurL.etal.(1978).‘IncreasingHelpingRatesthroughInformationDissemination:TeachingPays’,PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,4:406–11.

Bell,Clive(1914).Art.London:ChattoandWindus.

Bem,DarylJ.andH.KeithMcConnell(1970).‘TestingtheSelf-PerceptionExplanationofDissonancePhenomena:OntheSalienceofPremanipulationAttitudes’,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,14:271–80.

Bergeron,VincentandDominicMcIverLopes(2012).‘AestheticTheoryandAestheticScience:ProspectsforIntegration’,inArthurP.ShimamuraandStephenE.Palmer(eds),AestheticScience:ConnectingMinds,Brains,andExperience.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,63–79.

Bernier,Marjorieetal.(2009).‘MindfulnessandAcceptanceApproachesinSportPerformance’,JournalofClinicalSportPsychology,25:320–33.

Brown,Danieletal.(1984a).‘DifferencesinVisualSensitivityamongMindfulnessMeditatorsandNon-Meditators’,PerceptualandMotorSkills,58:727–33.

Brown,Danieletal.(1984b).‘VisualSensitivityandMindfulnessMeditation’,PerceptualandMotorSkills,58:775–84.

Cahn,B.RaelandJohnPolich(2006).‘MeditationStatesandTraits:EEG,ERP,andNeuroimagingStudies’,PsychologicalBulletin,132:180–211.

Carlson,KurtA.andSamuelD.Bond(2006).‘ImprovingPreferenceAssessment:Limiting


of 23


theEffectofContextthroughPre-ExposuretoAttributeLevels’,ManagementScience,52:410–21.

Carroll,Noël(1993).‘OnBeingMovedbyNature:BetweenReligionandNaturalHistory’,inSalimKemalandIvanGaskell(eds),Landscape,NaturalBeautyandtheArts.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,244–66.

Carroll,Noël(2002).‘AestheticExperienceRevisited’,BritishJournalofAesthetics,42:145–68.

Coupey,Eloiseetal.(1998).‘ProductCategoryFamiliarityandPreferenceConstruction’,JournalofConsumerResearch,24:459–68.

Cutting,James(2003).‘GustaveCaillebotte,FrenchImpressionism,andMereExposure’,PsychonomicBulletinandReview,10:319–43.

DeBellis,Mark(1995).MusicandConceptualization.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Ericsson,KarlA.andHerbertA.Simon(1993).ProtocolAnalysis:VerbalReportsasData,rev.edn.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

FernándezGarcía,R.etal.(2004).‘Efectodelahipnosisylaterapiadeaceptaciónycompromiso(ACT)enlamejoradelafuerzafísicaenpiragüistas’,InternationalJournalofClinicalandHealthPsychology,4:481–93.

Fleming,StephenM.etal.(2010).‘RelatingIntrospectiveAccuracytoIndividualDifferencesinBrainStructure’,Science,329:1541–3.

Gardner,FrankL.andZellaE.Moore(2007).ThePsychologyofHumanPerformance:TheMindfulness-Acceptance-CommitmentApproach.NewYork:Springer.

Gardner,FrankL.andZellaE.Moore(2012).‘MindfulnessandAcceptanceModelsinSportPsychology:ADecadeofBasicandAppliedScientificAdvancements’,CanadianPsychology,53:309–18.

Goethals,GeorgeR.andRichardF.Reckman(1973).‘ThePerceptionofConsistencyinAttitudes’,JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,9:491–501.

Hall,LarsandPetterJohansson(2008).‘UsingChoiceBlindnesstoStudyDecisionMakingandIntrospection’,inP.GärdenforsandA.Wallin(eds),Cognition:ASmorgasbordofCognitiveScience.Nora:NyaDoxa,267–83.

Hasker,S.M.(2010).‘EvaluationoftheMindfulness-AcceptanceCommitment(MAC)ApproachforEnhancingAthleticPerformance’.Doctoraldissertation,IndianaUniversityofPennsylvania,Indiana,PA.

Hume,David(1757/1985).‘OftheStandardofTaste’inEugeneF.Miller(ed),Essays


of 23


Moral,PoliticalandLiterary.Indianapolis,IN:LibertyFund,226–49.

Hurk,PaulA.M.vandenetal.(2010).‘GreaterEfficiencyinAttentionalProcessingRelatedtoMindfulnessMeditation’,QuarterlyJournalofExperimentalPsychology,63:1168–80.

Irvin,Sherri(2008a).‘ScratchinganItch’,JournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,66:25–35.

Irvin,Sherri(2008b).‘ThePervasivenessoftheAestheticinOrdinaryExperience’,BritishJournalofAesthetics,48:29–44.

Iseminger,Gary(2005).‘TheAestheticStateofMind’,inM.Kieran(ed.),ContemporaryDebatesinAestheticsandthePhilosophyofArt.Oxford:Blackwell,98–112.

Jensen,ChristianGadenetal.(2012).‘MindfulnessTrainingAffectsAttention—OrisitAttentionalEffort?’,JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,141:106–23.

Jha,AmishiP.etal.(2007).‘MindfulnessTrainingModifiesSubsystemsofAttention’,Cognitive,Affective,&BehavioralNeuroscience,7:109–19.

Johansson,Petteretal.(2005).‘FailuretoDetectMismatchesbetweenIntentionandOutcomeinaSimpleDecisionTask’,Science,310:116–19.

Kass,StevenJ.etal.(2011).‘EffectsofMindfulnessTrainingonSimulatedDriving:PreliminaryResults’,Mindfulness,2:236–41.

Kieran,Matthew(2005).RevealingArt.London:Routledge.

Latané,BibbandJohnM.Darley(1970).TheUnresponsiveBystander:WhyDoesn’tHeHelp?NewYork:Appleton-CenturyCrofts.

Levinson,Jerrold(2014).‘TowardaNon-MinimalistConceptionofAestheticExperience’,inAestheticsPursuits:EssaysinPhilosophyofArt.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Li,YeandNicholasEpley(2009).‘WhentheBestAppearstobeSavedforLast:SerialPositionEffectsonChoice’,JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,22:378–89.

Locher,Pauletal.(2007).‘VisualInterestinPictorialArtduringanAestheticExperience’,SpatialVision,21:55–77.

Lutz,Antoineetal.(2009).‘MentalTrainingEnhancesAttentionalStability:NeuralandBehavioralEvidence’,JournalofNeuroscience,29:13418–27.

Maier,NormanR.F.(1931).‘ReasoninginHumansII:TheSolutionofaProblemanditsAppearanceinConsciousness’,JournalofComparativePsychology,12:181–94.

Manjunath,N.K.andShirleyTelles(1999).‘ImprovementinVisualPerceptualSensitivity


of 23


inChildrenFollowingYogaTraining’,JournalofIndianPsychology,17:41–5.

Mantonakis,Antoniaetal.(2009).‘OrderinChoiceEffectsofSerialPositiononPreferences’,PsychologicalScience,20:1309–12.

May,ChristopherJ.etal.(2011).‘Short-TermTraininginLoving-KindnessMeditationProducesaState,ButNotaTrait,AlterationofAttention’,Mindfulness,2:143–53.

McLaughlin,JohnP.etal.(1983).‘AestheticPreferenceinDextralsandSinistrals’,Neuropsychologia,21:147–53.

Meskin,Aaron.MarkPehlan,MargaretMooreandMatthewKieran(2013).‘MereExposuretoBadArt’,BritishJournalofAesthetics,53:139–164.

Moore,ZellaE.(2009).‘TheoreticalandEmpiricalDevelopmentsoftheMindfulness-Acceptance-Commitment(MAC)ApproachtoPerformanceEnhancement’,JournalofClinicalSportPsychology,25:291–302.

Nisbett,RichardandTimothyWilson(1977).‘TellingMorethanWeCanKnow:VerbalReportsofMentalProcesses’,PsychologicalReview,84:231–59.

Raghuraj,P.andShirleyTelles(2002).‘ImprovementinSpatialandTemporalMeasuresofVisualPerceptionFollowingYogaTraining’,JournalofIndianPsychology,20:23–31.

Semple,RandyeJ.(2010).‘DoesMindfulnessMeditationEnhanceAttention?ARandomizedControlledTrial’,Mindfulness,1:121–30.

Shusterman,Richard(1991).‘FormandFunk:TheAestheticChallengeofPopularArt’,BritishJournalofAesthetics,31:203–13.

Sibley,Frank(1959).‘AestheticConcepts’,PhilosophicalReview,68:421–50.

Sibley,Frank(1974).‘Particularity,ArtandEvaluation’,ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,supp.48:1–21.

Slagter,HeleenA.etal.(2007).‘MentalTrainingAffectsDistributionofLimitedBrainResources’,PLoSBiology,5:1228–35.

Slagter,HeleenA.etal.(2009).‘ThetaPhaseSynchronyandConsciousTargetPerception:ImpactofIntensiveMentalTraining’,JournalofCognitiveNeuroscience,21:1536–49.

Telles,Shirleyetal.(1995).‘ImprovementinVisualPerceptionFollowingYogaTraining’,JournalofIndianPsychology,13:30–2.

Telles,Shirleyetal.(1997).‘ACombinationofFocusingandDefocusingthroughYogaReducesOpticalIllusionMorethanFocusingAlone’,IndianJournalofPhysiologyandPharmacology,41:179–82.


of 23


Telles,Shirleyetal.(2007).‘EffectofYogaonVisualPerceptionandVisualStrain’,JournalofModernOptics,54:1379–83.

Thompson,RachelW.etal.(2011).‘OneYearFollow-UpofMindfulSportPerformanceEnhancement(MSPE)withArchers,Golfers,andRunners’,JournalofClinicalSportPsychology,5:99–116.

Wilson,TimothyD.etal.(1993).‘IntrospectingaboutReasonsCanReducePost-ChoiceSatisfaction’,PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,19:331–9.

Wilson,TimothyD.andJonathanW.Schooler(1991).‘ThinkingTooMuch:IntrospectionCanReducetheQualityofPreferencesandDecisions’,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,60:181–92.

Yamada,Ayumi(2009).‘AppreciatingArtVerbally:VerbalizationCanMakeaWorkofArtBeBothUndeservedlyLovedandUnjustlyMaligned’,JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,45:1140–3.

Zeidan,Fadeletal.(2010).‘MindfulnessMeditationImprovesCognition:EvidenceofBriefMentalTraining’,ConsciousnessandCognition,19:597–605.

Notes:

(1)Insection2.2,IdiscussaweakerinterpretationofKieran’srequirement.

(2)SeealsorelateddiscussioninLopes(Chapter1,thisvolume).Insection2.2Idiscusstherelevanceofthesestudiesspecificallytotheaestheticdomain.

(3)Subjectstendedtopreferpaintingstowhichtheywereexposedmorefrequently.WemustusecautioninseeingCutting’sstudyasprovidingevidenceofanirrelevanceproblem:theresultsmayhavebeenduenottoamereexposureeffect,buttosubjects’havingmoreopportunitytograspthegenuinelyvaluablefeaturesofthepaintings.Meskin,Phelan,Moore,andKieran(2013)foundthatexposuredecreasedsubjects’likingforbadpaintings(byThomasKinkade).

(4)LiandEpley(2009)discusstherelevanceofmemorytopositioneffectsandshowthatserialpositionhasadifferenteffectonchoicesamongdesirableoptionsthanonchoicesamongundesirableoptions.

(5)NisbettandWilson’sinterestwasinpeople’spoorunderstandingofwhichaspectsoftheworkcontributetotheirresponses;theywerenotaimingtodemonstratecoarse-grainedness.Itispossiblethattheirmeasurewasitselftoocoarse-grainedtocapturethenuancesofsubjects’responses.

(6)‘[W]henaskeddirectlyaboutapossibleeffectofthepositionofthearticle,virtuallyallsubjectsdeniedit,usuallywithaworriedglanceattheinterviewersuggestingthattheyfelteitherthattheyhadmisunderstoodthequestionorweredealingwithamadman’(NisbettandWilson1977:244).


of 23


(7)NisbettandWilson(1977:235–7),discussingBemandMcConnell(1970)andGoethalsandReckman(1973).

(8)Thisisparticularlytrueofthewell-knownbystanderresearchbyLatanéandDarley(1970),whodemonstratedthatpeoplearemuchlesslikelytoofferhelpwhentheybelievethatmanyothersarealsoinapositiontodoso.SeeNisbettandWilson(1977:241)fordiscussion.

(9)WilsonandSchooler(1991)madethisfindinginstudiesaboutpreferencesforstrawberryjamandforcollegecourses.

(10)Forexample,CarlsonandBond(2006)andCoupeyetal.(1998)notethatexpertsarelesssusceptibletopreferenceinstabilityduetoirrelevantshiftsincontext.

(11)However,Mantonakisetal.(2009)foundthatwhilebothhigh-andlow-knowledgesubjectsweresusceptibletoarathersteepprimacyeffectinwinepreferences(i.e.atendencytopreferthewinepresentedfirstinaseries),high-knowledgesubjectswerealsosubjecttoarecencyeffect(tendencytopreferthewinepresentedlast).

(12)AsNisbettandWilson(1977:241)note,however,thesecorrectreportsmayhavebeenguessesbasedonexternaltheoriesofproblemsolvingratherthanintrospection.

(13)Specifically,introspectiveawarenessiscorrelatedwithgray-mattervolumeandwhite-mattermicrostructureintheanteriorprefrontalcortex(Flemingetal.2010).Subjectswereaskedtoperformadifficulttask,andthentoratetheirconfidenceintheiranswers.Subjectswereratedashighinintrospectioniftheyweresignificantlymoreconfidentabouttheircorrectanswersthantheirincorrectanswers.

(14)Iseminger(2005:103).

(15)Cf.BergeronandLopes(2012).

(16)Foranexcellentdiscussionofdancingasanaestheticresponsetomusic,seeShusterman(1991).

(17)IdefendasimilarnotionofaestheticexperienceinIrvin(2008a)and(2008b).Perhapsaestheticexperiencemustinvolveanobjectcognizedinsuch-and-suchaway,wheretheaestheticresponseonehasisnotinappropriatetoanobjectthuscognized,thoughtheobjecthasbeencognizedincorrectly.ItakesomeinspirationforthispossibilityfromCarroll(1993).

(18)Iqualifythisclaimtoallowthatanaccurategraspoftheworkmaysometimesyieldaresponsethatisnotapttoit,aswhenaworktriggersananxietyresponseinaviewerwithaspecificphobia.Perhapsaviewerinthegripsofsucharesponseisnotappreciatingthework,despitehavingcorrectlyapprehendedit.

(19)Thisisnottodenythatverbalreportsofmentalprocessesaresomewhatmore


of 23


accurateinrealtimethanafterthefact(EricssonandSimon1993).

(20)Iwillhereleaveasidetheimportantpossibilitythatsubjectsinthegripofapositioneffectunconsciouslymanipulatedthestockingsinsuchawayastoconfirmapriorbiastowardtheright-handpair,e.g.bystretchingthestockingsmorethinlyandthenpronouncingontheirsuperiorsheerness.Thediscussionofmindfulnessbelowoffershopethatsubjectscouldlearnnottoengageinsuchmanipulations.

(21)SeealsoIrvin(2008a).

(22)InthisbriefsummaryIincludeonlyinterventionstudies,notcorrelationalorcasestudies.

(23)ButrecallthatonKieran’sview,perhapsoneneedonlyknowthattheworkhascausedone’sresponsesandnothow.

(24)WhileIknowofnostudiestestingthishypothesisinrelationtopositioneffects,Beamanetal.(1978)demonstratethatawarenessofthebystandereffectreducesitspower.

(25)AsSibley(1959,1974)observes,afeaturethatisgood-makinginonecontextmaybeneutralorevenbad-makinginanother;andthefactorsthatinfluencethefeature’svalencemaybesocomplexthatitisimpossibletospelloutwhattheyare.

(26)DeBellis(1995)exploresindepththerelationbetweenthenon-conceptuallisteningofordinary,musicallyuntrainedlistenersandtheconceptuallisteningoftrainedlistenerstomusic,concludingthattrainingultimatelyenhances(ratherthandetractingfrom)thelistener’sabilitytohear,andthusrespondto,thefinedetailsavailableinthemusic.

(27)Italicsinoriginal.

(28)IamgratefultoMatthewKieranandJonRobsonforhelpfulfeedbackonanearlierdraft,tothevolumeeditorsforaninvitationtothe2011ChallengestoHumanism:Character,Appreciation,andValueworkshopinLondon,andtoparticipantsintheworkshopforhelpfuldiscussion.

Accessbroughttoyouby: CUNYGraduateCenter


of 23


university press scholarship online oxfordscholarship ... · implications for the domains of...

Documents