Abstract
The reality of the aesthetic seems to manifest itself more and more in relational and immersive ways that defy analyses that follow the trail of the modern tradition of philosophy, based on the dual gnoseological relationship between subject and object. Even some areas of the new cognitive sciences seem to converge towards a conception of experience as a complex horizon in which variously related vectors operate. From this point of view, it is worth exploring the notion of “field” as a conceptual tool to describe the aesthetic. In this paper we will consider two possible uses of this notion in reference to the aesthetic: to describe experiential modes (following Arnold Berleant), and to describe social dynamics (following Pierre Bourdieu). Yet, the starting point will be some considerations provided by Peter Abbs. We will thus try to show how the notion of “aesthetic field” can be consonant with scientific settings that advocate models of mind that stress its being extended and situated. A particular test bed will be the psychology of art as a discipline spanning philosophical knowledge and empirical investigation. In this key will also be considered the so-called “experiential revolution” in psychology, which indicates an extra-cognitive horizon variously coinciding with the perspective of an aesthetic research focused on the conception of aisthesis as a system of practices of perception, emotion, and expression. According to this conception, the dynamics within the aesthetic field, such as those related to the nexus between perceptual contents and aesthetic properties, or between emotional content and the practices of sensing could prove to be dynamics of “intervenience,” rather than of supervenience.
Highlights
For the sake of argumentation, I will polemicize here against a standard model that is perhaps itself fictitious in its sheer simplicity, but which I believe can be found underlying much of the literature ascribable to the current psychology of art
I believe it embodies an inherent belief that is effective even beyond the psychology of art. It seems to be almost the underlying matrix of aesthetic theorizing, by serving as the general epistemological framework of aesthetics, including philosophical aesthetics, especially in an era in which philosophy seems willing to face the empirical sciences. This model can be formulated as follows, taking the words of a recent survey of current orientations within the field of the psychology of art: aesthetic experience can be defined as a process concerning the cognitive and affective response of an individual faced with an object belonging to a particular class of artifacts called art
Aesthetic experience can occur while we observe a work of art in a museum, gallery, square, or other context
Summary
For the sake of argumentation, I will polemicize here against a standard model that is perhaps itself fictitious in its sheer simplicity, but which I believe can be found underlying much of the literature ascribable to the current psychology of art. Two painters who realize the “same” painting would produce two different works, with different meanings, at least for referring to two different repertories that would intersect (the remarks made by Philip Pettit [3] are interesting in this regard) This is true for the other “region”: even two overlapping series of intracranial states may not be a sufficient basis for talking about the same experience, since the way in which two distinct experiential configurations are established is often more important than their final contents, they hypothetically coincide. To understand the reasons for this, we can consider some authors who have explicitly relied on the notion of field in relation to art and the aesthetic
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
