Abstract
Arguments are presented that paintings are unable to induce basic psychobiological emotions because they do not powerfully engage with spectators? intimate associative-memory systems. However, it is suggested that art installations containing properties subsumable under the classical concept of the sublime (physical grandeur, rarity, novelty, an association with beauty and with biologically significant outcomes), are capable of producing a memorable, though non-basic, emotional response, aesthetic awe - the peak aesthetic response as defined in Aesthetic Trinity Theory (Konecni, 2005, 2011). A skeptical view is presented of emotivism, defined as a proclivity for excessive insertion of ?emotion? into scientific and lay accounts of behavior, especially regarding the arts: The loci in the domain of paintings are specified in which emotion has often been unjustifiably implicated. Psychobiological and contrasting viewpoints on emotion are outlined. Several possible routes from paintings? attributes to viewers? emotions are found to be analytically indefensible and psychologically improbable. Implications for empirical aesthetics are examined.
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.
