Psychical Distance and Temporality

Abstract

The concept of “physical distance” developed by Edward Bullough in his well-known article1 has come to be generally accepted as an aesthetic principle. Despite its acceptance, however, the concept, or at least Bullough’s explication of the idea, contains a paradox. Bullough holds that a distanced attitude makes possible an intensely personal relationship between the individual and a work of art, while, at the same time, a distanced response is said to have nothing whatever to do with the “concrete existence” of the individual.2 By “concrete existence” Bullough evidently means practical life. In short, the distanced individual establishes an intensely personal relation to a work of art by becoming detached from any practical involvement. The questions which come up, of course, are what is meant by practical life, and how can one be both aesthetically detached and personally involved in a work of art? It would seem that “personal involvement” is both concrete and practical, and the very opposite of detachment. The paradox of distance may be simply put: how can there exist an emotional attitude which is both detached and involved? What is meant by psychical distance?