The pleasure of art as a matter of fact.

Abstract

> All other forms of perception divide a man, because they are exclusively based either on the sensuous or on the intellectual part of his being; only the perception of the Beautiful makes something whole of him, because both his natures must accord with it. > — Schiller, 1793–1795, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man , p. 138, Letter 27 Can art make us better people? Better members of society? In her recent article, ‘Pleasure junkies all around! Why it matters and why “the arts” might be the answer: a biopsychological perspective’, Christensen [1] claims that engaging with art can promote healthy choices, choices that balance short-term pleasure goals with long-term general well-being. She suggests that many modern life conveniences, such as social media, computer games or online shopping, have the potential to turn us into ‘pleasure junkies’ because they maximize short-term pleasures. But art, Christensen argues, is a safe choice and a means to remedy this unhealthy addiction to pleasure. Christensen's argument is grounded on three claims about the sort of pleasure we get from art. First, in contrast to low-level pleasure , which Christensen conceives as ‘a mere perceptual stimulation leading to a rewarding sensation (food, sex, etc.)’ ([1], p. 2), pleasure from art is presented as a kind of higher-order pleasure that engages ‘broader neural networks implied in the attribution of meaning’ (p. 2), presumably leading to ‘long-term maintenance of healthy bodily function’ (p. 2). Second, ‘the arts do not induce states of craving without fulfilment—as do activities with reinforcement schedules which are prone to create habits and addictions such as intermittent variable ratio or interval reinforcement schedules (e.g. social media, gambling, football, extreme sports, drugs’ (p. 4). Third, ‘the arts do not search for a perceptual “Bliss point” […]. They do not just …