Author:
Bullot Nicolas J.,Reber Rolf
Abstract
AbstractCritics of the target article objected to our account of art appreciators' sensitivity to art-historical contexts and functions, the relations among the modes of artistic appreciation, and the weaknesses of aesthetic science. To rebut these objections and justify our program, we argue that the current neglect of sensitivity to art-historical contexts persists as a result of a pervasive aesthetic–artistic confound; we further specify our claim that basic exposure and the design stance are necessary conditions of artistic understanding; and we explain why many experimental studies do not belong to a psycho-historical science of art.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Physiology,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference189 articles.
1. Boundaries of the Mind
2. Amount and kind of information in museums: Its effects on visitors satisfaction and appreciation of art;Temme;Visual Arts Research,1992
3. Body, Mind, and Order: Local Memory and the Control of Mental Representations in Medieval and Renaissance Sciences of Self
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The psychological basis of music appreciation: Structure, self, source.;Psychological Review;2023-01
2. Increasing music preference through guided self-framing: A comparison of historical and imaginative approaches.;Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts;2022-05-12
3. The pleasures of reading fiction explained by flow, presence, identification, suspense, and cognitive involvement.;Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts;2021-11
4. Psychological responses to buildings and natural landscapes;Journal of Environmental Psychology;2021-10
5. One hundred and fifty years after Fechner: A view from the “middle of the storm”.;Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts;2020-09-24