Investigations Into the Phenomenology and the Ontology of the Work of Art: What are Artworks and How Do We Experience Them?

261 Pages·2015·3.76 MB·English

by  Peer F. Bundgaard

Contributions To Phenomenology 81
Peer F. Bundgaard
Frederik Stjernfelt Editors
Investigations
Into the
Phenomenology
and the Ontology of
the Work of Art
What are Artworks and How Do We
Experience Them?
Contributions to Phenomenology
In Cooperation with The Center for Advanced
Research in Phenomenology
Volume 81
SeriesEditors
NicolasdeWarren,KULeuven,Belgium
DermotMoran,UniversityCollegeDublin,Ireland
EditorialBoard
LilianAlweiss,TrinityCollegeDublin,Ireland
MichaelBarber,St.LouisUniversity,MO,USA
ElizabethBehnke,Ferndale,WA,USA
RudolfBernet,HusserlArchive,KULeuven,Belgium
DavidCarr,EmoryUniversity,GA,USA
Chan-FaiCheung,ChineseUniversityHongKong,China
JamesDodd,NewSchoolUniversity,NY,USA
LesterEmbree,FloridaAtlanticUniversity,FL,USA
AlfredoFerrarin,UniversitàdiPisa,Italy
BurtHopkins,SeattleUniversity,WA,USA
JoséHuertas-Jourda,WilfridLaurierUniversity,Canada
Kwok-YingLau,ChineseUniversityHongKong,China
Nam-InLee,SeoulNationalUniversity,Korea
RosemaryR.P.Lerner,PontificiaUniversidadCatólicadelPerú,Peru
DieterLohmar,UniversityofCologne,Germany
WilliamR.McKenna,MiamiUniversity,OH,USA
AlgisMickunas,OhioUniversity,OH,USA
J.N.Mohanty,TempleUniversity,PA,USA
JunichiMurata,UniversityofTokyo,Japan
ThomasNenon,TheUniversityofMemphis,TN,USA
ThomasM.Seebohm,JohannesGutenberg-Universität,Germany
GailSoffer,Rome,Italy
AnthonySteinbock,SouthernIllinoisUniversityatCarbondale,IL,USA
ShigeruTaguchi,HokkaidoUniversity,Japan
DanZahavi,UniversityofCopenhagen,Denmark
RichardM.Zaner,VanderbiltUniversity,TN,USA
Scope
Thepurposeoftheseriesistoserveasavehicleforthepursuitofphenomenological
research across a broad spectrum, including cross-over developments with other
fields of inquiry such as the social sciences and cognitive science. Since its
establishmentin1987,ContributionstoPhenomenologyhaspublishedmorethan80
titlesondiversethemesofphenomenologicalphilosophy.Inadditiontowelcoming
monographs and collections of papers in established areas of scholarship, the
series encouragesoriginal work in phenomenology.The breadth and depth of the
Series reflects the rich and varied significance of phenomenological thinking for
seminalquestionsofhumaninquiryaswellastheincreasinglyinternationalreach
ofphenomenologicalresearch.
The seriesis publishedin cooperationwith TheCenter forAdvancedResearch
inPhenomenology.
Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/5811
Peer F. Bundgaard (cid:129) Frederik Stjernfelt
Editors
Investigations Into the
Phenomenology and the
Ontology of the Work of Art
What are Artworks and How Do We
Experience Them?
Editors
PeerF.Bundgaard FrederikStjernfelt
CenterforSemiotics HumanomicsCentre
AarhusUniversity DepartmentofArtsandCulture
Aarhus,Denmark UniversityofCopenhagen
Copenhagen,Denmark
ISSN0923-9545 ISSN2215-1915 (electronic)
ContributionstoPhenomenology
ISBN978-3-319-14089-6 ISBN978-3-319-14090-2 (eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-14090-2
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015941152
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
© TheEditor(s) (if applicable) and TheAuthor(s) 2015. Thebook is published with open access at
SpringerLink.com.
OpenAccessThisbookisdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionNoncom-
mercialLicense,whichpermitsanynoncommercialuse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,
providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andsourcearecredited.
All commercial rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformationstorageand
retrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknown
orhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbook
arebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerInternational PublishingAGSwitzerlandispartofSpringerScience+Business Media(www.
springer.com)
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................... 1
PeerF.Bundgaard
TemporalAspectsofLiteraryReading........................................ 15
DavidS.Miall
MemoryandMentalStatesintheAppreciationofLiterature.............. 31
MarisaBortolussiandPeterDixon
TemporalConflictintheReadingExperience................................ 51
CathrineKietz
TheAestheticExperiencewithVisualArt“AtFirstGlance”............... 75
PaulJ.Locher
WhatIsaSurface?IntheRealWorld?AndPictures?...................... 89
JohnM.KennedyandMartaWnuczko
The Idiosyncrasy of Beauty: Aesthetic Universals
andtheDiversityofTaste ....................................................... 109
PatrickColmHogan
WhyWeAreNotAllNovelists.................................................. 129
ShaunGallagher
AestheticRelationship,Cognition,andthePleasuresofArt................ 145
Jean-MarieSchaeffer
MoreSeeing-in:SurfaceSeeing,DesignSeeing,andMeaning
SeeinginPictures ................................................................ 167
PeerF.Bundgaard
Depiction.......................................................................... 191
JohnHyman
v
vi Contents
Green War Banners in Central Copenhagen: A Recent
Political Struggle Over Interpretation—And Some
ImplicationsforArtInterpretationasSuch .................................. 209
FrederikStjernfelt
TheAppropriationoftheWorkofArtasaSemioticAct.................... 225
FrancisÉdelineandJean-MarieKlinkenberg
Sculpture,Diagram,andLanguageintheArtworkofJosephBeuys...... 243
WolfgangWildgen
Index............................................................................... 259
Introduction
PeerF.Bundgaard
Thepurposeofthe presentvolumeis toinvestigatethe multifariousaspectsofthe
relationbetweenanartwork(visual,literary,ormusical),itsobjectiveproperties,the
meaningfulexperienceofit,andthecognitiveskillsandactsinvolvedinthelatter.
Eachofthese aspectsis a genuineandirreduciblepartofwhatI herewillcallthe
“aesthetic complex,”and each of them thus constitutes an autonomousdomainof
researchoranobjectofscholarlyinterest:thatcertainvisualorcognitivecapacities
areactivatedintheinteractionwithaestheticobjects;thattheexperienceofaesthetic
objects has a particular phenomenology, either because it is accompanied by an
appreciativejudgment(orarewardingfeeling)orbecauseitisaboutaspecifickind
of object (artful objects); that artful objects have properties that plain objects—
naturalaswellascultural—donothave;and,finally,thataestheticobjectsmanifest
or represent a meaning in that they give shape to or embody an artistic meaning
intention.Thepsychology,the phenomenology,the ontology,andthe semioticsof
the artworkeach aims to lay downthe abovecharacteristicsin each their domain,
witheachtheirmethods.
Thecontributorstothisvolumearephilosophers,psychologists,literarycritics,
and semioticians. As such, they address only one or just a couple of the above-
mentioned aspects. Each chapter will show, however, that the inquiry into one of
the essential aspects of the aesthetic complex naturally raises research questions
relatedtooneoftheotheressentialaspects.Itisthusdifficulttoconsidermeaning-
makingin art withoutconsideringthose structuresand propertiesin artworksthat
embody that meaning or produce that meaning effect. Similarly, it is difficult to
lay bare the essential properties of artworks (or of artful representation) without
analyzingtheminlightofthosepropertiesofthehumancognitivesystemorofthe
P.F.Bundgaard((cid:2))
CenterforSemiotics,AarhusUniversity,Aarhus,Denmark
e-mail:[email protected]
©TheAuthor(s)2015 1
P.F.Bundgaard,F.Stjernfelt(eds.),InvestigationsIntothePhenomenology
andtheOntologyoftheWorkofArt,ContributionsToPhenomenology81,
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-14090-2_1
2 P.F.Bundgaard
visualbrainthatmakemanparticularlyresponsivetosuchqualities.Inshort,even
though scholars, for obviousreasons, distribute their efforts selectively and focus
their attention on one of the aspects of the aesthetic complex, these domains of
inquiryarecomplementary.
Withthisvolumewethereforehopenotonlytogivethereaderaccesstorecent
researchwithintheontology,thephenomenology,andthesemioticsoftheartwork,
butalsotomanifestthecomplementarityofworkdoneineachofthesedomains.
IntheremainderofthisIntroduction,Ishallfirstgointosomemoredetailswith
regardsto the differentaspects of what I have called the “aesthetic complex” and
nextgiveashortintroductiontoeachofthechaptersofthevolume.
As the subtitle of this volume suggests—What are Artworks, and How Do We
Experience them?—onecan distinguish two correlates in the aesthetic complex:a
subjectivecorrelate,encompassingwhateverrelevantpropertiesoftheexperiencing
subject or whatever relevant goings-on in the cognitive system; and an objective
correlate, concerning whatever relevant properties of the object likely to elicit a
characteristicsubjectiveresponse.
The emergence of Aesthetics as a philosophical discipline is coextensive with
thediscoveryofthesensitivesubjectasthepivotalelementofaestheticexperience.
Theobjectofinquirybecomes—alreadyfromAlexanderBaumgarten’sAesthetics
(1750)and definitely with Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790)—the
subjectivecorrelateoftheaestheticcomplex,i.e.,thecognitivedynamicsactivated
in the viewer when perceiving artworks or when experiencing things considered
beautiful,valuable,or ofaesthetic interest.When Kantcharacterizesbeautyin his
Third Critique, he defines it not as a property of an object but as a feeling that is
the outcome of a certain “harmony of the faculties,” a specific balance between
certaincognitivecenters(ImaginationandReason).Or,tousepresentdayterms,a
characteristicwayofprocessinginformationthatdiffersbothinfunctionandcontent
fromthewaynon-aestheticinformationisprocessed.
Inthesamevein,Kantpinpointsanotheressentialaspectofaestheticexperience
thatisexclusivelysubjective(notin the“relativistic” sense, butinstead pertaining
totheexperiencingsubject):thementalsetinwhichtheobjectisattendedto,which
is“disinterested”in thatitdoesnotpursueanytheoretical(epistemic)or practical
(moral)interest,nordoesitpursuethefulfillmentofanydesireofanysort.
Whether Kant is right or not in claiming the disinterested nature of aesthetic
experienceisnotimportanthere.Whatmattersarethetwobasictenetsofwhatcould
becalledtheKantianlegacyinaestheticswritlarge:(1)aestheticexperienceshould
be defined not in terms of the object that elicits the feeling of beauty but instead
in termsof particularactivationof thecognitivesystem;(2)subjectscanattendto
aesthetic objects—or objects deemed beautiful—within an intentional framework
(or a mind set) that is different from the framework through which we relate to
objectsfor epistemic or moralpurposes;(3) since aesthetic experienceshouldnot
be understoodand explained with reference to certain propertiesof an object and
thereforedoesnotrequireaspecificcompetenceforcapturingthoseproperties(both
perceptuallyandintellectually),itisnottheprivilegeofaparticularlyaptortrained
sectionofthepopulation—theaestheticsubjectisageneralsubject.
Introduction 3
The philosophical and scientific enquiry into aesthetic experience which has
developedinthewakeoftheThirdCritiquehas,ofcourse,notbeenKantianthrough
and through: the apriorism proper to Kant’s system, the complex mechanics that
keep the harmony of the faculties together have not been part of most, if any, of
the research programs in this domain. Many such programs can nevertheless be
consideredpost-Kantianbecause:(1)theexperiencingorsensitivesubjectisbrought
to the fore; (2) the feeling of beauty—or, independently of the feeling of beauty,
the experience of artworks—is considered as being a specific cognitive response
resting on general propertiesof the human “mind,” the visuo-cognitivesystem or
human“sensitivity” in general,and thereforeamenableto descriptionor scientific
description.
Marshaling such general positions, of course, does not warrant any unity, nor
does it define a research program.With regardsto point (2), there is considerable
differencebetweenapproachingtheresponsetobeautywithinFechner’sempirical
aesthetics (Fechner 1876) or present day neuroaesthetics (Zeki 1999; Chatterjee
2010;IshizuandZeki2011;NadalandSkov2013)andaddressingaestheticexpe-
rience in terms of those perceptualstructures that are meaningful(not necessarily
beautiful)forthevisualbrain(Arnheim1954,1969;Petitot2009;Bundgaard2009,
2014).Yet,howeverdifferentsuchresearchprogramsmaybe,theyaddressaseries
of issues that are all related to the subjective correlate of aesthetic experience
broadly taken (both as an experience accompanied by a rewarding feeling and
as an experience of a specific kind of objects, namely artworks). Some of these
questions are: if we attend to aesthetic objects differently than to plain everyday
objects, then what characterizes this intentional attitude or mindset? If there is a
difference between the phenomenology of seeing three apples, a photo of three
apples,andapaintingofthreeapples,thenwhatcharacterizesthephenomenology
of aesthetic experience? If artworks affect us perceptually by virtue of their
qualitative(visual,textual,oracoustic)layoutordesign,whatarethephenomenalor
qualitativepropertiesthatareparticularlysignificantforusandhowdoweprocess
visualinformation(e.g.,howdowereconstructrepresentedobjectsfromdepicting
surfaces)?Whatattractsourattentionorfacilitatesourmemorywhenperceivingor
readingartworks?If artworksaffectus by virtue of givenpropertiesof ourvisuo-
cognitive system, then what are the relevant propertiesexploited to that effect? If
thereisaspecificphenomenologyofaestheticexperience,doesitfollowthatthere
isageneralbrainstateoraneuraldynamicsthatcorrespondtothatphenomenology?
Ifthefeelingofbeautyindeedoftenaccompaniesaestheticexperience,thenhowis
ittobedescribed?Isitaunitaryresponse,triggeredoffbythesamekindofstimuli
for natural or biological reasons? Is it conventionally or socially imposed or is it
idiosyncratic?
As already mentioned, the subjective correlate of aesthetic experience is nev-
ertheless only one part of the full story. It is—and has indeed been—difficult
to maintain an exclusive focus on the subjective aspect of aesthetic experience.
If the feeling of beauty is considered a response to a given object or state of
affairs, it seems naturalto ask if certain typesof states of affairs or designscause
such responses. This is the hypothesis that drove Fechner’s seminal research in