Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty
This article addresses the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. It first, critically, considers one of the most influential approaches to the psychophysics of aesthetic perception, viz. neuroaesthetics. Hereafter, it outlines constitutive tenets of aesthetic perception in terms of a particular int...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences 2015-12, Vol.14 (4), p.781-801 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 801 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 781 |
container_title | Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Bundgaard, Peer F. |
description | This article addresses the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. It first, critically, considers one of the most influential approaches to the psychophysics of aesthetic perception, viz. neuroaesthetics. Hereafter, it outlines constitutive tenets of aesthetic perception in terms of a particular intentional relation to the object. The argument comes in three steps. First, I show the inadequacies of the neuroaesthetics of beauty in general and Semir Zeki’s and V.J. Ramachandran’s versions of it in particular. The neuroaesthetics of beauty falls short, because it develops hypotheses of aesthetic experience which have no consequences for the understanding of what art is, that is, how artists produce visual meaning effects in their works. This is so because they make the rewarding feeling of beauty the cornerstone of aesthetic experience. Next, I show why and how aesthetic experience should be defined relative to its object and the tools for meaning-making specific to that object, and not relative to the feeling (of beauty) it may elicit. Finally, I sketch the import this fact may have on a research program in empirical aesthetics. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1787975834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1787975834</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7ce7492b6d5e2ec144dc0920a59457898bbd74047e524dc279c87164f1acf3d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFOwzAQRSMEEqVwAHZZssBgJ3YmXqKKAlIlJARry3EmxVXqFNtZdMchOCEnwaGsWc3XzP-jr5dll4zeMErhNjBGJRDKOJGlYEQcZTMmoCB1BdXxpKuaAAh5mp2FsKG0YBWHWfayROytW1_nW9TuV2jX5tZFdNEOTvc27r8_v3RuvI32Y8R86PL4jrnD0Q8aQ9LRmjCtG9Rj3J9nJ53uA178zXn2trx_XTyS1fPD0-JuRUwpWSRgELgsmqoVWKBhnLeGyoJqIbmAWtZN0wKnHFAU6VSANDWk0h3TpivbupxnV4e_Oz-kXiGqrQ0G-147HMagGNQgQdQlT1Z2sBo_hOCxUztvt9rvFaNq4qcO_FTipyZ-SqRMcciE5HVr9GozjD4BCf-EfgCaF3QX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1787975834</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Bundgaard, Peer F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bundgaard, Peer F.</creatorcontrib><description>This article addresses the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. It first, critically, considers one of the most influential approaches to the psychophysics of aesthetic perception, viz. neuroaesthetics. Hereafter, it outlines constitutive tenets of aesthetic perception in terms of a particular intentional relation to the object. The argument comes in three steps. First, I show the inadequacies of the neuroaesthetics of beauty in general and Semir Zeki’s and V.J. Ramachandran’s versions of it in particular. The neuroaesthetics of beauty falls short, because it develops hypotheses of aesthetic experience which have no consequences for the understanding of what art is, that is, how artists produce visual meaning effects in their works. This is so because they make the rewarding feeling of beauty the cornerstone of aesthetic experience. Next, I show why and how aesthetic experience should be defined relative to its object and the tools for meaning-making specific to that object, and not relative to the feeling (of beauty) it may elicit. Finally, I sketch the import this fact may have on a research program in empirical aesthetics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1568-7759</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8676</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Cognitive Psychology ; Education ; Phenomenology ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Mind</subject><ispartof>Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences, 2015-12, Vol.14 (4), p.781-801</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7ce7492b6d5e2ec144dc0920a59457898bbd74047e524dc279c87164f1acf3d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7ce7492b6d5e2ec144dc0920a59457898bbd74047e524dc279c87164f1acf3d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bundgaard, Peer F.</creatorcontrib><title>Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty</title><title>Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences</title><addtitle>Phenom Cogn Sci</addtitle><description>This article addresses the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. It first, critically, considers one of the most influential approaches to the psychophysics of aesthetic perception, viz. neuroaesthetics. Hereafter, it outlines constitutive tenets of aesthetic perception in terms of a particular intentional relation to the object. The argument comes in three steps. First, I show the inadequacies of the neuroaesthetics of beauty in general and Semir Zeki’s and V.J. Ramachandran’s versions of it in particular. The neuroaesthetics of beauty falls short, because it develops hypotheses of aesthetic experience which have no consequences for the understanding of what art is, that is, how artists produce visual meaning effects in their works. This is so because they make the rewarding feeling of beauty the cornerstone of aesthetic experience. Next, I show why and how aesthetic experience should be defined relative to its object and the tools for meaning-making specific to that object, and not relative to the feeling (of beauty) it may elicit. Finally, I sketch the import this fact may have on a research program in empirical aesthetics.</description><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Phenomenology</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Mind</subject><issn>1568-7759</issn><issn>1572-8676</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFOwzAQRSMEEqVwAHZZssBgJ3YmXqKKAlIlJARry3EmxVXqFNtZdMchOCEnwaGsWc3XzP-jr5dll4zeMErhNjBGJRDKOJGlYEQcZTMmoCB1BdXxpKuaAAh5mp2FsKG0YBWHWfayROytW1_nW9TuV2jX5tZFdNEOTvc27r8_v3RuvI32Y8R86PL4jrnD0Q8aQ9LRmjCtG9Rj3J9nJ53uA178zXn2trx_XTyS1fPD0-JuRUwpWSRgELgsmqoVWKBhnLeGyoJqIbmAWtZN0wKnHFAU6VSANDWk0h3TpivbupxnV4e_Oz-kXiGqrQ0G-147HMagGNQgQdQlT1Z2sBo_hOCxUztvt9rvFaNq4qcO_FTipyZ-SqRMcciE5HVr9GozjD4BCf-EfgCaF3QX</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Bundgaard, Peer F.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty</title><author>Bundgaard, Peer F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7ce7492b6d5e2ec144dc0920a59457898bbd74047e524dc279c87164f1acf3d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Phenomenology</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Mind</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bundgaard, Peer F.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bundgaard, Peer F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty</atitle><jtitle>Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences</jtitle><stitle>Phenom Cogn Sci</stitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>781</spage><epage>801</epage><pages>781-801</pages><issn>1568-7759</issn><eissn>1572-8676</eissn><abstract>This article addresses the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. It first, critically, considers one of the most influential approaches to the psychophysics of aesthetic perception, viz. neuroaesthetics. Hereafter, it outlines constitutive tenets of aesthetic perception in terms of a particular intentional relation to the object. The argument comes in three steps. First, I show the inadequacies of the neuroaesthetics of beauty in general and Semir Zeki’s and V.J. Ramachandran’s versions of it in particular. The neuroaesthetics of beauty falls short, because it develops hypotheses of aesthetic experience which have no consequences for the understanding of what art is, that is, how artists produce visual meaning effects in their works. This is so because they make the rewarding feeling of beauty the cornerstone of aesthetic experience. Next, I show why and how aesthetic experience should be defined relative to its object and the tools for meaning-making specific to that object, and not relative to the feeling (of beauty) it may elicit. Finally, I sketch the import this fact may have on a research program in empirical aesthetics.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1568-7759 |
ispartof | Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences, 2015-12, Vol.14 (4), p.781-801 |
issn | 1568-7759 1572-8676 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1787975834 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Cognitive Psychology Education Phenomenology Philosophy Philosophy of Mind |
title | Feeling, meaning, and intentionality—a critique of the neuroaesthetics of beauty |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T20%3A38%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feeling,%20meaning,%20and%20intentionality%E2%80%94a%20critique%20of%20the%20neuroaesthetics%20of%20beauty&rft.jtitle=Phenomenology%20and%20the%20cognitive%20sciences&rft.au=Bundgaard,%20Peer%20F.&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=781&rft.epage=801&rft.pages=781-801&rft.issn=1568-7759&rft.eissn=1572-8676&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11097-014-9351-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1787975834%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1787975834&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |