Aesthetic Experience Explained by the Affect-Space Framework

Abstract

A framework for organizing the semantic structure of aesthetic experience is proposed. The new framework is presented in an 'affect-space' and consists of three sets of dichotomous classifications: (1) internal locus (the felt experience) versus external locus (the description of the object), (2) 'affect-valence' -the attraction to (positive valence, e.g. preference, awe) or repulsion from (negative valence, e.g. hatred, disgust) the artwork/object -versus 'emotion-valence' -the character/contemplation of an emotion (happiness-an example of positive valence, sadness-an example of negative valence), and (3) deep versus shallow hedonic tone-e.g. 'awe' is deep, 'preference' is shallow. Deep hedonic tone is proposed as a better index of aesthetic experience (awe, being moved etc.) than shallow hedonic tone (preference, pleasure, enjoyment). Deep, internal locus, affect-valence during the contemplation of an object amenable to an aesthetic judgement (beautiful, ugly etc.) presents the necessary and sufficient conditions for an aesthetic experience. The framework allows future researchers to consider which aspects of an experience come closest to actual aesthetic experience from an empirical aesthetics perspective. It also highlights the limited value in grouping together so many aesthetic experiences under the rubric of emotion, such as aesthetic emotions, preference, basic emotions and so forth. Our framework paves the way for testing and further development of theory on aesthetic experience. Submitted 2016 February 10; accepted 2016 April 3. KEYWORDS: aesthetic experience, aesthetic emotions, affect, hedonic tone, locus THIS paper presents a semantic framework that organizes critical aspects of aesthetic experience for psychological and philosophical research. Recent years have seen a boom in attempts to draw together theories and empirical data on aesthetic experience (Jacobsen, 2006;Leder & Nadal, 2014) . Yet, as some accounts point out, there exist numerous gaps and confusions (e.g., Augustin, Wagemans, & Carbon, 2012;Konečni, 2012;Locher, Overbeeke, & Wensveen, 2010). One of the most critical is the definition of the aesthetic experience itself. An aesthetic experience may be defined through the philosophical concept of disinterested contemplation (Levinson, 1992). It may involve a combination of cognitive and emotional processes (Locher, et al., 2010). It may be defined in terms of the qualities of the object (music, artwork, etc.) or in terms of the affective sensations of the individual as a result of contemplating the object (Beardsley, 1969). The act of creative production (such as a musician playing at a concert, an artist painting in a studio, or a composer at work) and its relationship to the perception and contemplation of art works are involved (Tinio, 2013). The brain activity that corresponds to aesthetic experience is another way of defining the process, although the neuroscientific understanding of aesthetic experience is in its infancy (Brattico, Bogert, & Jacobsen, 2013;Brattico &...

Enjoying Sad Music: Paradox or Parallel Processes?

“…An aesthetic context requires both an aesthetic environment and an aesthetic (as distinct from non-aesthetic) stimulus to be perceived. One without the other will not generate an aesthetic context (for a detailed discussion, see Schubert et al, in press ).…”

“…Some evidence exists that other negative emotions can be enjoyed (Huron, 2015 ; Schäfer et al, 2015 ; Sharman and Dingle, 2015 ), and the dismissal of such possibilities may be symptomatic of a general scepticism in the literature about whether music can evoke a range of negative emotions that can be enjoyed. The cause of this scepticism could be attributed to the regular classification of the subjective feeling being treated as the same semantic class as motivational tendency, since the two are so obviously correlated most of the time (as shown in Figure 2 , see also Schubert et al, in press ).…”

What is ‘open-earedness’, and how can it be measured?

“…On the basis of this revised model, Schubert, Hargreaves, and North (2014) proposed a dynamically minimalist cognitive explanation of musical preference which gives familiarity a central role in the development of preference, operating according to Schubert’s (1996, 2012) mechanism of ‘spreading activation’ through associative networks. Schubert, North, & Hargreaves (in press) have taken this approach further in proposing an Affect Space Framework (ASF) with three dimensions, namely: internal versus external locus; ‘affect-valence’ versus ‘emotion-valence’; and ‘deep versus shallow’ hedonic tone. Schubert, North, and Hargreaves (2017) have also presented some empirical data which supports the ASF by comparing responses to liked and disliked music.…”

Verbal and Cross-Modal Ratings of Music: Validation and Application of an Icon-Based Rating Scale

“…The third factor is interesting because only verbal items loaded onto it. Furthermore, these items were related to “affect-valence” (Schubert, North, & Hargreaves, 2016) terms concerned with liking and disliking the music and appear to have emerged as a result of the self-selected music stimuli which focus explicitly on liking/disliking as the selection criteria. The more specific relationships between icons and music are further examined in the following analysis in which each piece of music was investigated separately.…”