Mere Exposure to Bad Art
Mere Exposure to Bad Art
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aesthj/ays060
复制
发表时间：
2013-04-01
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Kieran, Matthew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Meskin, Aaron;Phelan, Mark;Kieran, Matthew
I为什么我们要做出我们所做的美学判断？运气和偶然事件我们的环境，我们的教养，我们的朋友大概扮演着某种角色。但是，大多数艺术哲学家都假定艺术作品具有稳定的审美或艺术价值，而判断也对这些价值敏感。因此，标准的哲学（也许是常识）观点认为，艺术价值是规范地位的主要决定因素。相比之下，许多来自其他学科的学者对美学领域持怀疑态度：他们认为社会文化过程是审美判断、“价值”和规范性的主要决定因素。[1]除了艺术圈内人士的力量，或者说是有利于特权群体而排斥局外人的社会政治力量之外，美学怀疑论者还可能认为，我们精心培养的（纯粹的）美学品味在很大程度上是偶然和偶然相遇的产物。这样的怀疑论者甚至可能代表她整理最近的心理学证据。心理学家詹姆斯·卡廷（James Cutting）最近的一系列研究表明，仅仅让人们接触某些印象派画作，就会增加他们对这些画作的喜爱。[2]卡廷的研究提出了一些重要的问题，即曝光影响审美偏好和判断的条件和程度。是不是不管人们接触到什么样的图像，他们都会逐渐喜欢上他们看到最多的图像？这充其量只能说明审美价值在决定我们的审美趣味方面所起的作用极其有限。也许卡廷的研究可以用来支持这种极端的怀疑论。或者，这项研究可能表明，暴露只在相当有限的限制下起作用。也许只有当所有其他因素都保持相同时，曝光才会起作用;也就是说，在质量相同的绘画中，人们会更喜欢他们最常看到的那些。[3]这种阅读虽然没有怀疑论的观点那么极端，但仍然对我们许多比较判断的合理性施加了压力。也许我们误认为仅仅是曝光的效果就具有上级艺术品质的情况比我们想象的要普遍得多。本文讨论了单纯的曝光和我们所接触的艺术品的质量之间的相互作用。它关注的是我们进行的一个实验，
I Why do we make the aesthetic judgements that we do? Luck and happenstance—our environment, our upbringing, our friends—presumably play some role. But most philosophers of art presume that works of art have stable aesthetic or artistic values to which judgement is also sensitive. Hence the standard philosophical (and perhaps commonsensical) view that artistic value is a primary determinant of canonical status. By contrast, many scholars from other disciplines are sceptical about the aesthetic domain: they presume that sociocultural processes are the primary determinants of aesthetic judgement,‘value’, and canonicity. 1 In addition to the power of art insiders, or socio-political forces which favour privileged groups and exclude outsiders, an aesthetic sceptic might also suggest that our (putatively) carefully cultivated aesthetic tastes are largely a product of contingencies and chance encounters. Such a sceptic might even marshal recent evidence from psychology on her behalf. A recent set of studies by the psychologist James Cutting demonstrated that merely exposing people to certain Impressionist paintings produced an increase in their liking for them. 2 Cutting’s research prompts important questions about the conditions under, and the extent to which, exposure influences aesthetic preference and judgement. Is it the case that no matter what images people are exposed to, they will grow to like the ones they see the most? This would suggest at best an extremely limited role for aesthetic value in determining our aesthetic tastes. Perhaps Cutting’s study might be taken to support such extreme scepticism. Alternatively, the study might suggest that exposure only works under fairly limited constraints. Perhaps it is only when all other factors are kept equal that mere exposure plays a role; that is, among paintings of equal quality, people will prefer those they have seen most often. 3 While less extreme than the sceptical view, such a reading nonetheless puts pressure on the soundness of many of our comparative judgements. Perhaps we mistake the effects of mere exposure for superior artistic quality much more commonly than we would like to think. This paper addresses the interaction between mere exposure and the quality of the artworks to which we are exposed. It focuses on an experiment we conducted to test