Menninghaus et al. propose a model of why and how the enjoyment of negative emotions is a crucial feature of art reception. The most important aspect of this model, for our purposes, is its emphasis on psychological distance. Within the Distancing factor of their model, they highlight three cognitive schemas that serve to distance the consumer from the artwork: art, representation, and fiction. Together, these schemas remind consumers that what they are experiencing is not real, allowing the Embracing components of the model to function.
We do not object to the claims that distance is required for many types of aesthetic appreciation and that one can embrace negative emotions in the context of such appreciation. However, although the authors do not claim to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for distancing, they do imply that the art and especially fiction schemas are primarily responsible for this effect in narrative representations. We believe that the inclusion of these schemas leads the authors to apply their model too narrowly. We suggest that the art and fiction schemas provide nothing more than optional mechanisms to achieve the distance necessary for embracing. They may fail to function as described, and other mechanisms may function equally well.
One the one hand, fictional artworks may fail to trigger sufficient distance to allow for the enjoyment of negative emotions. For example, a mother who has suffered a miscarriage or a soldier who has experienced combat would likely not enjoy the negative emotions provoked by a fictional story about a miscarriage or a battle. In the famous discussion of “psychical distance” cited by the authors, Edward Bullough points out that a jealous husband may not be able to appreciate Othello. These cases have the features required by the Distancing part of the model – they are fictional, artistic representations – and yet do not create distance as the authors suggest they should. In such cases, the negative emotions overwhelm and prevent aesthetic enjoyment.
On the other hand, and more interestingly, the majority of the features in the Embracing factor of the model can (and often do) apply to nonfictional and even non-art representations. For example, journalistic photographs from the Great Depression or a narrative biography can easily elicit an interplay of emotions or spark a search for meaning or higher-order symbolism in the same way as fictional pieces do. In these cases, a consumer is aware that real harm was done and that real people suffered; the art and fiction schemas are not activated. Nevertheless, in these cases, we can experience the heightened aesthetic enjoyment generated by Embracing – arguably because these cases are suitably distant even though they are not fictional.
Perhaps most tellingly, in this same vein, consumers may not know whether a given representation is fictional, or may be unsure of its status. For example, one might experience and enjoy negative emotions elicited by a magazine article about a family tragedy despite not knowing whether it is a short story or a piece of narrative journalism. Cases like this provide strong reasons to reject the authors' claim that the Distancing schemas must be activated in advance (“situational activation of these schemata precedes the online processing,” sect. 1, point B, para. 1), because this cannot be true in cases where one does not know if one if viewing a fictional or nonfictional representation. This is not to deny that knowledge of a representation's fictionality plays a role in our responses, but it is to deny that we experience the enjoyment of negative affect only in representations already framed as art or fiction.
We thus would encourage the authors to modify the Distancing factor of their model to make clear that the fiction and art schemas are no more than possible mechanisms for generating psychological distance, rather than standard requirements. If they do so, we believe that their model will apply to a broader set of cases of aesthetic appreciation and improve our understanding of the role of negative emotions in the enjoyment of a wider range of representations.
In fairness, the authors do seem to consider this option at several points in their article. For example, they write, “There are even clear cases of fascination when viewing live footage of real disastrous events…. [W]here no distancing effects of fiction and temporal distance and real humans are involved, some spatial distance – sufficient enough to support the precondition of the viewer's personal safety – is still required” (sect. 3.3, para. 2). We agree, but we believe that this simple acknowledgment that such cases exist does not go far enough. Indeed, the authors seem actively resistant to the kind of broadening we suggest. In their article (sect. 4.2.1, last para.), they state that there are “subtle differences in emotional responses that are still likely to derive from the ontological distinction between real represented and fictional represented events.”
This resistance to including nonfictional cases of the embracing of negative emotions thus seems to depend on the assertion that the emotions engendered by these cases will be significantly different from the emotions engendered by fiction. But even if these emotions are different in some respects, surely they share enough commonalities to serve the functions required by the Embracing factor of the model. Further, this is an empirical question. In the absence of firm evidence for it, we believe that the similarities between fictional and nonfictional cases should be sufficient to apply the authors' model to both. Doing so would provide a framework for a more general theory of our enjoyment of negative emotions in representations.
You have
Access
Menninghaus et al. propose a model of why and how the enjoyment of negative emotions is a crucial feature of art reception. The most important aspect of this model, for our purposes, is its emphasis on psychological distance. Within the Distancing factor of their model, they highlight three cognitive schemas that serve to distance the consumer from the artwork: art, representation, and fiction. Together, these schemas remind consumers that what they are experiencing is not real, allowing the Embracing components of the model to function.
We do not object to the claims that distance is required for many types of aesthetic appreciation and that one can embrace negative emotions in the context of such appreciation. However, although the authors do not claim to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for distancing, they do imply that the art and especially fiction schemas are primarily responsible for this effect in narrative representations. We believe that the inclusion of these schemas leads the authors to apply their model too narrowly. We suggest that the art and fiction schemas provide nothing more than optional mechanisms to achieve the distance necessary for embracing. They may fail to function as described, and other mechanisms may function equally well.
One the one hand, fictional artworks may fail to trigger sufficient distance to allow for the enjoyment of negative emotions. For example, a mother who has suffered a miscarriage or a soldier who has experienced combat would likely not enjoy the negative emotions provoked by a fictional story about a miscarriage or a battle. In the famous discussion of “psychical distance” cited by the authors, Edward Bullough points out that a jealous husband may not be able to appreciate Othello. These cases have the features required by the Distancing part of the model – they are fictional, artistic representations – and yet do not create distance as the authors suggest they should. In such cases, the negative emotions overwhelm and prevent aesthetic enjoyment.
On the other hand, and more interestingly, the majority of the features in the Embracing factor of the model can (and often do) apply to nonfictional and even non-art representations. For example, journalistic photographs from the Great Depression or a narrative biography can easily elicit an interplay of emotions or spark a search for meaning or higher-order symbolism in the same way as fictional pieces do. In these cases, a consumer is aware that real harm was done and that real people suffered; the art and fiction schemas are not activated. Nevertheless, in these cases, we can experience the heightened aesthetic enjoyment generated by Embracing – arguably because these cases are suitably distant even though they are not fictional.
Perhaps most tellingly, in this same vein, consumers may not know whether a given representation is fictional, or may be unsure of its status. For example, one might experience and enjoy negative emotions elicited by a magazine article about a family tragedy despite not knowing whether it is a short story or a piece of narrative journalism. Cases like this provide strong reasons to reject the authors' claim that the Distancing schemas must be activated in advance (“situational activation of these schemata precedes the online processing,” sect. 1, point B, para. 1), because this cannot be true in cases where one does not know if one if viewing a fictional or nonfictional representation. This is not to deny that knowledge of a representation's fictionality plays a role in our responses, but it is to deny that we experience the enjoyment of negative affect only in representations already framed as art or fiction.
We thus would encourage the authors to modify the Distancing factor of their model to make clear that the fiction and art schemas are no more than possible mechanisms for generating psychological distance, rather than standard requirements. If they do so, we believe that their model will apply to a broader set of cases of aesthetic appreciation and improve our understanding of the role of negative emotions in the enjoyment of a wider range of representations.
In fairness, the authors do seem to consider this option at several points in their article. For example, they write, “There are even clear cases of fascination when viewing live footage of real disastrous events…. [W]here no distancing effects of fiction and temporal distance and real humans are involved, some spatial distance – sufficient enough to support the precondition of the viewer's personal safety – is still required” (sect. 3.3, para. 2). We agree, but we believe that this simple acknowledgment that such cases exist does not go far enough. Indeed, the authors seem actively resistant to the kind of broadening we suggest. In their article (sect. 4.2.1, last para.), they state that there are “subtle differences in emotional responses that are still likely to derive from the ontological distinction between real represented and fictional represented events.”
This resistance to including nonfictional cases of the embracing of negative emotions thus seems to depend on the assertion that the emotions engendered by these cases will be significantly different from the emotions engendered by fiction. But even if these emotions are different in some respects, surely they share enough commonalities to serve the functions required by the Embracing factor of the model. Further, this is an empirical question. In the absence of firm evidence for it, we believe that the similarities between fictional and nonfictional cases should be sufficient to apply the authors' model to both. Doing so would provide a framework for a more general theory of our enjoyment of negative emotions in representations.