Psychological Distance and the Aesthetic Experience

In this chapter, we encounter the topic of aesthetic experience through the theory of physical distance by Edward Bullough. The main purpose of this chapter is to expose the faults of Edward Bullough’s distance theory. According to Bullough, physical distance is both an element for the “aesthetic consciousness” and “criterion of the beautiful” (page 91). He describes physical distance as a specific type of consciousness that is applied between a subject and his affections. Physical distance is conducive of the “aesthetic consciousness”, which Bullough believes is a voluntary and deliberate action.

The act of distance is both a positive and a negative force: it both promotes inhibition (con) and elaboration of experience (pro). Psychological blocking of normal actions is the first aspect of distance. He believes that like normal, common emotional and physical feelings (i.e. hunger, fatigue, happiness), people can become more of less distant. George Dickie does not take issue with Bullough’s hypothetical phenomenon, but believes there is a need for corrections. He believes that Bullough’s theory should “apply to all aesthetic experience, not just the threatening sublime” (page 96).

Bullough believes that as a psychological force, inhibition is needed to control practical concerns for safety in order to allow for the aesthetic experience. There exists a fear that art will be confused with reality because of “under-distancing”. For example, an audience member who loses distance by becoming too psychologically involved in the plot and runs onstage to “attack the villain and save the heroine” (page 97). Normal, every day emotions do not require distancing. But in order to have aesthetic experiences, one must be separate from one’s practical emotions.

The question at hand is, do we actually, naturally distance ourselves when looking at art of experiencing nature? When in danger, do we exude a psychological force which distances us, allowing us to remove the “practical side of things” (page 101)? We may not be thinking about danger at every moment, but that is not because the thought has been removed entirely. Consequently, we are either able to concentrate on the work of art or we find ourselves distracted. Bullough’s theory is weak because he says that distancing is necessary in order to appreciate the quality of objects in art and/or in nature.

Dickie concludes that in the case of art, there is no reason to have psychological restraint, because our subconscious understands that we are observing a work of art. It is rather fascinating to consider whether we, as an audience, distance ourselves in artistic scenarios. When partaking in a concert, is it necessary to separate ourselves psychologically from the performance in order to better appreciate the aesthetic experience? I don’t think that we make a conscious effort to do so. If it happens, it occurs subconsciously and without thought.

I also don’t believe that it is a requirement. There is no psychological force that controls an audience, therefore demonstrating that one can appreciate a situation while maintaining some form of restraint. But once something becomes too forced, it loses its magic. This includes all forms of art: music, paintings, light installations, etc. Perhaps it is more important to maintain objectivity in order to make judgment, but to enjoy an experience it is not necessary. An aesthetic experience should be one that happens organically, regardless of the psychological distance.

An Eclectic Method for Sound, Form, and Reference

In this chapter, our focus is to evaluate the capabilities of the eclectic method and its sensitivity to the levels of musical significance. We continue our discussion of the importance of maintaining openness to achieve philosophical understanding. The “eclectic method must be penetrable; it must allow any level of musical significance to pass through or penetrate its questioning structure and add to the listener/analyst’s database” (page 179). It is important to eliminate prejudice and past influences and remain open to new meanings. There are three general approaches to analysis discussed in this book: phenomenological, conventional and Hermeneutic. These three categories must be allowed to function independently in order for a distinction between explanation, description and interpretation to be made. We must be permitted to ask questions about the work and also to answer questions about the work.

The eclectic method is comprised of ten steps: historical, open-listening, musical syntax, sound-in-time, musical representation, human feelings, onto-historical world of the composer, another open-listening, performance and meta-critique of the entire analysis. The purpose of step one is to place the work in its historical setting as well as examining the composer’s total oeuvre. Step two aims to promote openness, allowing the listener to hear the work from an entirely unbiased viewpoint. In this step, one should suspend any analysis of the work. In step three, the listener/analyst brings traditional musical syntax to the table. In this step, one suspends any phenomenological or hermeneutic data and focus on conventional Roman Numeral analysis. In step four, a “phenomenological description of the sound-in-time is performed. This shifts the previous, more traditional Roman Numeral analysis to one that is more literal. Step five beings the first level of referential meaning by providing an analysis of the work’s text. Step six discusses the work’s depiction of human emotion. This clarifies the concept of “virtual feeling” and demonstrates how music converts the actual into the virtual. Step seven is the final level of referential meaning. In this step, we employ hermeneutic analysis in order to explore the onto-historical world of the composer. Step eight returns to step two, an open-listening of the work. This time, we approach the open-listening with a more informed ear, using the “six strata of musical significance—factual history, syntax, sound-in-time, representation, virtual feelings, and onto-historical world” independently from one another (page 185). The six are brought together to further our experience of the vast array of the levels of musical significance. Step nine is a performance of the work, with a performance guide provided. The purpose of this step is for the listener/analyst to better understand the work in making interpretive decision in preparation for the performance. Suggestions to better the technical and musical aspects of the work are presented in the performance guide. Step ten is a meta-critique of all the steps. The focus is the reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis through the eclectic method.

As everything finally comes together, I can’t help but wonder if this is all just too much. Personally, I dislike in depth analysis. I do enjoy making informed decisions, but there is something about applying one’s own, natural intuition to a work. It makes it unique, because everyone is so inherently different. Reading about the history of the composer is helpful, and placing the work in its historical period is necessary. But all the same, we are in our own time period now. Why can’t we apply what we feel now, in the present day, to the piece, regardless of its historical style?

Knowing when a specific note, chord or scale is foreign to the key signature is particularly beautiful when acknowledged. There is a reason (hopefully) why a composer placed a certain dissonance or adds elements that are out of character to his work. But identifying every key change and every leading voice simply strips away the magic for me. Yes, it is informative. But necessary? I’m not sure.

Tenebrae: Second Movement by Osvaldo Golijov

Osvaldo Golijov was born in La Plata, Argentina on December 5, 1960. Growing up in an Eastern European, Jewish household, he found himself surrounded by Jewish liturgical and klezmer music. In addition, he was immersed in classical chamber music and heavily influenced by another composer, Astor Piazzolla. Golijov studied with Gerardo Gandini in La Plata, Mark Kopytman at the Jerusalem Rubin Academy, George Crumb at the University of Pennsylvania, where he received his Ph.D. and Oliver Knussen at Tanglewood.

In 2000, he was commissioned by German Helmuth Riling to write a Passion based on St. Mark to commemorate the 250^th anniversary of the death of Johann Sebastian Bach. Subsequently, Golijov composed numerous works for a large variety of instrumentations, including but not limited to: solo repertoire, chamber pieces, operas and orchestral works. He demonstrates an incredible dexterity for incorporating multiple techniques from various musical eras into one work.

(Kronos Quartet)

He received two Grammys in 2007 for Best Opera Recording and Best Classical Contemporary Composition for his opera “Ainadamar”. The Post and Courier called “Tenebrae” “powerful and immediate”. Wes Blomster of Andante.com called Golijov “one of today’s most gifted and appealing composers”. In addition to having received an abundance of awards from prestigious institutions around the world, he has also established quite a large international audience.

Tenebrae, recorded by the Kronos Quartet, was released in 2003 with Osvaldo Golijov’s album Oceana. The second movement begins in minimalist style, the instrumentation slowly layering with singing but still melodic fragments and other simple textures. As the piece develops, we find ourselves in the realm of Bach and Monteverdi, with beautifully resolved dissonances and baroque harmonies. At the climax of the movement, the stormy texture is reminiscent of Vivaldi. We close with the original, similar tones except this time the musicians play their soaring melodies with more vibrato, interchanging between the instruments.

The historical elements of a contemporary work are not as significant because many of these pieces are derived from numerous periods. Tenebrae, for example, contains multiple styles ranging from Baroque, to early Classical and even utilizing modern day techniques. A historical critique also misses much of the analysis of the actual, technical structure of the piece…but perhaps this is because of the brevity of the assignment. However, it is useful to consider the composer’s background, ouerve, in order to better understand his compositional voice. The facts collected about Golijov from research explain his tendency toward minimalism and folk-like, romantic melodies.

Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art

Heidegger’s philosophy of art makes a shift away from the concepts revealed in Being and Time. He states that in order to reveal human’s awareness of existence, we must first look at death. Dasein is limited to this idea, that existing in reality is “being-toward-death” (page 123). This should not be confused as a negative concept, but as a way of recognizing one’s connection to time and to the world. Chapter Five furthers the discussion of Heidegger’s deconstruction of the Western Metaphysical tradition.

Heidegger realized that the same Western metaphysical model he was trying to challenge limited his previous method. In order to repair the problem, he needed to question the technical and manipulative style of his previous work. This required Heidegger to make a shift toward a meditative and poetic position. Meditative thinking gives man openness, allowing man to wait for Being. This is acceptable because “being human is distinguished by the potential to let things ‘come into unconcealment’” (page 124).

Heidegger returns to his roots in Greek methodology, remembering that thinking is a collected resource. Meditative thinking frees the will, which marks the response to things. Responsiveness requires waiting, which consequently leads to openness. The wait represents a form of subjectivity, because things disappear under the weight of man’s desire. Heidegger’s return to Greek thought represents an ontological difference between Western metaphysical notions and meditative thinking.

As we begin our discussion of art, Heidegger references all mediums. Our first view of a work gives us the impression that the artist produces the work. Then we consider that the artist is defined by his works; he is an artist because of his art works. Thus, art works define the artist. Separately, artist and art works are defined by art. The three categories—ready-to-hand, present-to-hand and Dasein—that Heidegger defines in Being and Time do not include art works.

The problem with ready-to-hand, is that it is too general. This keeps the thing too distant from the viewer. The issue with present-to-hand, is that things disappear under the weight of the definition. We do not comprehend beyond the physical, surface attributes and do not allow the thing to reveal itself. The third interpretation, Dasein, better interprets our view of things. It goes below the surface level of analysis to the roots of the “matter-form concept,” thus becoming “understanding of the nature of equipment rather than the thingly character of mere things” (page 127).

For example, a pair of shoes is not an art work because it is an accurate imitation of the actual object itself. Before they were painted, the shoes existed in actual form. The truth of the shoes in their actual form is hidden from the user, but revealed through the painting. A painting of the shoes converts the actual shoes into virtual form. Art is a representation of human feelings and experiences, a manipulation of virtual space.

The artist’s creation brings forth the character of the work’s mediums, which is something that requires the opportunity toward openness. The “world” of the artist is the “existential frame of reference of the living subject, the context within which human experience and significance take place” (page 132). Heidegger adds a historical notion to Husserl’s theory, stating that the “world” is ever-nonobjective as long as we maintain the cycle of beginning and end (life and death). The purpose of art is to divulge reality by describing and interpreting the world of the artist.

Heidegger then goes on to discuss the world of the art work. In order to be an art work, each work must establish a world with openness. This concept of virtual space establishes the structure and liberates the Open world by eliminating the death sentence. The world, through openness, is allowed to show itself. He highlights the difference between capital and lowercase “O”s a capital “O” is indicative of the ontological world and a lowercase “o” indicates making space for the world of the artist.

I am baffled and intrigued by the concepts presented in this chapter. The idea of considering death in order to better understand current existence is fascinating because it promotes looking at a bigger picture. Too often do we find ourselves trapped and obsessing over minute details. The separation between the world of the artist and the world of the art work and how they function together provides a more successful method for analysis. We frequently assume that the artist creates the work of art, and not the other way around. It is important to question the function of the work in its ontological world perhaps before and at least at the same time as we consider the artist’s purpose.