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.