dc.contributor.author |
Davies, Stephen |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2018-10-17T01:27:16Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2017 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
0140-525X |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/42356 |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
Despite denials in the target article, the Distancing-Embracing model appeals to compensatory ideas in explaining the appeal of artworks that elicit negative affect. The model also appeals to the deflationary effects of psychological distancing. Having pointed to the famous rejection in the 1960s of the view that aesthetic experience involves psychological distancing, I suggest that “distance” functions here as a weak metaphor that cannot sustain the explanatory burden the theory demands of it. |
en |
dc.publisher |
Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Behavioral and Brain Sciences |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.title |
Distancing, not embracing, the distancing-embracing model of art reception |
en |
dc.type |
Journal Article |
en |
dc.identifier.doi |
10.1017/S0140525X17001650 |
en |
pubs.volume |
40 |
en |
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: The author |
en |
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Article |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
718734 |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Arts |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Humanities |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Philosophy |
en |
pubs.number |
e357 |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2017-12-06 |
en |
pubs.online-publication-date |
2017-12-06 |
en |
pubs.dimensions-id |
29342782 |
en |