The problem of psychical distance refers to the relationship that a person has with an aesthetic object or work. Two basic traditions can be distinguished that have played a meaningful role in describing the underlying processes. The British Empiricist and Enlightenment traditions established the idea that the ‘real’ objective properties of aesthetic works engage viewers and evoke feelings of pleasure. The Romantic tradition placed a greater emphasis on interpretive activity in recipients who ‘willingly suspend disbelief’ and temporarily enter the ‘fictive’ worlds of poetry and drama. Writing in the early 20th century, Edward Bullough produced the idea of ‘psychical distance’, which combines both personal involvement and an awareness that the object or event is a cultural artifact. As the 20th century unfolds, we witness the death of the ‘aesthetic object’ as such and the emergence of a view that accommodates artists, aesthetic artifacts and receivers as open-ended and interacting systems. The complementary role of the realist and constructivist viewpoints is emphasized.
Addison, J.
(1963). On the pleasures of the imagination. In G. Smith (Ed.), The Spectator in four volumes(Vol. 3, pp. 411–421). New York: Dutton. (Original work published 1709.)
2.
Allport, G.W.
(1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
Arnheim, R.
(1986). The trouble with wholes and parts. New Ideas in Psychology, 4, 281–284.
4.
Averil, J. R.
(2001). The rhetoric of emotion, with a note on what makes great literature great. Empirical Studies on the Arts, 19(1), 5–26.
5.
Bartlett, F.C.
(1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Beardsley, M.C.
(1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. New York: Harcourt. (Original work published 1958.)
7.
Beardsley, M.C.
(1982). The aesthetic point of view. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
Benjamin, W.
(1967). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations(pp. 217–251). New York: Schocken.
9.
Bergson, H.
(1920). Essai sur les donnÈe immÈdiates de la conscience(19th ed.). Paris: Alcan.
10.
Berlyne, D.E.
(1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
11.
Berlyne, D.E.
(Ed.) (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
12.
Boring, E. G.
(1950). A history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13.
Bullough, E.
(1904). Matter and form. The Modern Language Quarterly, VII(1), 10–15.
14.
Bullough, E.
(1912). `Psychical distance’ as a factor in art and as an aesthetic principle. British Journal of Psychology, 5, 87–98.
15.
Bullough, E.
(1957). Aesthetics: Lectures and essays(E.M. Wilkinson, Ed.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
16.
Burwick, F.
(1991). Illusion and the drama: Critical theory of the Enlightenment and Romantic era. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
17.
Buxbaum, Y.
(1994). Storytelling and spirituality in Judaism. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
18.
Casebier, A.
(1971). The concept of aesthetic distance. The Personalist, Winter, 70–91.
19.
Chiari, J.
(1992). Vitalism and contemporary thought. In F. Burwick & P. Douglas (Eds.), The crisis in modernism: Bergson and the vitalist controversy(pp.245–273). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Coleridge, S.T.
(1983). Biographia literaria(2 vols., J. Engell & W. J. Bate, Eds.). In The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge 7. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1817.)
21.
Craik, F.I.M.
, & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: Aframework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 671–684.
22.
Cupchik, G.C.
(1995). Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models. Poetics, 23, 177–188.
23.
Cupchik, G.C.
(2001). Constructivist realism: An ontology that encompasses positivist and constructivist approaches to the social sciences [33 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research[On-line Journal], 2(1). Available at: http://qualitativeresearch.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [date of access: 2 December].
24.
Cupchik, G.C.
, & Leonard, G. (2001). High and popular culture from the viewpoints of psychology and cultural studies. In D. Schram & G. Steen (Eds.), The psychology and sociology of literature: In honour of Elrud Ibsch(pp. 421–441). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
Cupchik, G.C.
, & Wroblewski-Raya, V. (1998). Loneliness as a theme in painting. Visual Arts Research, 24(1), 65–71.
26.
Dewey, J.
(1969). Art as experience. In F.A. Tillman & S.M. Cahn (Eds.), Philosophy of art and aesthetics(pp. 352–369). New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1934.)
27.
Dickie, G.
(1964). The myth of the aesthetic attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1(1), 56–65.
28.
Dickie, G.
(1973). Psychical distance: In a fog at sea. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 12(1), 17–29.
29.
Duffy, E.
(1941). An explanation of ‘emotional’ phenomena without use of the concept ‘emotion’. Journal of General Psychology, 25, 283–293.
30.
Eco, U.
(1989). The open work(Anna Cancogni, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962.)
31.
Eliot, T.S.
(1975). Tradition and the individual talent. In Selected prose(F. Kermode, Ed.; pp. 37–44). London: Faber & Faber. (Original work published 1932.)
32.
Fechner, G. (1978). Die Vorschüle der Aesthetik(2 vols.). Hildesheim: Georg Holms. (Original work published 1876.)
Fish, S.
(1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
Flavell, J.
, & Draguns, J. (1957). Amicrogenetic approach to perception and thought. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 197–217.
36.
Foakes, R.A.
(1990). Making and breaking dramatic illusion. In F. Burwick & W. Pape (Eds.), Aesthetic illusion: Theoretical and historical approaches(pp. 217–228). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
37.
Fraisse, P.
(1963). The psychology of time. New York: Harper & Row.
38.
Frank, L.K.
(1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology, 8, 389–413.
39.
Gibson, J.J.
(1971). The information available in pictures. Leonardo, 4, 27–35.
40.
Green, R.T.
, & Courtis, M.C. (1969). Information theory and figure perception: The metaphor that failed. In J. Hogg (Ed.), Psychology and the visual arts(pp. 239–254). Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Original work published, 1966.)
41.
Greenberg, C.
(1957). Avant-garde and kitsch. In B. Rosenberg & D. W. White (Eds.), Mass culture: The popular arts in America(pp. 98–110). New York: Free Press of Glencoe. (Original work published 1946.)
42.
Gurwitsch, A.
(1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
43.
Haeger, J.H.
(1992). Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the Romantic background to Bergson. In F. Burwick & P. Douglas (Eds.), The crisis in modernism: Bergson and the vitalist controversy(pp.98–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Hochberg, J.
(1986). Parts and wholes: Aresponse to Arnheim. New Ideas in Psychology, 4, 285–293.
45.
Holland, N.
(1975). Five readers reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
Hutcheson, F.
(1725). An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue. London: D. Midwinter and others.
47.
Iser, W.
(1971). Indeterminacy and the reader’s response in prose fiction. In J. Hillis Miller (Ed.), Aspects of narrative: Selected papers from the English institute(pp. 1–45). New York: Columbia University Press.
48.
Iser, W.
(1978). The act of reading. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
Knight, R.P.
(1786). Analytical inquiry into the principles of taste. London: T. Payne.
50.
Kreitler, H.
, & Kreitler, S. (1972). The psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
51.
Layton, R.
(1991) The anthropology of art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Lipps, T.
(1962). Empathy, inner imitation, and sense feelings. In M. Rader (Ed.), A modern book of esthetics: An anthology(pp. 374–382). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (Original work published 1903–1906.)
53.
Moles, A.
(1968). Information theory and esthetic perception. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Original work published 1958.)
54.
Oatley, K.
(1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3(2), 101–117.
Scheff, T.J.
(1979). Catharsis in healing, ritual, and drama. Berkeley: University of California Press.
57.
Schmidt, S.J.
(1982). Foundations for the empirical study of literature(R. de Beaugrande, Trans.). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
58.
Schneider, H.J.
(1995). The staging of the gaze: Aesthetic illusion and the scene of nature in the eighteenth century. In W. Pape & F. Burwick (Eds.), Reflecting senses: Perception and appearance in literature, culture, and the arts(pp. 77–95). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
59.
Shklovsky, V.
(1988). Art as technique. In D. Lodge (Ed.), Modern criticism and theory(pp. 16–30). New York: Longman. (Original work published 1917.)
60.
Wilkinson, E.M.
(1945). Johann Elias Schlegel: A German pioneer in aesthetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
61.
Wilkinson, E.M.
(Ed.) (1957). Aesthetics: Lectures and essays by Edward Bullough. London: Bowes and Bowes.
62.
Wolfflin, H.
(1950). Principles of art history. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1915.)
63.
Worringer, W.
(1953). Abstraction and empathy. New York: International Universities Press. (Original work published 1908.)
