Commentary on Corradi et al.’s (2019) new ...
Type de document :
Compte-rendu et recension critique d'ouvrage
DOI :
Titre :
Commentary on Corradi et al.’s (2019) new conception of aesthetic sensitivity: Is the ability conception dead?
Auteur(s) :
Myszkowski, Nils [Auteur]
Çelik, Pinar [Auteur]
Storme, Martin [Auteur]
Lille économie management - UMR 9221 [LEM]
Çelik, Pinar [Auteur]
Storme, Martin [Auteur]
Lille économie management - UMR 9221 [LEM]
Titre de la revue :
British Journal of Psychology
Pagination :
659-662
Éditeur :
British Psychological Society ; Wiley
Date de publication :
2020-11
ISSN :
0007-1269
Discipline(s) HAL :
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Gestion et management
Résumé en anglais : [en]
Corradi et al. (British Journal of Psychology, 2019) argue that their new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity (as responsiveness to aesthetic features in one’s preferences) presents several advantages in comparison ...
Lire la suite >Corradi et al. (British Journal of Psychology, 2019) argue that their new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity (as responsiveness to aesthetic features in one’s preferences) presents several advantages in comparison with the current ability view of aesthetic sensitivity, usually defined as the ability to judge aesthetic stimuli in accordance with standards (The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57 and 49). Although the measure they propose is interesting and presents advances to the field, we point to important issues. Notably, the authors conveniently base their comparison between the two conceptions on psychometric double standards, discard a century of research on aesthetic sensitivity by focusing on Eysenck’s speculations, and disguise an extension of already existing aesthetic preference tests (e.g., The Journal of Psychology, 1952, 33 and 199; Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2005, 23 and 165) as a redefinition of aesthetic sensitivity. We conclude that both aesthetic preference and aesthetic sensitivity research are legitimate objects of study, that the authors present interesting ideas to further the study of aesthetic preferences, but that their approach is not new and that its proposed renaming only adds confusion to the field.Lire moins >
Lire la suite >Corradi et al. (British Journal of Psychology, 2019) argue that their new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity (as responsiveness to aesthetic features in one’s preferences) presents several advantages in comparison with the current ability view of aesthetic sensitivity, usually defined as the ability to judge aesthetic stimuli in accordance with standards (The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57 and 49). Although the measure they propose is interesting and presents advances to the field, we point to important issues. Notably, the authors conveniently base their comparison between the two conceptions on psychometric double standards, discard a century of research on aesthetic sensitivity by focusing on Eysenck’s speculations, and disguise an extension of already existing aesthetic preference tests (e.g., The Journal of Psychology, 1952, 33 and 199; Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2005, 23 and 165) as a redefinition of aesthetic sensitivity. We conclude that both aesthetic preference and aesthetic sensitivity research are legitimate objects of study, that the authors present interesting ideas to further the study of aesthetic preferences, but that their approach is not new and that its proposed renaming only adds confusion to the field.Lire moins >
Langue :
Anglais
Vulgarisation :
Non
Collections :
Source :
Fichiers
- https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/303300/3/comment.pdf
- Accès libre
- Accéder au document
- comment.pdf
- Accès libre
- Accéder au document