Rethinking Veridicality: Motor Response, Empirical Evidence, and Dance Appreciation

Ian T. Heckman
{"title":"Rethinking Veridicality: Motor Response, Empirical Evidence, and Dance Appreciation","authors":"Ian T. Heckman","doi":"10.1093/jaac/kpac055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Recent debates in the philosophy of dance have focused on the relationship between motor response and dance appreciation. Some philosophers argue that motor responses to dances are an important part of dance appreciation. Proponents of such a claim are often backed with support from cognitive science. But it has not remained uncontroversial. Despite its controversy, the concept of motor response remains under-analyzed. As a result, assumptions about the idea and purpose of motor response get borrowed from cognitive science. I argue that one such assumption, that motor response is supposed to be veridical, runs us into several problems. It runs us into something of a paradox, where it is claimed that motor responses happen as part of our general perception of movement. However, few people experience such responses. Furthermore, it seems that the motor responses that are appropriate for a dance might not be the ones the dancer is feeling. As a result, we should prefer an account of motor response that emphasizes its flexibility and its ability to change and adapt to the movement we see.","PeriodicalId":220991,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaac/kpac055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent debates in the philosophy of dance have focused on the relationship between motor response and dance appreciation. Some philosophers argue that motor responses to dances are an important part of dance appreciation. Proponents of such a claim are often backed with support from cognitive science. But it has not remained uncontroversial. Despite its controversy, the concept of motor response remains under-analyzed. As a result, assumptions about the idea and purpose of motor response get borrowed from cognitive science. I argue that one such assumption, that motor response is supposed to be veridical, runs us into several problems. It runs us into something of a paradox, where it is claimed that motor responses happen as part of our general perception of movement. However, few people experience such responses. Furthermore, it seems that the motor responses that are appropriate for a dance might not be the ones the dancer is feeling. As a result, we should prefer an account of motor response that emphasizes its flexibility and its ability to change and adapt to the movement we see.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考真实性:运动反应、经验证据与舞蹈欣赏
最近关于舞蹈哲学的争论集中在运动反应和舞蹈欣赏之间的关系上。一些哲学家认为,对舞蹈的运动反应是舞蹈欣赏的重要组成部分。这种说法的支持者经常得到认知科学的支持。但这并非没有争议。尽管存在争议,但运动反应的概念仍未得到充分分析。因此,关于运动反应的概念和目的的假设借用了认知科学。我认为,其中一个假设,即运动反应应该是真实的,给我们带来了几个问题。这让我们陷入了一个悖论,有人声称运动反应是我们对运动的一般感知的一部分。然而,很少有人会有这样的反应。此外,似乎适合舞蹈的运动反应可能不是舞者所感受到的。因此,我们应该更倾向于对运动反应的解释,强调它的灵活性以及它改变和适应我们所看到的运动的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disagreement in Aesthetics and Ethics: Against the Received Image The 2023 Richard Wollheim Memorial Lecture Hegel and the Present of Art’s Past Character Perplexing Plots: Popular Storytelling and the Poetics of Murder Aesthetics in Biodiversity Conservation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1