Bulloughs Theory of Psychical Distancing - Essay Example

Considering Bullough’s theory of psychical distancing and notions of kinaesthetic empathy (Stolnitz, etc discuss the extent to which the choreographer of a dance or dance-related work can attempt to shape or control the viewer’s degree of attention. Is it possible to create the conditions within an audience for different levels of attention? Dance as an art form is very old and deeply embedded in our human cultures but it is only relatively recently that it has been properly theorized. Even today philosophers and critics do not agree on how the relationships that exist between choreographers, dance performers and audience should be described, There is still a lot of debate about what kind of terminology should be used, and what kind of approach should be taken. Two scholars in particular dominated this debate in the early to mid-twentieth century and this paper explores each of their theories in turn: first Bullough’s theory of psychical distance and secondly Stolnitz’s theory of kinaesthetic empathy . The language of these two authors is quite technical and so definition and clarification of the terms they use in each case is necessary before the theories can be understood in depth. In the light of these two approaches and some more recent critiques of them, there is then a consideration of the extent to which the choreographer can attempt to shape or control the viewer’s degree of attention, and in particular whether or not it is possible to create the conditions within an audience for different levels of attention. A key element in the work of Stolnitz is the idea that when we look at things in the world we always do so with a certain attitude, by which he means that we devote more attention to some things and less to others and that this varies from person to person and from one occasion to another. He uses the example of an Indian scout giving close attention to markings (Stolnitz, 1960, p. 17) as someone at the more focused end of this spectrum whereas someone just out for a stroll would be at a the less focused end. This state of giving something close attention involves excluding other things which might be a distraction and preparing to react to what is seen, either in a positive or negative way. The relevance of this to dance is that when an audience comes to watch dance being performed they come with a special kind of attitude, involving focus and hopefully a positive expectation of perceiving something worthwhile that they will react to in some way. This kind of expectant appreciation is, in Stolnitz’s terms the aesthetic attitude, deriving from ancient Greek philosophy where aesthetics is the appreciation of beauty. A further important distinction, in Stolnitz’s view, of this special attitude and way of perceiving things is that it is quite different from everyday kinds of perception, because it is not put to some practical purpose: “Usually perception is merely a rapid and momentary identification of the kind of thing it is and its uses.” (Stolnitz, 1960, p. 18) In contrast to this Stolnitz defines the aesthetic attitude as “disinterested and sympathetic attention to and contemplation of any object of awareness whatever, for its own sake alone.” (Stolnitz, 1960, p. 19). In ordinary modern English we might assume that “disinterested” means “bored” or “not much interested in” but in fact it has a narrower meaning of not wanting any specific purpose out of the act of paying attention something. In terms of dance, then, this aesthetic attitude is what comes into play when a member of the audience comes simply to observe and enjoy the performance. He or she may at times reflect on what is seen, or react with pleasure, or distaste, or even anger at what happens in the performance, but the point is that coming to see the dance is the only outcome that the observer is really after. The example of a lecturer coming to watch a student performance would not, in Stolnitz’s view, be an example of someone approaching the dance with the appropriate aesthetic attitude, because there is an ulterior motive lurking there, namely to grade the students and ascertain what they have learned and how much progress they are making in their studies. There is a bit of a problem with this definition because there are some situations, for example a student going to watch a performance with an aim of understanding more about the art of choreography, or lighting or stagecraft, or any other aspect. According to Stolnitz’s definition this would not be the proper aesthetic attitude and yet there is a lot of appreciation of the performance going on in this kind of attention to the piece. A more convincing element of Stolnitz’s argument is his insistence that we should approach any object on its own terms, and not take a whole load of prejudices with us through which we perceive the object: “To maintain the aesthetic attitude, we must follow the lead of the object and respond in concert with it.” (Stolnitz, 1960, p. 21) In dance this can be difficult at times because choreographers often set out deliberately to confront an audience with a whole raft of issues that mainstream society might well take issue with. Audience reaction to Nijinsky’s Rite of Spring performance of 1913 is an example of a situation where the audience no doubt came with an intention to watch the ballet with an aesthetic attitude, but were in the end shocked into quite a different response when they left the theatre in disgust. In this case the conservative values of the audience were in conflict with the progressive music and dance of Stravinsky and Nijinsky and so there was a stormy break in the connection between dance professionals and their public. The audience could not appreciate the dance on its own new and radical terms because they were too busy judging it on their own existing values. Stolnitz requires a lot of an audience, including a freeing of their minds up from the baggage of their own judgements, and a willingness to even use their body to empathize or “feel into” what they are seeing. (Stolnitz, 1960, p. 22) This is called “kinaesthetic empathy” by Stolnitz, and it is what happens when someone appreciates art in a such a way that their body moves, or imagines moving, in ways that echo what is being perceived. Because dance is a form that continually moves in space and time, this kind of moving-with-the-object is necessary if the audience is to keep track of the flow of the piece and appreciate all the emotional heights and depths, and the nuances in between as they come and go throughout the narrative. Foster illuminates the meaning of empathy, in the sense that Stolnitz uses the word, when she explains that it comes from the German word “Einfühlung” which was used initially in connection with painting and sculpture and “posited a kind of physical connection between viewer and art in which the viewer’s own body would move into and inhabit the various features of the artwork.” (Foster, 2010, p. 10) The use of the word in modern times has drifted away from the physical dimension and much more into the dimension of psychology, but a renewed focus on kinaesthetic factors is beginning to restore the older meaning to the term. Bullough covers a lot of the same ideas as Stolnitz, but somewhat confusingly uses a different set of terminology and so careful reading is needed to trace the similarities and the differences between the two. Instead of the concept of a disinterested attitude to what is being perceived, Bullough uses the phrase “psychical distance.” (Bullough, 1989, p. 320) This is defined in terms of the contrast between our being involved with something, i.e. subjectivity, and being set apart from something so that we can look at it objectively. This approach makes a lot of sense because it explains why people find that they have more affinity with some kinds of art than others. If the distance between the time, place and culture where a work is created and the time, place and culture is performed is too great, then it is very difficult for an audience to grasp of enough the work’s features and qualities to understand it. An example of this might be Western visitors watching Japanese Kabuki theater and just not appreciating it because it is too far from the kinds of theatrical performances that they are used to. This is, in Bullough’s terminology a case of over-distance. Middle class parents disapproving of their teenage children’s enthusiasm for street styles of dancing might be also an example of this kind of phenomenon. The opposite is a situation where the onlooker is so emotionally tied in to the performance that it becomes part of his or her lived experience, and there is no room left in the person’s head for an appreciation of the performance as a work of art. The Nijinsky example illustrates this idea and shows that it overlaps significantly with Stolnitz’s concept of an appropriate level of empathy on the terms of the work of art, and not stemming from the audience’s own preoccupations and prejudices. Incidentally there can be also an overwhelmingly positive under-distancing, for example in an onlooker who is besotted with a performer and follows him or her around the country in order to demonstrate appreciation of the idolized being. In such a case the performance could be decidedly mediocre, from an objective point of view, but the fanatical supporter would still find the performance exquisite. Quite often in the arts there are writers, choreographers, performers and musicians who are reviled in their own time, only to be recognized and revered much later, when society has had a chance to develop sufficient “distance”, in time at least, from the original appearance of novel forms. Since the middle of the twentieth century when Bullough and Stolnitz were writing, there has been further criticism of their ideas. In particular there have been efforts to understand aesthetics in terms of physical sciences rather than psychology. Some scholars speak of kinaesthetic empathy as if it was a sense, like the five recognised senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, but there are some problems with this definition. McFee does not hold this position: “…the notion of a kinaesthetic sensory modality is counter-productive…. It is a fraud. There is no such sense.” (McFee, 1992, p. 264). Instead he suggests that we have a kinaesthetic sense in the same way that we have an inbuilt moral sense, or sense of direction, and reminds us that in such forms of appreciation there is a whole person involved, and not just some physical part of the body such as the eyes or ears, sending impulses directly to the brain. The explanation that he gives for kinaesthesis is a good definition: “Roughly, the idea is that one knows where the bits of one’s body are without appeal to other sensory modalities. That is to say I do not need to see or touch those bits of my body in order to know where in space they are, what position they are in, etc…” (McFee, 1992, p. 267) This ability is of a lower order than the traditional five senses, and McFee cites as evidence the fact that we test a kinaesthetic experience by using one of the five higher sense, such as sight. What this all boils down to is that our primary organ of appreciation when we observe dance is sight, and that any kinaesthetic appreciation depends on the sense of sight, often in tandem with hearing when there is music or percussion, more than anything else. When it comes to present day contexts of dance performance it is important to remember that we are conditioned by our Western capitalist culture. Art has become a commodity and contemporary audiences encounter dance in a variety of commodified forms, ranging from classical ballet with all the orchestral support and formal surroundings, to smaller experimental theatres, the open air, and even feature films and television talent shows. What is constant in these contexts is that the audience sits apart from the performance, and expects a set format of gathering to watch, curtain opening (or similar effect through lighting, sound, opening titles etc.), several spells of dance, usually with one or more intermissions and a rounding off in some kind of finale. There is an expectation of coherence and some kind of narrative development. Audiences expect to be entertained, but also to exercise their aesthetic sense(s), however we choose to define that. The first task of the choreographer is to gather up a disparate audience and encourage a certain focus on the dance. There is nothing worse than a coughing, shuffling and generally ill-disciplined audience that competes with the dancers for the attention. It is therefore very much the choreographer’s role to try and shape the audience’s attention towards the stage or performance area. How this is achieved is a matter of much debate. Copeland cites two contrasting approaches to the problem. There is the examples of Brecht, with his deliberate disunity of related elements of choreography, sound score and settings, who did not want the audience to get too cosy with the drama going on before them, and so kept this tensions going, and thereby encouraged the distancing that allows the aesthetic sense to flourish. (Copeland, 2004, p. 111) The second example the all-consuming synthesizing wave of Nazi spectacles where human bodies in unison perform ritualistic movements. Nazi modern dance encouraged the audience to an excessive kinaesthetic empathy, which was very clearly located in the body, bypassing the more cognitive part of the viewer in favour of a collective retreat into primitive ritualism. (Copeland, 2004, p. 112-113) Clearly too much of either of these approaches is a bad thing for a choreographer, because Stolnitz and Bullough argue convincingly that both empathy and distance are needed if the audience is to be able to appreciate an artistic performance adequately. It is clear also that a choreographer cannot and should not aim to dominate the audience to the point where there is no room for individual responses. What is required is some finesse in working with the audience’s preconceptions about the setting and context far enough to engage with them and engender empathy, but at the same time to introduce elements of the unexpected, variation in pace, or style, and small alienating factors that will jolt the audience out of a passive going-with-the-flow experience. Innovative approaches to elements in the narrative, plot and choice of movement can make sudden and lasting connections with the audience. Copeland explains how Merce Cunningham mixed up the order of steps, for example “by refusing to differentiate in any hierarchical way between steps that are traditionally preparatory (e.g. a plié that precedes a jeté) and the steps that normally serve as climax or exclamatory punctuation for a phrase.” (Copeland, 2004, p. 30) By undermining the expectation of the audience in this way, attention is pulled towards each single step, and this helps the audience to focus rather than mentally skip portions that look familiar. This kind of distancing technique also opens up the potential for parody and quotation, which will delight a knowledgeable audience and add variety and interest to the dance. Copeland quotes Cunningham as saying “If one thinks of dance as an errand to accomplish, as a message to be sent, then one misses the spring along the way.” (Cunningham, quoted in Copeland, 2004, p. 31). A recent example of the creating and confounding of audience expectation can be seen also in The Most Incredible Thing (2010) by Pet Shop Boys and Javier de Frutos which makes use of lots of quotation from other media, including pop videos. In this piece the use of technology for special effects, along some familiar Pet Shop Boys musical styles, creates an interesting counterpoint to more balletic touches. It is classical and modern at the same time, and this prevents people from thinking about the dance in easy, conventional ways. Judging by this example, then, it is certainly possible for a choreographer to create differences in the level of audience attention, and there are many other ways, for example through using surprise, signposting key themes with repeated motifs, or simply changing tempo to create periods of quiet contemplation of a single figure under a spotlight followed by riotous movement of many bodies at such a fast pace that the audience does not know which part of the stage to look at. These devices expand and contract the distance between the audience and the dance, and in this respect there is considerable potential for the choreographer to broadly lead the audience along emotional journeys one moment, and then drop into aesthetic contemplation the next. Modern audiences want to be entertained, and to exercise their aesthetic senses at the same time, and so the choreographer can assist them to have the best of both worlds. References Bullough, E. 1989 [1957]. “ ‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle” reprinted in G. Dickie, R. Sclafani and R. Robin, Aesthetics: A Critical Anthology. New York: St Martin’s Press, pp. 320-333. Copeland, R. 2004. Merce Cunningham and the Modernizing of Modern Dance. London: Routledge. Dickie, G. 1961. Bullough and the Concept of Psychical Distance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 22 (2), pp. 233-238. Foster, S.L. 2010. Choreographing Empathy: Kinesthesia in Performance. Oxford, Routledge. McPhee, G. 1992. Understanding Dance. London: Routledge. Pet Shop Boys and Javier de Frutos. 2010. The Most Incredible Thing. (Dance). Details of tour available on website: http://www.petshopboys.co.uk/news/2601 Stolnitz, J. 1960. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 32-42. Read More