Stony Brook University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University. ©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr... The Kinesthetic Basis of Landscape Art A Dissertation Presented by Susan Pashman to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Doctoral Program in Philosophy Stony Brook University December 2013 Copyright by Susan Pashman 2013 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Susan Pashman We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation. Dr. Edward Casey, Professor, Philosophy Dr. Robert Crease, Professor, Philosophy Dr. Harvey Cormier, Professor, Philosophy Dr. Robin Veder, Associate Professor of Humanities and Art History/Visual Culture, Pennsylvania State University This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Charles Taber Dean of the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT The Kinesthetic Basis of Landscape Art by Susan Pashman Doctor of Philosophy in Doctoral Program in Philosophy Stony Brook University 2013 The failure of philosophical concepts of the natural environment and of the works of landscape art structured from it to fully describe the perceptual experience of landscape, like the failure of site plans to adequately represent such works, can be attributed to the ocularcentricity that has long infected the notion of landscape. When “kinesthesia” replaces “vision” as the essential perception in the landscape experience, landscape is both conceived and represented more adequately. I define landscape art as “an expressive art that shapes the experience of moving through immersive volume as a structured sequence of both kinesthetic and visual perceptions to produce a continuum of specific feeling.” The macro-scale bodily movements required to traverse a landscape, as well as the retinal movements involved in scanning voluminal space, produce kinesthetic perceptions. Contemporary neuroscience specifies “emotion” as the unconscious sensation of self- movement, and “feeling” as the conscious awareness of emotion. Thus kinesthesia is the root of the felt qualities of a walker’s movements through a work of landscape art. Landscape art is a Gesamtkunstwerk that embraces elements of painting, sculpture, architecture, earthworks, cinema and dance. These arts, too, rely fundamentally upon kinesthesia for their expressivity. Dance comes closest to the landscape experience, but differs from it in that the audience for dance accesses it visually, whereas the walker in a landscape experiences kinesthesia directly, as the dancer herself does. In landscape, the work of art induces kinesthetic responses—and thus, feeling—directly in the walker’s body. iii Understanding the central role of kinesthesia as the source of feeling in all the arts clarifies the aesthetic concept of “congruence,” permitting a fruitful re-assessment of such theories of expression as Arnheim’s Gestalt aesthetics, Wolfflin’s theory of sympathetic modeling, and the theory of art as “symbol” that considers expression as involving “forms of feeling.” Most significantly, kinesthesia supplies to Dewey’s theory of art as experience a concrete concept of “resonance” that empirically grounds, and thus completes, it. Re-casting artistic expression as essentially kinesthetic yields an understanding of landscape art as paradigmatic of artistic expression generally, and so admits landscape art to the canon of philosophical aesthetics. iv Table of Contents List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...viii Preface……………………………………………………………………………………ix Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………x Chapter One: The Dual-Faceted Problem of Landscape………………………………….1 Traditional Concepts of Landscape……………………………………………….1 The Traditional Concept of Landscape in Philosophical Aesthetics……...1 The Traditional Concept of Landscape in Eighteenth Century Garden Writing…………………………………………………………………….3 Traditional Modes of Representing Landscape…………………………………...6 Contemporary Efforts To Resolve The Conceptual Problem……...…….13 Contemporary Approaches to the Problem of Representation…..………22 The Contributions Of Environmental Aesthetics………………………………...33 Aesthetics Of The Natural Environment…………………………………33 Arnold Berleant’s “Engaged” Aesthetics Of The Natural Environment...39 Contributions From Feminist Philosophy………………………………..45 Chapter Two: Kinesthesia: The Key to Understanding Landscape’s Medium…….……48 Kinesthesia, The “Sixth Sense,” And Locomotion………………………………49 Kinesthesia In The Perception Of Depth………………………………...54 Empiricist/Constructivist Theories of Depth Perception………...54 Gestalt Theory of Depth Perception……………………………..56 Ecological Optics As A Theory of Depth Perception…………....59 Subjective Evidence of Kinesthesia in Depth Perception: The Experiences of Landscape and Painting……………..……...65 Kinesthesia Is An Integral Aspect of Depth Perception…………………………70 Considering That Kinesthesia Resolves Many Problems ……………………….72 A Walk In The Forest: Kinesthesia In Landscape’s Aesthetic Medium…………77 v Chapter Three: The Role of Kinesthesia In Aesthetics And Its Unique Role In Landscape Art…………..………………………………83 The Psychology—And Neuropsychology—of Kinesthetic Aesthetics……….…84 Two Aesthetic Theories That Base Expression On Kinesthesia…………………87 Wolfflin’s Theory of Sympathetic Modeling……..……………………..87 Arnheim’s Gestalt Aesthetics …………………………………………...92 Landscape and The Fine Arts ………………………………………………...…98 Landscape And The Art Of Sculpture……...……………………………98 Landscape And The Art Of Architecture……………………………….105 The Burden Of Function………………………………………..106 Enclosure……………………………………………………….107 The Problem of Aesthetic Unity………………………………..109 Arnheim vs. Wolfflin On The Perception Of Verticality………114 Landscape And The Art Of Earthworks…………..……………………120 Landscape And The Art Of Music…………..………………………….122 Landscape And The Art Of Dance………………..…………………….130 Gestalt Analysis of Expression…………………………………134 Landscape And The Art Of Cinema……………...…………………….138 Kinesthesia Induced By Subjective Camera……………………140 The Kinesthetic Impact Of Moving Imagery…………………...142 Rhythm In Film And Landcape………………………………...144 Landscape And The Art Of Painting………...…………………………146 The Unique Role Of Kinesthesia In Landscape Art……………………………148 Objections To Psychology-Based Aesthetic Theories……….…………………151 Applying The Two Aesthetic Theories In An Analysis of Landscape…………158 Kinesthesia As The Source Of All Artistic Expression……………………..…159 Chapter Four: Expressive Movement in Landscape and Dance…………….………….161 Two Choreographies……………………………………………………………161 Some Preliminary Considerations………………………………………………163 vi The Double Aspect of Movement: What Is Felt, What Is Seen………………...164 The Expressive Symbol……………………………………………………...…169 Space And Time In The Perception of Movement And Of Dance…………..…179 The Walker’s Experience of Movement Through The Landscape……………..182 The Roles Of Visual Images In Dance And In Landscape ………………….…186 Improvisation In Dance And In Landscape…………………………………….192 Abstraction In Dance And In Landscape…………………………………….…195 Rhythm In Dance And In Landscape……………………………………...……199 Kinesthesia And Expression, Again……………………………………………204 Chapter Five: The Contribution Of Neuroscience To A Kinesthetic Theory Of Landscape Aesthetics………………………………………………..…208 Neurological Foundations: Kinesthesia, Emotion And Feeling…………..……210 Step One: Emotion And Feeling Are Distinct, Kinesthetic, Phenomena………………………………………………………….…..211 The Body-Based Theories Of James And Dewey……………...211 Step Two: Felt Affect Is Uniquely Correlated With Specific Kinesthetic Responses………………………………………...223 Step Three: Expressive Movement Produces Feeling As Feedback……………………………………………………………..…233 The Implications Of “Mirror Neurons” For A Kinesthetic Aesthetics…………241 Reconsidering Expression Theories: Wolfflin, Arnheim, Langer, and Dewey……………………………………………………………..243 Langer’s “Forms Of Feeling”………………………………………..…243 Wolfflin’s Theory Of Sympathetic Modeling………………………….244 Arnheim’s Gestalt Theory Of Art……………………………………....246 Dewey’s Theory of Expression: Art As Experience……………………247 A Kinesthetic Theory Of Expressive Landscape In Light Of Neuroscience…...254 Kinesthesia In Landscape Aesthetics…………………………………...254 Landscape Uniqueness Re-visited…………………………………….258 vii Shaping Bodily Movement With Landscape…………………………...261 Limitations On Landscape Art’s Expressivity………………………………….262 Upper Body, Lower Limbs: Susceptibility to Kinesthetic Response…..263 Feelings vs. Moods……………………………………………………..263 Positive Feelings vs. Negative Feelings………………………………...265 Narrative vs. Non-narrative Art Forms…………………………………265 Landscape Art Is Fully An Expressive Art Form………………………………268 Arguments Concerning Landscape Art’s Materials……………………268 Landscape Art Possesses “An Art World” and “An Art History”…...…271 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....285 viii List of Figures Figure 1. “Eye-catcher” from a viewing point at Stourhead. ……...………………...…..4 Figure 2. Site plan of Vaux-le-Vicomte. ………………..………….……………...…….7 Figure 3. Site plan for Villa Lante. ……………………...……………………...……….9 Figure 4. Claude Lorrain’s ‘Landscape With Apollo and The Muses’ (1680)….………13 Figure 5. Scenographs of Vaux-le-Vicomte..……..……………...…………………….25 Figure 6. Computer-generated three-dimensional volume, Vaux-le-Vicomte………….26 Figure 7. The kidney-shaped pool in the Donnell