RESPONSES TO IRVIN AND SCHELLEKENS
BENCE NANAY
Responding o c i ics is no always a happy ask. The book has been published.
So, sho o ha ing all he exis ing copies pulped and w i ing a new book, no
much can be changed. Typically, he e a e h ee kinds o esponses o c i ical
ema ks: cla i ica ions (i he c i ic go some hing w ong), concessions
(i he au ho go some hing w ong), o some new di ec ions o u u e esea ch.
I is a ue ma k o he quali y o he wo se s o commen s on my book by
She i I in and Elisabe h Schellekens ha almos all o hei commen s open up
exci ing new di ec ions o u u e esea ch (some o which I ha e ied o
unde ake in some pieces I published since he publica ion o he book [ hus
he uncha ac e is ic and somewha inelegan p eponde ance o sel - e e ences
in his piece], bu mos o which a e s ill o be unde aken).
Bu I ha e o s a wi h a concession, albei a somewha unusual one. I hink
Imigh ha e made some hing o a ma ke ing mis ake when w i ing he book.
As I explain in he p écis abo e, my main aim wi h his book was o a gue ha
he oolki o philosophy o pe cep ion can be e y use ul in ackling p oblems
in aes he ics. My seconda y aim was o zoom in on he concep o a en ion and
examine how aes he ics could bene i om aking his concep se iously (one
impo an consequence o his would be a shi om alk abou aes he ic
p ope ies o alk abou aes he ically ele an p ope ies).
I was my hi d, no a all cen al, aim o a gue ha a special way o exe cising
ou a en ion, in a manne ha ocuses on an objec bu dis ibu ed among i s
p ope ies, plays an impo an ole in some ins ances o aes he ic expe iences.
The ma ke ing mis ake was o s a he book wi h his hi d, ela i ely mino poin
since on loading his ma e ial made i seem as i his e ia y aim o he book
we e he cen al one. I was no . Bu i is also unde s andable, gi en ha I s a
he book wi h i , ha eade s would a ibu e mo e impo ance o his han
I would ha e expec ed. This is no much o a concession – I s ill s and by my
accoun o aes he ic a en ion, bu i someone is no pe suaded o he ole his
kind o a en ion plays in some o ou aes he ic expe iences, hey ha e no eason
no o ake my o he wo, much b oade , aims o he book se iously ( he emphasis
on a en ion and he gene al me hodological p oposal abou using philosophy
o pe cep ion).
She i I in opens he commen s wi h a i id and e oca i e desc ip ion o an
aes he ic expe ience she had on he pa io. She desc ibes he expe ience o
Responses o I in and Schellekens
118 Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 118–24
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 118
a ending o ‘ he angle o lea es and he many colou s o g een’ and no icing
‘ he e y sligh mo emen o b anches in a sub le b eeze’. She also el a‘sensa ion
o ai on [he ] skin’ and also ‘ he p essu e o [he ] elbow agains [he ] hip and he
expansion o [he ] o so and shi s in ab ic agains [he ] skin as [she] b ea hed’.1
This expe ience seems e y simila o he kind o expe ience I wan ed o
cap u e in he book, bu he e is a majo di e ence, which makes I in’s example
a po en ial coun e example o my accoun . In he example, he a en ion is
dis ibu ed among di e en p ope ies – ha i s my accoun e y well. Bu he
a en ion does no seem o be ocused a all. He a en ion is dis ibu ed ac oss
a a ie y o objec s – he lea es, he b anches, he ai , he ab ic. So his is a majo
di e ence om he ‘ ocused on one objec , dis ibu ed ac oss many p ope ies’
accoun I ha e ad oca ed. The lea es and he b anches a e clea ly e y di e en
om he ai o he ab ic – hey a e e en pe cei ed in di e en sense modali ies.
Is his a coun e example o my accoun hen?
I should say ha I eally like he i id desc ip ion o I in’s aes he ic expe ience
and I belie e ha i is a e y simila kind o expe ience as he one I was ying o
cap u e in he book. And I would be e y happy o acknowledge he di e ence
be ween he aes he ic expe ience and he aes he ic expe iences I was ocusing
on. While he book is abou ou aes he ic engagemen s wi h all kinds o hings
(o a , o na u e, o e e yday scenes), in in oducing he idea o dis ibu ed
a en ion, I was mainly conce ned wi h he aes he ic expe iences o a wo ks. And
a leas when i comes o a wo ks, he ocused a en ion pa o he expe ience
is qui e impo an , inasmuch as i cap u es an in luen ial idea in he his o y o
aes he ics conce ning he uni y o ou expe ience o a wo ks.2
The gene al idea he e is ha engaging wi h an a wo k en ails aking i in as
a single, in eg a ed whole ( his is a Kan ian idea, which played an impo an ole
in Roman icism [ o example, in he w i ings o F ied ich Schlegel], bu i was also
highly in luen ial in wen ie h-cen u y Anglo-Ame ican aes he ics, o example,
in Mon oe Bea dsley’s wo k).3And while his migh be an impo an aspec o ou
1She i I in, ‘The Na u e o Aes he ic Expe ience and he Role o he Sciences in
Aes he ic Theo izing: Rema ks on he Wo k o Nanay and Smi h’, Es e ika: The Cen al
Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics 56 (2019): 102. See also he ‘The Pe asi eness o
he Aes he ic in O dina y Expe ience’, B i ish Jou nal o Aes he ics 48 (2008): 29–44,
which is he bes philosophical discussion o aes he ic expe ience o e e yday scenes
I know o .
2See also my ‘Aes he ic A en ion’, Jou nal o Consciousness S udies 22 (2015): 96–118;
‘De amilia iza ion and he Unp omp ed (No Innocen ) Eye’, nonsi e.o g, no. 24 (2018):
1–17, h ps://nonsi e.o g/a icle/de amilia iza ion-and- he-unp omp ed-no -innocen
-eye.
3See Mon oe Bea dsley, Aes he ics: P oblems in he Philosophy o C i icism, 2nd ed.
(Indianapolis: Hacke , 1981).
Bence Nanay
Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 00–00 119
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 119
aes he ic engagemen wi h wo ks o a , his migh no be so impo an when i
comes o ou aes he ic engagemen wi h na u e o wi h e e yday scenes. I would
be an exci ing and no el p ojec o explo e he sys ema ic di e ences be ween
how ou aes he ic a en ion is exe cised in engaging wi h a wo ks on he one
hand and wi h na u e and e e yday scenes on he o he .
In he book, I made some p elimina y ema ks abou how he a en ion’s
‘ ocusing on one objec ’ is a bi mo e complica ed in he case o ou aes he ic
expe ience o na u e. When admi ing a landscape, o example, he objec we a e
ocusing ou a en ion on is no one ee o one bush, bu he landscape – o en
a as scene, which would make i a bi di icul o ully app ecia e jus in wha
sense his kind o aes he ic a en ion could be called ‘ ocused’. So, when we ha e
an aes he ic expe ience o a pain ing, in some sense ou a en ion is ocused on
he pe cei ed objec in a way ha i is no ocused on he pe cei ed objec in
he case o looking a a landscape.
Kan ’s (and Bea dsley’s) emphasis on he concep o o mal uni y would be
applicable in bo h cases, bu I ag ee wi h I in (and Schlegel) ha his common
denomina o would pape o e impo an di e ences. An impo an con inua ion
o he p ojec I s a ed in he book would be o s udy he di e ences be ween
aes he ic expe iences o a wo ks on he one hand and o na u e and e e yday
scenes on he o he om he poin o iew o how ocused ou a en ion is (and
wha i ocuses on i i is).4And I ake I in’s i id desc ip ion o he aes he ic
expe ience o an e e yday scene on he pa io o be a e y good demons a ion
o some hing ha is in common be ween hese kinds o aes he ic expe ience o
e e yday scenes and he kinds o aes he ic expe ience I was alking abou –
namely, ha ou a en ion is dis ibu ed ac oss many p ope ies.
The main ocus o Elisabe h Schellekens’s commen a y is my eliance on wha
I call he ‘linge ing e ec ’ o aes he ic expe iences. When you spend an en i e day
in he museum and you walk home a e wa ds, he d ab bus s op may look o
you like one o he pic u es in he museum. And when lea ing a good conce o
mo ie, he ugly, g ey, di y s ee scape can look posi i ely beau i ul. I seems ha
aes he ic expe iences o en do no s op when he con empla ion o he objec
o he aes he ic expe ience s ops. A e lea ing he conce hall o he cinema,
one may s ill see he wo ld di e en ly. In he book, I explain his ‘linge ing e ec ’
as a pe cep ual phenomenon: he way we exe cise ou pe cep ual a en ion is
no some hing we can delibe a ely change om one momen o he o he . And
as a c ucial cha ac e is ic o aes he ic expe iences is he way ou a en ion is
Responses o I in and Schellekens
4I sc a ch he su ace o his as p ojec in ‘Aes he ic Expe ience o A wo ks and
E e yday Scenes’, Monis 101 (2018): 71–82.
120 Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 00–00
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 120
exe cised, wha we should expec is ha hese expe iences would only ade ou
slowly a e he ac ual aes he ic engagemen is o e . We should expec ha
aes he ic expe iences would ha e a linge ing e ec .
Schellekens objec s o my explana ion o his phenomenon – namely, ha
Iexplain he linge ing e ec as a pe cep ual and a en ional e ec and no as
he e ec o ‘men al s a es, such as he belie s pe aining o s a es o a ai s
ex e nal o he wo k and ou pe cep ion o i , including ou mo al belie s and
delibe a ions’ and ‘insigh s’.5
These ema ks, again, poin owa ds an in e es ing po en ial u u e esea ch
p ojec . We can gain insigh s and acqui e mo al belie s om a wo ks – no
ques ion abou his.6Bu I was alking abou a di e en , much less in ellec ual
phenomenon. A o en eaches us abou mo ali y and he human condi ion, bu ,
o use he amous Ad Reinha d bon mo , i is also ue ha ‘a eaches us how
o see’.7In gene al, we should no igno e he s ong pe cep ual (and, I would add,
a en ional) e ec o engaging wi h a wo ks.
He e, in suppo o my claim, is a longish quo e om Ma cel P ous :
Since I had seen such hings depic ed in wa e -colou s by Els i , I sough o ind again in
eali y, I che ished, as hough o hei poe ic beau y, he b oken ges u es o he kni es
s ill lying ac oss one ano he , he swollen con exi y o a disca ded napkin upon which
he sun would pa ch a sc ap o yellow el e , he hal -emp y glass which hus shewed
o g ea e ad an age he noble sweep o i s cu ed sides, and, in he hea o i s
anslucen c ys al, clea as ozen dayligh , a d eg o wine, dusky bu spa kling wi h
e lec ed ligh s, he displacemen o solid objec s, he ansmu a ion o liquids by he
e ec o ligh and shade, he shi ing colou o he plums which passed om g een o
blue and om blue o golden yellow in he hal -plunde ed dish, he chai s, like a g oup
o old ladies, ha came wice daily o ake hei places ound he whi e clo h sp ead on
he able as on an al a a which we e celeb a ed he i es o he pala e, whe e in he
hollows o oys e -shells a ew d ops o lus al wa e had ga he ed as in iny holy wa e
s oups o s one; I ied o ind beau y he e whe e I had ne e imagined be o e ha i
could exis , in he mos o dina y hings, in he p o undi ies o ‘s ill li e’.8
Ma cel sees he wo ld di e en ly a e ha ing seen he Els i wa e colou s. This
e ec does no come om insigh s o mo al belie s. I comes om pe cep ual and
a en ional di e ences. P ous himsel emphasizes he impo ance o a en ion
in his pe cep ual shi in he quo e abo e.
5Elisabe h Schellekens, ‘Psychologizing Aes he ic A en ion’, Es e ika: The Cen al
Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics 56 (2019): 113, 114.
6See, o example, my ‘Philosophy e sus Li e a u e: Agains he Discon inui y Thesis’,
Jou nal o Aes he ics and A C i icism 71 (2013): 349–60.
7Ad Reinha d , ‘How o Look a Things h ough a Wine-Glass’, PM, 7 July 1946.
8Ma cel P ous , Wi hin a Budding G o e, ans. C. K. Sco Monc ie (New Yo k: Vin age,
1970), 325.
Bence Nanay
Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 00–00 121
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 121
Bu his is no supposed o be an appeal o au ho i y in esponse o
Schellekens’s objec ion (al hough I can’ hink o a be e au ho i y on his opic
han P ous ). The new esea ch di ec ion ha Schellekens’s commen poin s o
is abou how he pe cep ual ‘linge ing e ec ’ and he mo e ce eb al e ec s
o engaging wi h wo ks o a in e ac .9This is also wha I ake o be in
he backg ound o Schellekens’s mo e ‘big-pic u e’ wo y abou my app oach –
namely, ha i educes he subjec o aes he ic engagemen o a‘pe cei e ’.
One o he easons why I ake he concep o a en ion o be so impo an in
aes he ics is because ou pe cep ual expe ience depends hea ily on wha we a e
a ending o and how we do so. And gi en ha ou a en ion depends on wha
we know and belie e (bu also on ou expec a ions, hopes, and aspi a ions), his
means ha ou pe cep ual expe iences (and, a o io i, ou pe cep ual aes he ic
expe iences) e y much depend on ou highe -o de men al s a es.10 Ano he
impo an media o o hese op-down in luences on ou pe cep ual aes he ic
expe iences, some hing I only alk abou in passing in he book bu ha I ha e
been explo ing since, is men al image y. Ou pe cep ual expe ience e y much
depends on he men al image y we use o ill in he gaps o he scene in on o
us and men al image y depends on ou backg ound belie s, knowledge, and
expec a ions.11 Ou aes he ic engagemen is complex. Bu so is pe cep ual
expe ience. Bo h can and e y o en do depend hea ily on highe -le el men al
s a es. I don’ hink we should wo y abou hinking o he aes he ic subjec as
a pe cei e . A lo goes in o being a pe cei e .12
My inal esponse is o a ema k Schellekens makes passingly abou how
aes he ic alue migh be he combina ion o aes he ic p ope ies and
aes he ically ele an p ope ies (and how he linge ing e ec migh depend on
his combina ion). I delibe a ely a oided discussing aes he ic alue in he book
and I will con inue o do so he e. This has o do wi h a ou h aim o he book,
which is mo e o a public ela ions manoeu e, no so much a bona ide
philosophical aim.
Philosophical disciplines a e o en di ided be ween wha is desc ibed as ‘ alue
heo y’ on he one hand and ‘me aphysics and epis emology, b oadly cons ued’
Responses o I in and Schellekens
9I say mo e on his in ‘Aes he ic Expe ience o A wo ks and E e yday Scenes’, bu
de ini ely no enough.
10 See also my ‘Cogni i e Pene a ion and he Galle y o Indisce nibles’, F on ie s in
Psychology 5, no. 1527 (2015): 1–3, doi:10.3389/ psyg.2014.01527.Nanay 2015a.
11 Bence Nanay, ‘Pe cep ion and he A s’, in A and Philosophy, ed. Ch is y Mag Uidhi
(Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, o hcoming); Seeing Things You Don’ See (Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, o hcoming).
12 See also my ‘Agains Aes he ic Judgmen ’, in Social Aes he ics and Mo al Judgmen , ed.
Jenni e McMahon (London: Rou ledge, 2018), 52–65.
122 Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 00–00
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 122

on he o he . Value heo y is supposed o encompass e hics, poli ical philosophy,
and aes he ics (among o he s). Me aphysics and epis emology, b oadly cons ued
is supposed o encompass philosophy o mind, philosophy o language, and
philosophy o science (besides, ob iously, me aphysics and epis emology). These
ca ego ies a e used a lo in job ads and in classi ica ions o philosophy pape s, so
a lo depends on which bag aes he ics is pu in o.
And I see no eason why aes he ics would belong o he alue- heo y bag and
no he me aphysics and epis emology, b oadly cons ued bag. Much o
aes he ics is abou expe iences, pe cep ion, emo ions, a en ion, and imagina ion,
all o which a e pa o philosophy o mind (e en i you a e scep ical abou he
emphasis o my book on philosophy o pe cep ion). And philosophy o mind is,
in u n, pa o me aphysics and epis emology, b oadly cons ued. So I do no see
why aes he ic alue would need o be aken o be a cen al concep in aes he ics.
Some o ou expe iences a e alenced. Some o ou expe iences ma e o us a lo .
These a e claims abou expe iences, no abou alue (wha e e ha concep
means).
Bu hose who a e mo e on he ‘ alue- heo y’ end o hings migh wan o
know how aes he ic alue i s in o my pic u e o aes he ics. E en i i is no
a cen al concep in my iew, gi en i s impo ance in he his o y o aes he ics,
I need o say some hing abou i . And I hink ha on his poin , Schellekens is
exac ly igh . Thinking o aes he ic alue as a combina ion o aes he ic p ope ies
and aes he ically ele an p ope ies seems o be on he igh ack. And wo king
ou he exac connec ion be ween he h ee concep s o aes he ic alue, aes he ic
p ope ies, and aes he ically ele an p ope ies would be a e y p omising new
di ec ion o u u e esea ch. Ano he way o pu ing his is ha he s anda d
ela ion be ween aes he ic p ope ies and aes he ic alue is pu in new
pe spec i e by he in oduc ion o he hi d ela um, ha o aes he ically ele an
p ope ies – p ope ies ha a e such ha i we a end o hem, his makes an
aes he ic di e ence.
I said abo e ha c i ics a e supposed o alk abou aes he ically ele an
p ope ies and no aes he ic p ope ies. I a c i ic says ha a pain ing is beau i ul
o g ace ul, she is no doing he job igh . She should d aw ou a en ion o
p ope ies ha we ha e no no iced ha a e such ha when we no ice hem, i
ans o ms ou expe ience. And I hink ha his is by and la ge ue. Bu I did add
in he book b ie ly ha i is pa o he c i ic’s job o alk abou he ela ion
be ween aes he ically ele an p ope ies and aes he ic p ope ies – abou how
an aes he ically ele an p ope y ealizes aes he ic p ope ies. Bu a lo mo e
would need o be done o wo k ou how exac ly aes he ically ele an p ope ies
combine wi h aes he ic p ope ies o yield aes he ic alue.
Bence Nanay
Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 00–00 123
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 123
I would like o hank She i and Elisabe h again o commen s ha a e no only
pe cep i e and o en cha i able, bu , and his is some hing ha can be said o
e y ew esponse pieces, open up new di ec ions o u u e esea ch in a leas
h ee domains: he ela ion be ween aes he ic expe iences o a and o e e yday
scenes, he ela ion be ween pe cep ual and cogni i e e ec s o engagemen
wi h wo ks o a , and he ela ion be ween aes he ically ele an p ope ies and
aes he ic p ope ies.
Bence Nanay
Cen e o Philosophical Psychology, Uni e si y o An we p,
D 413, G o e Kauwenbe g 18, 2000 An we p, Belgium
Pe e house, Uni e si y o Camb idge,
Camb idge, CB2 1RD, UK
[email p o ec ed]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bea dsley, Mon oe. Aes he ics: P oblems in he Philosophy o C i icism. 2nd ed. Indianapolis:
Hacke , 1981.
I in, She i. ‘The Na u e o Aes he ic Expe ience and he ole o he Sciences in Aes he ic
Theo izing: Rema ks on he Wo k o Nanay and Smi h.’ Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics 56 (2019): 100–109.
––––––. ‘The Pe asi eness o he Aes he ic in O dina y Expe ience.’ B i ish Jou nal o
Aes he ics 48 (2008): 29–44.
Nanay, Bence. ‘Aes he ic A en ion.’ Jou nal o Consciousness S udies 22 (2015): 96–118.
––––––. ‘Aes he ic Expe ience o A wo ks and E e yday Scenes.’ Monis 101 (2018): 71–82.
––––––. ‘Agains Aes he ic Judgmen .’ In Social Aes he ics and Mo al Judgmen , edi ed by
Jenni e McMahon, 52–65. London: Rou ledge, 2018.
––––––. ‘Cogni i e Pene a ion and he Galle y o Indisce nibles.’ F on ie s in Psychology 5,
no. 1527 (2015): 1–3. doi:10.3389/ psyg.2014.01527.
––––––. ‘De amilia iza ion and he Unp omp ed (No Innocen ) Eye.’ nonsi e.o g, no. 24
(2018): 1–17. h ps://nonsi e.o g/a icle/de amilia iza ion-and- he-unp omp ed-no -
innocen -eye.
––––––. ‘The His o y o Vision.’ Jou nal o Aes he ics and A C i icism 73 (2015): 259–71.
––––––. ‘Pe cep ion and he A s.’ In A and Philosophy, edi ed by Ch is y Mag Uidhi . Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, o hcoming.
––––––. ‘Philosophy e sus Li e a u e: Agains he Discon inui y Thesis.’ Jou nal o Aes he ics
and A C i icism 71 (2013): 349–60.
––––––. Seeing Things You Don’ See. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, o hcoming.
P ous , Ma cel. Wi hin a Budding G o e. T ansla ed by C. K. Sco Monc ie . New Yo k: Vin age,
1970.
Reinha d , Ad. ‘How o Look a Things h ough a Wine-Glass.’ PM, 7 July 1946.
Schellekens, Elisabe h. ‘Psychologizing Aes he ic A en ion.’ Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics 56 (2019): 110–17.
Responses o I in and Schellekens
124 Es e ika: The Cen al Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics, LVI/XII, 2019, No. 1, 00–00
Zlom1_2019_Ses a a 1 5.4.19 8:01 S ánka 124