A Moderately Pessimistic Perspective on “Cooperative Naturalism”

in Projections
Restricted access

Abstract

Murray Smith’s plea for a “cooperative naturalism” that adopts a “triangulational” approach to issues in film studies is both timely and well-defended. I raise three concerns, however: one is external, relating to this strategy’s limitations, and two are internal, relating to Smith’s application of the strategy. While triangulation seems appropriate when we ask about the nature of film experience, other philosophical questions about film have an ineliminable normative dimension that triangulation cannot address. Empirically informed philosophical reflection upon the arts must be “moderately pessimistic” in recognizing this fact. The internal concerns relate to Smith’s claims about the value and neurological basis of cinematic empathy. First, while empathy plays a central role in film experience, I argue that its neurological underpinnings fail to support the epistemic value he ascribes to it. Second, I question Smith’s reliance, in triangulating, upon the work of the Parma school on “mirror neurons.”

Contributor Notes

David Davies is Professor of Philosophy at McGill University. He is the author of Art as Performance (Blackwell 2004), Aesthetics and Literature (Continuum 2007), and Philosophy of the Performing Arts (Wiley-Blackwell 2011); editor of The Thin Red Line (Routledge 2008); and coeditor of Blade Runner (Routledge 2015). He has published widely in aesthetics on the metaphysics and epistemology of art and on philosophical issues relating to film, photography, performance, dance, music, literature, and visual art. He has also published on issues in analytic metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language. Email: david.davies@mcgill.ca

Projections

The Journal for Movies and Mind

  • BergeronVincent. 2011. “What Should We Expect from the New Aesthetic Sciences?American Society for Aesthetics Newsletter 31 (2): 67.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BergeronVincent and Dominic McIver Lopes. 2009. “Hearing and Seeing Musical Expression.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (1): 116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calvo-MerinoBeatrizDaniel E. GlaserJulie GrèzesRichard E. Passingham and Patrick Haggard. 2005. “Action Observation and Acquired Motor Skills: An FMRI Study with Expert Dancers.” Cerebral Cortex 15 (8): 12431249.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calvo-MerinoBeatrizJulie GrèzesDaniel E. GlaserRichard E. Passingham and Patrick Haggard. 2006. “Seeing or Doing? Influence of Visual and Motor Familiarity in Action Observation.” Current Biology 16 (19): 19051910.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CoplanAmy. 2008. “Form and Feeling in Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line.” In The Thin Red Line ed. David Davies6586. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CoplanAmy. 2015. “In the Mood for Thought: Mood and Meaning in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. In Blade Runner ed. Amy Coplan and David Davies118134. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DaviesDavid. 2013. “Dancing Around the Issues: Prospects for an Empirically Grounded Philosophy of Dance.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 71 (2): 195202.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DaviesDavid. 2014. “‘This Is Your Brain on Art’: What Can Philosophy of Art Learn from Neuroscience?” In Aesthetics and the Sciences of Mind ed. Gregory CurrieMatthew KieranAaron Meskin and Jon Robson5774. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DaviesDavid. 2018. “Evidence of Facture and the Appreciative Relevance of Artistic Activity.” In The Pleasure of Pictures ed. Alberto Voltolini and Jerome Pelletier286302. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FreedbergDavid and Vittorio Gallese. 2007. “Motion, Emotion, and Empathy in Aesthetic Experience.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (5): 197203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HeyesCecilia. 2010. “Where Do Mirror Neurons Come From?Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 34 (4): 575583.

  • HickokGregory. 2009. “Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21 (7): 12291243.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McFeeGraham. 2011. The Philosophical Aesthetics of Dance: Identity Performance and Understanding. Alton, UK: Dance Books.

  • PutnamHilary. 1978. “Literature, Science, and Reflection.” In Meaning and the Moral Sciences8394. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SeeleyWilliam. 2011. “What Is the Cognitive Neuroscience of Art … and Why Should We Care?American Society for Aesthetics Bulletin 31 (2): 14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmithMurray. 2017. Film Art and the Third Culture: A Naturalized Aesthetics of Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • TiciniLuca F.Laura RachmanJerome Pelletier and Stephanie Dubal. 2014. “Enhancing Aesthetic Appreciation by Priming Canvases with Actions that Match the Artist’s Painting Style.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (391). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00391.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TurellaLucaAndrea C. PiernoFederico Tubaldi and Umberto Castiello. 2009. “Mirror Neurons in Humans: Consisting or Confounding Evidence?Brain and Language 108 (1): 1021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZekiSemir. 2001. “Aesthetic Creativity and the Brain.” Science Magazine 293 (5527): 5152.